31/10/2013 Newsnight

The lead QC in the phone hacking trial reveals that Rebekah Brooks

and Andy Coulson had a long affair while both at the News of the World.

Did that mean they told each other everything? The man in charge of

artist liaison at Spotify says musicians should have nothing to

fear from the music streaming service. I would encourage all

artists to weigh it up, make the best decision for their band.

Ultimately there is almost no case for an artist not putting their

music on Spotify. Moby will be joining us for his ideas for making

money out of music. The rabid right, was David Cameron wrong to shun the

grassroots and euro-sceptics. One influential Tory thinks so. Europe,

welfare, immigration, on all the big issues of the last decade, the right

has been right. And in Chile, how the Pinochet dictatorship still

lives in the memory of those involved in the up coming pecks

elections. TRANSLATION: There was a particular torture they used against

women like me who refused to talk. It involves violent sexual abuse. I

was pregnant at the time and I lost my

Good evening, Anthony and Cleopatra, JFK and Marylin, John and Edwina,

today in the phone hacking trial the court heard the revelation that

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson had Anne fair until since 2004, and may

have lasted six years. Of course Andrew Edis QC said he was making no

moral judgment or intruding into their privacy. But the fact of the

affair meant that what Rebekah Brooks knew, Andy Coulson knew, and

visa versa. That is what he wanted to put in the Mobitz of the jurors.

This report contains flash photography.

"The fact is you are my very best friend, I tell you everything, I

confide in you, I seek your advice, I love you, care about you, worry

about you, we laugh and cry together." The intimate details of

an fair between two hugely high-profile public figures that had

remained secret for years. A tale in fact that could have graced the

front page of any edition of the News of the World. When the jury in

court 12 of the Old Bailey heard those words today, they were being

told a story that never made it into print. The revelation that this

trial's two highest-profile defendant, Brooks Brookes and Andy

Coulson had been illicit lovers for years. A fact that prosecutor Andrew

Edis QC made much of. He raised it in connection with the

hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail. That the News of the World hacked

Milly Dowler's phone is not disputed. The question before the

jury is who knew? Rebekah Brooks was on holiday in Dubai, leaving Coulson

in charge, when the News of the World published a story that came

straight from Milly's voicemail, quoting verbatim a message that had

been left on it. The jury were told there was a string of calls and

messages between Brooks in Dubai and the editor's desk in London in the

lead up to publication. Such was the intimacy of her relationship with

Coulson, Edis said, Brooks simply must have known what was going on.

And it wasn't just Coulson, Brooks, reporter Neville Thurlbeck, news

editor Greg Miskiw and Glenn Mulcaire who allegedly knew about

the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail. The paper's managing

editor, Stuart Kuttner, also a defendant in the case, even told

Surrey Police that the newspaper had Milly Dowler's voicemails. All of

which was evidence of how senior figures at the News of the World

were taking a very keen interest in the Milly Dowler story. Edis summed

it up thus. These are very senior journalists on the News of the World

who are pursuing this story and devoting time to it. We say in all

the circumstances it is simply incredible that the editors did not

know what was going on that week. Earlier it had been payments to

private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, amounting to more than

?100,000 a year, and who now admits phone hacking, that Mr Edis focussed

on the jury were told that Brooks, Coulson and Cutler kept a tight rein

on spending at the News of the World, and personally signing off

amounts as low as ?1,000. It was inconceivable that they didn't know

the paper was paying Mullany so much money. Cutler had signed -- Kuttner

had signed off payments to Glenn Mulcaire of over ?400,000, or that

they didn't know what they were paying them for, which boiled down,

to phone hacking. What

Shh Edis also sought to persuade the jury Assenor he had -- as Senior

editors they all routinely asked what he called "the editor's

question", in other words, how do I know the story is true. The answer

to which at the News of the World was all too often, phone hacking. On

all three points, managing the money, overseeing the paper's

journalism, and the very close relationship between Coulson and

Brooks, Edis argued that it was inconceivable that they didn't know

about and embrace the cripple flail practice of phone -- criminal

practice of phone hacking. If yesterday's proceedings lacked

drama, today's certainly didn't. Having had the details of their

secret affair laid bare before the jury, Coulson and Brooks, sitting

next to each other in the dock, then had to listen to prosecutor Edis

running through how they had exposed others, namely fire brigades' union

leader, Andy Gilchrist, and former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, for

