We had a rather modest champagne celebration when we found out we’d done it,” Molnar says.Though the public’s current dissatisfaction with politicians casts a warm glow on the Eye’s sales, the staff are only too aware that one huge libel action could change all that. It won a recent case against a West Country accountant, John Stuart Condliffe, but the magazine’s legal costs came to £1m. “He went bankrupt, so we did have to pay,” says Hislop, “That’s what our profit is – what’s left after legal fees.”The magazine doesn’t take out insurance against libel (the premiums are too enormous), but instead sets aside a proportion of the profits each year just in case. “We’ve just had a writ from Lord Ashcroft – that will be interesting,” Molnar says.Meanwhile, as with all magazines, the hunt for new readers continues The average Eye reader is a surprisingly young 42.

That compares to The Daily Telegraph’s 57-year-old readers and the 45-year-olds who take this newspaper. Eye readers also appear rather posh, with more social grade As than any of the daily broadsheets, though it boasts more grade Es as well.Despite this healthy spread, the share of women readers remains small – only 28.1 per cent, a smaller proportion than for any of the broadsheets. How should the Eye tackle this? Molnar points out that there are two women journalists on the magazine and some excellent female cartoonists “And a lot of us didn’t go to public school, either I went to a secondary modern. I can remember Auberon Waugh saying, ‘Secondary modern – oh, what’s that?’”Hislop is a little more reticent. “Women readers? Are there any? I think it’s a shame there aren’t more women readers, but I don’t think you can actively do anything about it without being bogus.” No plans for a fashion supplement, then? “No.”Instead, the Eye produces distinctly unsexy innovations such as Paul Foot’s recent supplement on the tax man. Sales leapt by 8 per cent for that issue.As it prepares to celebrate its 42nd birthday, this creature of the Sixties seems destined to survive without resorting to the constant reinvention of most publications As Ian Hislop says: “It’s very unlike normal magazines It’s a bit of a club, really.”.

The BBC has stuck by its claim that it accurately reported Dr Kelly’s briefing on the dossier. Part of its defence is that three reporters reached similar conclusions after speaking to him independently. Here is what they said and what Dr Kelly – the unnamed source who spoke through the voices of actors – is said to have told the journalists. The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes That information was not in the original draft. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that was single sourced and we believed that the source was wrong.Gilligan: Now this official told me the dossier was transformed at the behest of Downing Street.Source: Most people in intelligence were unhappy with the dossier because it didn’t reflect the considered view they were putting forward.Gavin Hewitt, ‘10 O’Clock News’ 29 MayI’ve spoken to one of those consulted on the dossier Six months’ work was apparently involved. In the final week before publication some material was taken out and some put in His judgement, some spin from Number 10 did come into play.

Even so the intelligence community remains convinced weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.Susan Watts, ‘Newsnight’ 2 JuneWe’ve spoken to a senior official involved with the process of pulling together the original September 2002 Blair weapons dossier. We cannot name this person because their livelihood depends on anonymity.Our source made clear that in the run-up to publishing the dossier, the Government was obsessed with finding intelligence on immediate Iraqi threats. The Government’s insistence the Iraqi threat was imminent was a Downing Street interpretation of intelligence conclusions. His point is that while the intelligence community was agreed on the potential Iraqi threat in the future, there was less agreement about the threat the Iraqis posed at that moment.Source: That was the real concern – not so much what they had now, but what they would have in the future, but what, unfortunately, was not expressed strongly in the dossier, because that takes the case away for war – to a certain extent.