Humphrys would have been a nice fat plum," said one senior BBC executive. Humphrys was said to have snorted audibly during some of the Labour peer's answers.)Now a further layer of conspiracy against Humphrys has been alleged in this week's New Statesman. The magazine's editor John Kampfner claims that Grade had wanted to take the opportunity offered by the speech to sack him and that Thompson was minded to agree with his chairman, only to change his opinion when he saw the furious reaction in the press to what appeared a piece of government black propaganda."Michael would like to see a high-profile casualty to demonstrate to ministers that his new governance strategy has teeth. He had been rebuked by the BBC's board of governors in 2002 for overstepping the mark in an interview with Lord Robertson, the secretary-general of Nato, over the bombing of Kosovo. His inquiries led to an official rebuke of Humphrys from Thompson for his "inappropriate and misguided" comments - though this consisted of a short chat on the telephone, rather than being hauled into the DG's office (It wasn't the first time.

The article was widely viewed as a deliberate smear operation by the Government - it had been written by the notoriously Labour-friendly journalist Tom Baldwin - and, not surprisingly, on investigation in the following days the disobliging remarks were shown to have been taken out of context.What was surprising was the alacrity with which the BBC chairman Michael Grade publicly demanded that the director-general Mark Thompson investigate the speech. I attribute them to someone or I say 'Nonetheless, there's a view that ...' There's a big difference."That the Government still has Humphrys in its sights became apparent last month when some of his anecdotes about the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet made in an after-dinner speech were leaked to The Times by Tim Allan, a former No 10 spin doctor.The initial story implied that Humphrys believed that all government ministers were liars and that he held them in the deepest contempt. He is clear that there is a distinction between giving someone a "hard time" in an interview and being biased. "I am not entitled to put my views in interviews and I don't I certainly put views in interviews.

He suggested that there were four people at the BBC who needed to consider their positions as a result of its findings: and by the weekend three of them had resigned - the chairman Gavyn Davies, the director-general Greg Dyke and the reporter Andrew Gilligan The only one of the four who remains is John Humphrys. The Today programme presenter later said that watching that speech felt "like lying in the gutter while your head's kicked in" and that Campbell was intent on "destabilising the BBC in a pretty tacky way". Humphrys has long been considered a thorn in the side of the New Labour government: his combative style has tossed and gored many ministers on many mornings, and Tony Blair is alleged to avoid being interviewed by him. He admits that he is a naturally argumentative person - "I will argue with anyone about anything" - but declares that it is his job to ask tough questions."One thing Today exists for is to put ministers under fair pressure so they tell you something they didn't mean to," he said. Lord Hutton delivered his report into the death of Dr David Kelly on Wednesday 28 January 2004. Alastair Campbell had by then left his post as Tony Blair's communications director, but later that day, standing at the foot of the grand staircase in the Foreign Press Association, he delivered a speech full of triumph at the report's startling vindication of the Government and condemnation of the BBC. Knighted in 1996Interests: Football, golf, shooting, theatre, family.. Paying £60m or £70m just to change the chairman seems to be absolutely barking.