illicit affairs of their own, apparently on the basis of illegally

hacked voice mails. There was a tangible sense in court and outside

afterwards, of two Titans of tabloid journalism enduring some of what

they often dished out to others. All the accused deny the charges. Coming

up. At the end of the day Spotify helps record companies, big record

companies and it helps investors. Emerging artists don't get a look

in. Now just when you thought it was safe to go back into the City of

London, several banks have become embroilled in an international probe

into possible manipulation of the currency trading forex business. The

justice investigators are investigating whether nine traders

included with partners and other banks to rig rates. News of

suspensions among bank staff tonight. We have been looking at it.

What has been going on? The global foreign exchange market is really

very big business. There are some staggeringly large numbers involved.

Let's take a look at one of them. That is this one. $5. 3 trillion

daily is trade around the world in dollars and all sorts of other

currencies. Of that more than 40% is traded in London. That is the

biggest centre for Foreign exchange. A really important story around this

emerging over the last couple of weeks. Each day there is an

important procedure, a rate setting, so that rates are set for benchmark,

for pension funds and contracts and all that sort of thing. For example

today one pound was set at $1. 60. That happens at 6.00pm in London.

There is a 60 second window, and all the trades over that 60 seconds are

compiled by an organisation called WM Reuters, it is the WM Reuters

Fix. The investigations are around whether that setting could have in

some way been manipulated. You are saying 40% of the business is

conducted through London. Any names emerging? There are major banks,

which have confirmed that actually they have been approached by

regulators, or they have conducted their own investigations, you can

see some of the names, including RBS and Barclays, as well as Deutsche

Bank. And also Citigroup. Names have named, row Hann Ranjandani and

others from JP Morgan on a sub-committee on foreign exchange

dealing, they have been sent on leave by their employers, there is

no suggestion at all they were involved in any wrongdoing, and also

Matt Gardener. RBS has suspended two traders. If it turns out to be a

major scandal, could it be as big as LIBOR? At the moment nobody is

actually suggesting that any wrongdoing is taking place. It is a

preliminary investigation. But I think it has the potential to be

very significant indeed. Various e-mails and instant messaging data

being looked at by regulators suggests there may have been

activity up to August this year. That will shock other people if

anything untoward has been proved. I'm joined by the research director

at the on-line trading company forex.com. Are you surprised? Since

2008 the regulatory landscape has changed so much, it has gone from

the mortgage business to LIBOR, because the foreign exchange

business is so huge it was in line for scrutiny. The make name for the

foreign exchange business is the "wild west" because it isn't

regulated like the others? It can sometimes get a bad press for that.

