Richard Ingrams' Week: The perils and pitfalls facing today's historians

The story of Martin Allen, the self-styled "eminent historian" who published a book in 2005 accusing my father of assassinating Heinrich Himmler on the orders of Winston Churchill, was revived last week in The Financial Times.

Ben Fenton, the journalist who first exposed the fact that the story was based on a number of forged documents inserted into the National Archives at Kew, now points the finger at Allen himself who has gone to ground since the forgeries were exposed.

Little is known about Allen, but suspicions are inevitable once it is realised that he has now published no fewer than three books, all of which have relied on forgeries. One concerned the Duke of Windsor, accused by Allen of betraying military secrets to Hitler, the other the Hitler/Hess deception alleging an elaborate plot to fool Hitler into thinking that Britain was on the verge of a pro-Nazi coup.

Following Fenton's initial exposure in The Daily Telegraph the police began a lengthy investigation into the infiltration of the National Archives. But last December, in response to a question from the indefatigable Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, the Solicitor General stated that although the police had produced enough evidence to prosecute Allen, such a prosecution would not be in the public interest due to "matters relating to Mr Allen's health". What these matters were remained unspecified.

In view of the rather bizarre nature of this story, it might be tempting to conclude that the authorities are guilty of some kind of cover-up. Whatever the truth, it would be nice if the matter were resolved, if only to reassure historians that in future they can believe in the authenticity of what they find in the archives.

A mask of plausibility hides many sins

In his famous thriller The Mask of Dimitrios (published in 1939), Eric Ambler writes: "In a dying civilisation, political prestige is the reward not of the shrewdest diagnostician but of the man with the best bedside manner."

If that was true for Ambler in the 1930s, it must be even truer today, when the signs of our dying civilisation are rather easier to discern. And Ambler could not have been expected to foresee the coming of television, which has hastened the process of weeding out all politicians who lack the necessary soothing bedside skills.

Such thoughts are prompted by the general disillusionment over Gordon Brown, who is currently being written off by nearly all our political commentators. Yet, according to logic, if we are facing a serious economic crisis, Brown, who had served successfully as Chancellor of the Exchequer for 11 years, ought to be recognised as the man best qualified to deal with it.

The reason that he is not could have something to do with Ambler's theory. Whatever assets Brown may have, a bedside manner is not one of them. White-faced, tired and with a glass eye, he makes little effort to flatter and beguile. How different to his charming predecessor Mr Blair, living proof if ever there was of Hamlet's view "that one may smile, and smile and be a villain".

David Cameron is as empty of political ideology as Blair was but, as we might expect from a former PR man and one who has been to Eton, he too has a well-cultivated bedside manner. If he succeeds, as some people now predict he may, it will be thanks to that – and, of course, the fact that we are living in a dying civilisation.

* ITV is reported to be facing a £4m fine following revelations about the recent phone-in scandal. Viewers wasted millions of pounds entering competitions the winners of which had already been decided. Chief among the programmes was Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway, pictured left.

It is hard to see what is gained by imposing a fine like this, particularly on a company such as ITV which is known to be strapped for cash. The reason it has rubbishy phone-in shows in the first place is presumably because it can't afford to produce anything more worthwhile. Having to pay out huge fines will only give the company an excuse for further dumbing down.

If this company is to be punished it ought to be done by more conventional means. What has happened, after all, looks like a prima facie case of fraud involving millions of pounds. When you have something like that you call in the police, you interview all concerned and arrest and charge the guilty men. Instead, on this occasion the head of ITV, Michael Grade, commissioned a report from the big City accountants Deloitte which he is not now prepared to publish because, he says, it contains "commercially sensitive information" – information presumably which could damage the reputation of ITV still further.

And that seems to be that. ITV will pay the fine. Nobody will be charged. And Ant and Dec themselves will carry on with the good work. Grade has been at pains to insist that although Ant and Dec are described as "executive producers" of their show – according to their website "taking a keen interest in the production process" – they knew nothing of what was going on behind the scenes.