The 2 Memos issue: Where We Are

Some people have read our post "There are two memos" and misinterpreted it as suggesting that there are two memos detailing plans to bomb al-Jazeera. We want to make clear that there is only one "al-Jazeera memo" - a transcript of a conversation between Bush and Blair as reported by the Mirror.

The second memo referred to in our post is that published in the Sunday Times [Iraq in the Medium Term] more than 18 months ago.
The week before the Mirror story about the al-Jazeera memo, the BBC reported that Keogh and O'Connor were being prosecuted over the Times leak [Iraq in the Medium Term], quoting a government source.
[Other press suggested that the prosecution was not related to the Times leak, and some even hinted correctly that it was to do with a conversation between Blair and Bush.]

We now know Keogh and O'Connor have been charged over the leaking of the al-Jazeera memo, but the BBC story was widely picked up and repeated. It has caused confusion [us included] based on the fact that the Times Memo carries no reference to bombing al-Jazeera, leading some to question the Mirror's story, and allowing others to 'rubbish' it.

The point of our post was to confirm that these two memos are quite separate and despite what 'government sources' were saying to the BBC, that there isn't, and never was any link between the the al-Jazeera memo as reported in the Mirror, and the leak to the Times that was published last year.

This was confirmed by what Peter Kilfoyle told us,

We also learned today, that the leak to the Times that was published last year is believed to be part of a series of leaks over 18 months that launched a Cabinet Office inquiry. A Cabinet Office Temp, Claire Newell was arrested but not charged over the the leaks.
This would confirm that the memo published in the Times last year has nothing to to with the al-Jazeera memo, the court case, Keogh and O'Connor or the Mirror.

Because of the nature of the charges, and the nature of the OSA, there will never be public disclosure of what the two men were charged with. This means the press speculate about what the real source of the charges is.
In the absence of any official disclosure or public statements, a BBC news article that links the prosecution of Keogh and O'Connor to the Times memo of last year carries a lot more weight.

Why the confusion?
We suggest that because the BBC article predates the Mirror scoop, the government were trying make sure we didn't get a hint of what the real documents were, because they were terrified of the consequences of us learing about the contents - the al-Jazeera memo.

We suggest they thought that by feeding the BBC a false story to dampen down the press speculation, and taking advantage of the OSA they could hide the fact that the al-Jazeera memo ever existed, and give us a non story.

It is important to clarify that the charges against the two men relate to the al-Jazeera story, and that there is no connection to last years Times story, because this shows that the government's action against the two men is aimed at keeping the al-Jazeera memo secret, this is in addition to the government's threats to prosecute editors under the act if they reveal more of the al-Jazeera memo.

Both the existing and the threatened legal action show how far the government will go to stop the truth about al-Jazeera coming out. If the story was unfounded, there would be no need to use this gagging law.
This makes a mockery of the fact that Blair has tried to suggest that the story is a conspiracy theory, and Bush that it is "outlandish".

Who spun the Beeb?

Who was the 'government source' and why did they give false information to the BBC?