But I think you have seen it with individual companies that might be

on an exchange. Or maybe considered to be more highly regulated than the

FX market and still things happen to them. Yes it is unregulated but that

doesn't mean it is always working on its own. But if there have been

problems with it, is it likely to emerge through big trades, small

trade, I mean this minute window that Hugh was talking about, is it

major currencies or lesser currencies? It is probably likely to

be the major currencies, and in a second, in a matter of a few

seconds, when you have a $5. 3 market you can push a lot of trades

through in that time. It will be small increments that any changes

were made if they can be detected. They are hard to detect I would

imagine. The source suggests though that it is the smaller currencies

not the bigger currencies? Sure. So it is the smaller currencies, in

this case, if there is any wrongdoing, not that we think at the

moment there is? They are the less liquid ones as well. Is it the case

even if there is a major problem, coming on top of all the FREEF

problems that the City of London is too big to fail? It is absolutely

true, it is 40% of the whole market. We have a good reputation, but these

continual regulatory probes they are chipping away at that. It was only a

few months ago we signed up with China to trade for RNB and make

London a trading hub. The problem is if George Osborne has signed up with

the Chinese, then it is embarrassing so soon afterwards to announce an

investigation? It is incredibly em-Bartsing, it is good that it is

the FAC A and the UK has taken a lead on it, if we are staying the

centre of the FX world we have to make sure we are managing and

policing it well and being fair to both sides of the trade. Thank you

very much indeed. The last desperate fart of a dying corpse, Thom Yorke

on what some are talking up as the saviour of the record industry. The

Radiohead front man might not be keen on Spotify, with six million

paying customer, it can't match the might of the YouTube and iTunes, it

is big in business. Whether it is a malign or benign influence is hotly

debated. We have been asking what artists really get out of it. Is

this the White Knight of the music industry? A way for people to gorge

on as many tracks as they want, while giving record labels and

artists a steady stream of income. Spotify lets users listen to music

over the Internet for free. A paid subscription gives you mobile access

and the ability to download individual tracks. The site is now

passing millions of pounds to record labels each year. For many this and

similar firms like Deezer and Napster are the future for an

industry that once looked like it might topple over. Some people in

the music industry, passionately believe that Spotify is eating into

piracy, it is bringing more money into the industry and boosting

artists' career. Other people believe that Spotify is drawing

customers who spend a lot on buying music to a new model in which they

are actually spending less. Cannibalising the existing healthy

business model. Whichever of those is true will ultimately decide the

music industry's fate in the future. The latest financial figures show

how the site is growing. The firm's sales doubled last year to ?370

million. It now has 24 million users in 32 different countries. The

Spotify model is now being talked up as a key factor in the industry's

fightback, in countries like Norway and Sweden, where the company was

founded. Revenues there are now rising strongly, after a decade of

slumping CD sales and soaring piracy. Spotify's top brass

certainly talk the talk. At an industry event run by Virgin,

Newsnight caught up with their unfeesably fashionable executive,

keen to talk up his new business model. I think in new ideas at

Spotify is a meritocracy, meaning we have a pool of revenue, we are

paying back almost 70% to artists. If you have 1% of all the streams on

Spotify, you will see 1% of the revenue paid back to rights holders.

That is the exciting part for me. This pot will grow and grow and grow

and your revenues increasing daily. If you look at traditional models it

wasn't a pro-rat at that system, that is a new and exciting idea for

me. So for such an industry success

story, why does Spotify seem to be turning into a lightning rod for

some very upset artistso a lightning rod for some very upset artists.

Thom Yorke has pulled most of his solo material off Spotify in

response to the rates they pay out. He called them the last fart of a

dying corpse, and the reason for the relaxes of relationships between

music labels and artists. You are seeing the music industry responding

to technology and habits by new listeners. While his heart is in the

right place, I would sit down with him and explain to him why his facts

may be misinformed. Hasn't he got a point that because, to a certain

extent, some of your shareholders, the major label, had you to do deals

with the major labels that you are not forward looking but an

electronic form of the industry as it exists 15, 20 years ago? I

disagree, Radiohead had issues with iTunes when it came out, they had

issues about breaking up the CD, there will always be qualms about

change. Bands like the Beatle, AC/DC and Led Zeplin have long refused to

put their music on streaming sites. And others, like last night's

mercury nominees, Faols, are now speaking out. Irrespective of

whether it brings people to your music or as a spin off you sell more

ticket, the business model itself means you have music you have worked

your heart out for you are paid what I deem to be an immoral amount. And

that's it, that's just for me it is an inarguable fact the royalty rate

musicians receive from Spotify is just not fair. Spotify pays artists,

not directly, but through their music label or management company,

that means different musicians can receive completely different

amounts. Each time a user plays a track. Patterns are an up and coming

Manchester band with just four songs so far available on Spotify. The

lead singer said the site can be good for exposure, but once you try

to earn proper money it becomes more difficult. We use streaming services

like Sound Cloud and things like Band Camp, we think it is really

important people listen to our music. What is different with

Spotify is now you have these premium accounts where not only can

people stream your music but take it away with them. What's the point for

them to buy us on iTunes or any kind of MP 3. Here we have a spread sheet

that shows all the streams to date that Patterns have received via

Spotify. Crunching the numbers, the boss of the band's label say after

two years and 150,000 plays on Spotify the four members have paid

?65 each. That is after the label itself takes its ?50% share. For an

indie label like us that equates to 00. 2p per stream on Spotify. The

artist is getting 00. 1p per stream, that is not much at all. If you are

an artist without a large audience and fan base, it is hard to do well

on any service, whether iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, in my opinion it

is pretty straight forward. You engage with your label, you are in a

business relationship with your label. You are making a decision

based upon an element of trust. You engage your label and get as much

information as possible, you make sure you understand your situation,

and you receive the payments that are deserved.

After 14 years of upheaval and falling sales, it looks like the

music industry is back on its feet. Spotify and services like it will

probably continue to grow. They might, though, make more enemies

along the way. Joining us now from Los Angeles is the mu six Moby who

has told -- musician Moby who has sold 20 million albums worldwide.

How are you, good evening. When you heard Faols talking last night at

Mercury saying artists receive an immoral amount and the royalty rate

is so poor, by and large, do you think he has a point? I think what

the journalist was also talking about is it is hard to generalise, a

lot of it has do with the artist relationship with the record

company. Some artists are making more money from Spotify than others.

It is hard to come up with a comprehensive generalised amoral or

moral statement about the royalties people are receiving. The more

powerful the band and the better deal they do with their record

company, obviously, the better their rate will be when it comes to

Spotify. You have gone a different road now, because your new album,

The Innocence, you are issuing a download and streaming, is that the

way of the future? Well, my, I don't know maybe I'm a simplen to, but my

-- simpleton, my thoughts are musicians' main job is making music

they love and other people love. You have to figure out how to pay the

rent and be fiscally responsible, but the goal should really be

focussing on the music. One of the things I love about the digital

present we live in, with institutions like Spotify, or Sound

Cloud or YouTube, it is almost like this democratic anarchy, it is very

chaotic, you put music into the world and you have no idea how

people will experience it or listen to it. I actually find that really

compelling. I accept that argument, and funnily enough Lou Reed always

said it didn't matter about the business it was the music. You can

speak of the advantage of somebody who has sold 20 million albums world

wild, the young band from Manchester said the people who win out are the

label, if the artists are cutting deals where they might get 7% not

70%ho win out are the label, if the artists are cutting deals where they

might get 7% not 70%. The state of technology six months from now, a

year from now, five years from now might make Spotify look very

antiquated. Having too strong an opinion about streaming services

like Spotify, you look it is kind of like having a strong opinion about

Napster which barely exists now. I really feel like when I see people

criticising the digital present we live. It kind of reminds me at old

guys yelling at trains going too fast. There is nothing you can do

about it. You talk about Napster which was a flash in the pan, do you

think Spotify is only on the way to somewhere else, that this is a very

shallow stepping stone? It is almost impossible to say. So many of us are

accustomed to owning music. But yet there is answer tire new generation

of people where it - an entire new generation of people who never owned

music. It is a weird overlap between the two. People complaining about

Spotify they are not complaining about the same music being played on

the radio. Yet that same music is coming out of the same speakers, I

don't the radio, I don't understand how people want different

compensations for music coming out of different places. They are

creating their own sense of music by whatever they are streaming and

downloading, does that essentially mean the idea of a curated series

and pieces of music like an album is essentially going to be an old man

and old woman's tool? I'm speaking as an old man. I know! There is some

bias. But I think that there is room for things to coexist. You can have,

I look at the world of book publishing, and some things just

show up on a digital e-read e you read it and throw away and don't

think about it. If you really love a book maybe you want the hard cover

version. A coffee table version of it. With music there might be some

disposable pop songs you stream a few times and never think about,

when your favourite band puts out a new album you might want to buy a

version of it. What do you want to be, the five-time played popstar --

what do you want to be, the five-time played popstar or the

long-term artist? That is up to each artist, some people want the

disposable popstar and other people want to make albums people will come

back to 50 years hence. You put it out there that almost whoever is

listening to it can curate changes and listen in their own way, is that

a future? I did a thing with an organisation called BitTorn, we took

individual tracks from my album, the drum, the vocals and bass and

released them as multitracks where everyone can download it for free,

remix it and do what they want with it. I love that democratic chaos.

The fact that you put this music out into the world, once it leaves my

hands I don't own it and I can't control it. I personally maybe there

is something wrong with me, I love the lack of control I have over

music once I put it out into the world. Great luxury. Thank you very

much indeed Moby. Pleasure, thank you.

Is there a quiet reproachment taking place on the political right. After

the election David Cameron and George Osborne put clear water, an

ocean even between the Tory leadership and much of the party's

grassroots, and certainly the euro-sceptics. But was that distance

to do with policies or the perceived extreme attitudes of those who

expressed them. Swivel-eyed oon, the one who called for British jobs for

British workers, a cap on immigration and no, no never to the

euro. Are they the ones having the last laugh. Our reporter thinks so.

Doesn't he feel faintly embarrassed that in five short years he has gone

from "hug a husky" to "gas a badger "(voice of Ed Miliband) The only

embarrassing thing is this tortured performance. (Voice of David

Cameron. It is hard to get attention, we all lead busy lives,

even I a political anorack has stopped watching Prime Minister's

question times. Occasionally some interesting things happens, like

last week. We need to roll back some of the green regulations and charges

putting up bills. The man who promised the greenest Government

ever, doesn't sound so green any more. The man who said he would stop

banging on about Europe has had to bang on a bit about Europe. On

immigration, welfare and tax, David Cameron has steadily moved to the

right. Or has he? Some in the parliamentary Conservative Party

don't see things in such simple terms. I don't really see it quite

as right and left. What I think is really important is that we as a

party don't know those distinctions but actually make a very common

cause which is being on people's side. Works on the side of families

and just being there for them. Changing our language, making sure

that we are seen to be on the side of the consumer, not vested

interest. I think we need an optimistic message, I think we need

to be up for things that are out there in both globally and

nationally. The right gets a bad press, grassroots Tory members were

rag worms called "swivel-eyed loons", who are the sanest people in

politics. Is it the people who supported the euro, or those on the

right who always said it would cause the economic problems it has? What

about the people who welcomed mass immigration into this country, or

was it the right who calls said that immigration of the kind we saw would

cause wages to fall and house prices to rise? Some people on the right of

the Conservative Party are certainly feeling vindicated by the way events

have moved on. I think it is fairly extraordinary on so many of the

macro issues on, for example, the question of Europe, whether Britain

should be part of the euro or whether we should have a referendum,

on the way of immigration, on the question of welfare reform,

positions that were once dismissed as beyond the pale, as the preserve

of free market right-wingers like me, are increasingly mainstream.

They are increasingly accepted as being sensible, normal and essential

reform. The traditional right isn't perfect,

it needs to learn from the people around David Cameron, the Cameroons,

about the importance of public services and changing social

attitudes. The Conservative Party has to become a broad centre right

church again. Stretching from the centre to the traditional right. The

party has to speak to Sun, Daily Mail and Times readers. It is what

Margaret Thatcher did with her appeal to the housewives of the

1970s. Can we have two pounds of the smaller ones.

It is what John Major did in 1992 with his message of opportunity for

all. Steak pie boiled. He offered red meat to voters in the form of a

tax cut, but he also represented upwards mobility and classlessness.

Party that didn't just listen to liberals' boom but also heard the

roar of Middle England. My guests are with me now. You set

out your case there, but never the Twain shall actually meet. David

Cameron, it is the social attitudes that he perceives as much as he

finds so difficult to deal with? That is absolutely true. But a lot

of people I think when they are losing arguments start decribing

people in negative pejorative terms. The writer described the

"swivel-eyed loons" and nutcases and so on. I wanted to say in the film

that the right have a problem because they can be caricatured in

that way, but the impact of the welfare state on the poor or

immigration on houses prices or Europe, the right has been

vindicated and must be part of the Conservative coalition. Why do you

think that David Cameron and the modernisers were so unwilling to

listen in the early day, when of course they had not won an election

but gone into a coalition. Why were they so unwilling to listen? We had

reached a stage in this country where a lot of people were

culturally inoculated towards ever voting Conservatives. People thought

there was a nasty mean-spirited element of the party that simply

wasn't reconciled with cultural demographic changes that had

happened in Britain. There are two important things going on here.

First of all I'm interested in the fact that Tim says the right has

been vindicated about all the good things that happened. In the film

and what you just said he didn't mention the single biggest thing

that happened in the British economy in a generation which is the

financial crisis. Just as many people on the left would say the

left is vindicated, and Marxists would say this was a crisis in

capitalism and what did the right say about that. If you go into that

you have the situation where the left, Labour were never going to

take us into the euro, were in favour of welfare reform, all these

things. But the point surely is that David Cameron in a sense is as much

as one end of the spectrum as he would say originally the right was

at the other end of the spectrum. Who so moves? It will be David

Cameron who moves? A dot of the problem, and you're exactly right to

say that the Conservative Party had a big problems. David Cameron

diagnosed it incorrectly from the beginning. He thought the

Conservative Party was too right-wing, that was the bigger

Yorks on all the issues we were discussing those issues are popular.

The problem with the Conservative Party, and that is why John Major

was so successful, they are not seen as the side of the people who are

poor, on the side of the people affected by the financial crisis the

low paid. It is that concern for the blue collar vote, that is when the

Conservative Party dominates the poll. The problem that the

Conservatives have had isn't, the reason they didn't win majority in

2010 isn't because people thought David Cameron was secretly in love

with the European Union or the Conservatives had a real affection

for mass immigration. The situation you have got now isn't that people

think David Cameron believes something that they don't believe,

it is they don't think he believes in anything at all. That is

something people in the Conservative Party also believe? The Conservative

Party hasn't convinced that we understand how tough life for people

is. They like our positions on Europe, crime and immigration, but

who will look after us in tough times. That is the question they are

worried about. Is it not the case to say many grassroots Tories don't

care about same-sex marriage or women bishops in the Church of

England, and annoyed about the delay in the married tax allowance. They

see David Cameron as being of a completely different ilk and that

they can't relate to, and he in a sense can't relate to them. I think

the traditional right has stuff to learn from David Cameron on those

issues. In 2050 Michael Howard says the way t party is going, we have

tested this and we don't have the right model. It seems what you are

saying is they don't have the right model to win majority. They still

don't have the right model. The election to learn from is 1992, when

John Major combined a pretty traditional Conservative recipe on

tax cuts. Remember the tax bombshell campaign, a very Tory message. But

people looked at him and thought that is the upwardly mobile

classless Conservative Party I want to support. They don't see that at

the moment. It is the combination of those da things that will transform

the Conservative Party. In 1992 you didn't have UKIP. There is an

important point here. You had the Referendum Party. The important

point in your film you made the point that the Conservative Party

has to reach out to people voting for UKIP, but there is an enormous

danger that people will see that as the Conservative Party reaching out

to UKIP itself. If there are Lib Dem strategists or Millennium Dome

around Ed Miliband watching this -- or people around Ed Miliband

watching this they will be praying for this. The right themselves are

very divided? They are, and now David Cameron's biggest problem.

Margaret Thatcher won elections in the 1980s because the right was

united and the left divide. If it stays disunited will he win another

election? It would be very hard, he must unite the right to win the next

election. He's doing good things in that direction. It is finding issues

that will appeal to the UKIP voter and the Lib Dem vote e which

includes cost of living and other issues that aren't just the typical

predictable issues. Chel le's presidential elections this year

comes exactly 40 years after the military coup that brought General

Pinochet to power. And the military dictatorship ruled for 17 years. As

much as Chile wants to move on and forget the horrors of this that era.

The shadows are present and amongst the presidential candidates

themselves. The campaign is well under way, with two clear front

runners emerging in the polls. Former President Michelle Bachelet

of the Socialist Party, elected President eight years ago and served

for four. And her main right-wing rival, Evelyn Matthei. That there

are two women running for the top job in a Latin American country is

extraordinary enough. The tale of friendship, betrayal and death

behind the two of them, both daughters of general, brought up

together in the same military base, , however, even stranger.

But the story that links the two presidential candidates is a very

real part of the most turbulent episode of Chile's 20th century

history, that began here at the Presidential Palace 40 years ago.

On September 1 th General Pinochet ordered the bombing of the palace,

at the start of the coup that brought down the democratically

elected Government and socialist president Allende, who died in the

attack. Like most of the military, the then kern knell Fernando

Matadores, father of Evelyn, supported General Pinochet. Before

the coup the family were friends and neighbours of the Bachelet, but

General Alberto Bachelet, here with his family, the young Michelle at

the front, remained loyal to Allende. The era of terror began.

Thousands of supporters of the legitimate Government were rounded

up, imprisoned, tortured and killed. They are all now honoured at the

Museum of Memory in Santiagon. I met with a fellow prisoner with Alberto

Bachelet when he died of a heart attack in 1974. TRANSLATION: Finding

himself striped of his medals and tortured and abused by his

subordinates was a terrible psychological torture in itself.

More painful than any physical abuse he suffered. They carried on, even

though they knew he had already suffered two heart attacks. General

Bachelet died of that torture? TRANSLATION: Absolutely. The for

theure took place at this academy. Evelyn's father was put in charge

here a month before Alberto Bacholet died. Today General Fernando Matti

lives behind the gates here. He turned down the request for an

interview and has denied any involvement in the for theure --

torture and death of his friend, either by act or omission.

TRANSLATION: The accusation against him is not for being the direct

perpetrator of the murder of General Bacholet, but he was obliged under

law to stop or report what was happening. This man is a legal

adviser in the Allende Government, and has failed to get the General to

court. He says the country's laws of immunity make it hard and this is a

particular difficult case. TRANSLATION: If you take into the

account that until there are two presidential candidates, the

daughter of the General and the daughter of the victim, there is a

whole political dynamic involved, which explains why judges refuse to

enforce the law and indict. It is unfair, arbitary, but in Chile we

are used to this kind of thing. Santiagon is littered with grim

reminders of the past. This woman is the director of another former

torture centre. Where, in the garden every rose represents a woman

killed. She barely survived the torture, which involved beatings,

electric shocks and more. TRANSLATION: There was a particular

torture they used against women, like me, who refused to talk, which

involved McVie lent sexual abuse -- violent sexual abuse, I was pregnant

at the time and I lost my baby. They said the country did not need

another baby of a Marxist. The buildings of the time have been

destroyed, but they have built a model of the cell where she was held

blindfolded for weeks at a time, with four others. Michelle Bachelet,

then in her 20s was also held in one of these cells and tortured for her

left-wing beliefs. Which brings us to another mystery in this story.

The reluck tense of so many in Chile, including Michelle Bachelet

herself to talk about what happened in the Pinochet years. Is it an

advantage to your campaign that your main rival's father is being

implicated in the death of yours? I have been speaking about this for

some time, I think it is, I think it is the, I mean we believe that every

candidate has their own history, my history is completely different from

her history. And I hope that our citizens will make the best decision

in terms of who is the person who can interpret better the Chilean

needs. Would Evelyn Matthei say any more?

(Speaks in Spanish) I asked her about the events of 40 years ago and

in particular the case of General Bacholet and her father.

TRANSLATION: I'm not going to answer questions on this topic, obviously

angry. For the past 30 years widows like

Gabriella have performed in public the solitary version of a national

dance that is normally for a couple. To draw attention to Chile's over

1,000 disappeared. TRON My partner was a political secretary in the

Communist Party. They grabbed him off the street and held him in the

prison. I thought they might arrest him, but I never thought they could

make him disappear. Never. There is a monument for those who

were killed but who have no grave, and grieving relatives are angry

that there are members of the military around today who know where

the bodies are. Some people have been in denial for

40 years. The drama of this story of this nightmare is that many of them

are still alive, and do have the information that they are not

willing to give away and to speak. Michelle Bachelet is almost certain

to win this election. Will she do something. TRANSLATION: I think she

should, afterall she's part of this, she had family who died. Let's hope

she does. The call for accountability comes

not only from those who were alive at the time, but as I discovered,

talking to a group of student, from the young as well. TRANSLATION: This

year's elections are strongly connected with the events of the

past. Matthei could be seen as the face of the military Government,

where as Batchelet can be seen as the representative of Allende, it

opens all the old wounds of supporters.

Pinochet's office is now a museum, the general himself was arrested in

London, but never brought to trial in Chile to face charges of torture

and murder. Other senior military figures are in jail, but many more

have not been tried for crimes even with Pinochet's own spokesman

admits. TRANSLATION: The internal conflicts of a country are usually

tremenduously cruel. And we try to avoid excesses all all times. But we

had to fight the extremist movement, and in this kind of fight, you

always make mistakes and commit atrocities and excesses. The odds

are on Michelle Bachelet returning here as President, this time there

will be a lot more pressure on her to tackle the Pinochet legacy.

That's just about all for this Hallowe'en night. Be careful out

there, good night. (Michael Jackson's thriller)

# The foulest stench is in the air # The funk of 40,000 years

# And grizzly ghouls from every tomb # Are closing in to seal your doom

# And though you fight # To stay alive

# Your body starts to shiver # For no mere mortal can resist

# The evil of the Thriller (scary laughter)

Further bouts of wet and windy weather will sweep across all areas

over the next few day, the rain on Friday will eratically head its way

north and eastwards across England and Wales. Where as for a good part

of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the winds will be lighter than today

and spells of sunshine. Maybe just one or two scattered showers,

frequent showers in western Scotland where the wind will remain strong.

For eastern and southern Scotland dry and bright with sunshine. Good

to start off with sunshine over north-east England, the rain will

trickle in here come the afternoon. It will be dull and damp for most of

the day across the Midlands. Dryer spells across East Anglia and the

south-east, here the rain could get quite heavy on Friday evening. And

the wind will start to strengthen also along the south coast. It will

be overcast with outbreaks of rain, for most of the day across

south-west England and also a fairly wet day for Wales. As I said that

rain could get heavy across the south-east on Friday evening before

clearing away. Which will allow another batch of wet weather to

sweep across areas on Saturday. It will also be accompanied by strong

and gusty winds. Sunshine developing later on Saturday, but only once we

have got rid of the heavy downpour, which will sweep in it looks like

from the Atlantic, a dry start on the east the rain will soon come and

accompanied by the wind, getting stronger and