27/02/2014 Newsnight

bring down the Northern Ireland Government after those promises

collapsed the man accused over the Hyde Park bombing, there will be an

inquiry. We will appoint a full independent judge to produce an add

of the administrative scheme, to see if any other letters were sent in

error. How fragile is power sharing if old secrets can push it to the

edge. The man who signed off the first letter is here. Should the

courts allow anyone to escape their pas Recent acquittals show

decades-old accusations are not easy to prove. Some say they should be

left to lie. There is an awful lot of money spent on these case, I

would like the resources devoted to current issues and complaints. The

Director of Public Prosecutions is here to tell us why that must not

happen. What do Nelson's tea spot and

Nureyev's hat stand have in common, they are part of one collection up

for grabs. You can buy Al Capone's cocktail shaker. There is a certain

frisson to a bloody Mary served out of that. Good evening. After the

appalling botch that collapseded the trial of the suspected Hyde Park

bomber, the system it exposed seems to have come close to collapsing the

Northern Ireland Government. Having threatened and now withdrawn his

possible resignation, the Peter Robinson, the First Minister, said

letters that were given as assurances to republican terror

suspects are worthless pieces of paper. There will be the inevitable

inquiry, and fast, but still fury among unionists that they were shut

out of the deal. We report now on old wounds re-opened. The force of

the explosion was so great that parts of the car were flung across

the park and into Knightsbridge. So too were nails. 32 years on and once

again two explosives in central London is threatening to derail the

Northern Ireland peace process. It was on this road in 1982 that four

soldiers died and another 12 were seriously injured. The Prime

Minister suspect in that bombing walked free this week after a judge

ruled a letter he was sent by the authorities in 2007 effectively

guaranteed he couldn't be prosecuted. That letter, it later

turned out, w sent by mistake. But through the court process we also

learned another 186 suspected IRA members, some on the run for decades

have been sent similar written assurances they are no longer

wanted. Sinn Fein have driven a coach and horses through mutual

trust, and they are going to have to do something about that. Because

they are endangering this process, which exists for the benefit of the

one. Eight million people who live in this country for the benefit of

200 named people, they know who they are, they consider them more

valuable than the rest of the population. From what we know so far

187 called on the run letters have been sent to republicans once

suspected of crimes related to the troubles. No similar letters to

loyalist suspects. 14149 of the letters went out under the last

Labour Government. 38 since 2010 under the coalition this afternoon

the Prime Minister promised a judge-led inquiry to make sure no

other mistakes were made. We We should have a full inquiry into this

scheme. We will appoint a fully independent judge to look into the

administrative team to see if any other letters were sent in error.

That concession appeared to calm Northern Ireland's First Minister,

who until this afternoon was still threatening to resign and trigger

fresh elections. I think the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State

have been prompt, they have dealt with the issue seriously and in a

manner satisfactory to me. I do not intend to resign on the basis that

if you get what you want, why on earth would you want to resign.

Another attack on the British mainland, this time in 1983, six

were skilled in Knightsbridge after a coding warning came too late. The

Harrods bombing was one of five deadly IRA attacks in London in the

early 1980s. One of the main suspects went on the run for ten

years and was never convicted of any terror offence. She now lives and

works in Northern Ireland. Whether she and others like her received

these letters we still don't know. Some unionists now want to see the

names of all the individuals sent letters. Sinn Fein says this is a

complete overreaction. These are people that the lawful process that

Dominic Grieve spoke about yesterday in the British House of Commons,

decided that no charges could be brought against them. These people

didn't create or cause victims. But, there is an issue of perceived

fairness here. Some are asking why suspected IRA members have been told

they will no longer face ution, while a criminal investigation is

under way into the actions of some soldiers in the 1970s. At the end of

the Bloody Sunday Saville Inquiry, with the announcement of the PSNI

that they will level murder charges against certain individuals even

though the uptake of witnesses coming forward has been beyond

pathetic. At the same time, almost in the same breath, we are hearing

that those who murdered recklessly will escape justice. That is no

justice. There is no balance and I think the Prime Minister needs to

show leadership and draw a line under the whole matter now. But a

blanket amnesty is not for the moment a realistic option. Peace

might have been achieved in Northern Ireland, the immediate crisis might

have passed. But angry talk of secret letters and deals still hangs

over Stormont this evening. In a moment we will hear from Jonathan

Powell, who signed off the first letters and chief British negotiator

in Northern Ireland under Tony Blair. First David Ford, the Justice

Minister in Northern Ireland, and the leader of the Alliance Party.

And Gerry Kelly from Sinn Fein are both with us from Belfast. Thank you

for being with us. How did you not know about this. Peter Hain says

that suggestion is Ritzable? He can say what he likes but he's standing

up in the House of Commons and saying we have to address the issue

of the OTRs. It is not an explanation of what Peter Hain did.

We knew the issue had to be addressed, and it should have been

in an open, transparent and accountable way. That is what didn't

happen. What did you think was happening with these people then.

You knew the issue was being taken in hand what did you think was going

on? We didn't know it was taken in hand. We knew people were saying it

needed to be addressed. There were clear ways it could have been

addressed under released under the Good Friday Agreement which people

voted for and accepted in the Good Friday Agreement. We had no

knowledge of what was being done by the Government and Sinn Fein. What

should happen with the letters, Peter Robinson threatened to resign,

saying not only should there be an inquiry but the letters should be

torn up. He appears to be happy, should the letters be recinded or

torn up? I'm not sure of the legalities of recinding, when Peter

Robinson demanded for letters to be recinded, he seems to be demanding

no that letters are restated, which is short of his demand. I agree with

other people that this is such a mess and an independent inquiry is

required, what where go from here. The listing of names will be a

breach of obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights,

the right to a private life and life.

Do you understand why some people in unionist communities are furious

about this and feel some how a deal was done between Sinn Fein and the

British Government behind closed doors? Let me try to deal with this

behind closed doors stuff. As David is only after saying, this was

known, it was probably one of the most discussed issues throughout the

last number of years. Why do so many senior unionists feel they know

nothing All the evidence came out, this was brought up by the British

Prime Minister saying they would raise it. It was raised in 2007 with

the policing board and the DUP members were present, again in 2010

at the policing board, where there was a report given on the scheme. At

that stage. And the Bradley report on the past in 2009 it said there

were 200 people in the process and 150 of them had been dealt with.

What they didn't know was the private letter between British

authorities and the person who asked to find out if they were being

caught. Let's be here about this. And people are talking about all of

these. Over 180 people as if they were convicted and tried the vast

bulk of them were. They were being told that they weren't looking for

them. What was now under this inquiry. What if there are people on

the lists who are told there is evidence and they could be

prosecuted? I can give my opinion when I see the statement of the

British Prime Minister. In my opinion it is unnecessarily and a

political fig leaf to allow the DUP to get out of the spot they put

themselves in to. The hole they dug. If that is what it is there for that

is fair enough. In fact for Peter Robinson to say that these letters

aren't worth the paper they are written on. Surely that runs against

logic if in fact the whole furore arose from the fact that there is a

letter, which a court of law, in the last few days has said is a

legitimate letter and is an atreatment. If arrest -- Agreement.

If arrests come out of this inquiry, what impact will that have, what

will happen? Nobody has mentioned any arrests, I don't expect there to

be any arrests, what they have said is they want to find out if there

are any other mistakes made. That is an entirely different thing from

what Peter Robinson is claiming. Jonathan Powell do you, a massive

miscommunication between these two communities. You have said that it

is an administrative error, do you accept that the unionists feel they

were is the out here and excluded and something was cooked up behind

closed doors? No there has been an extraordinary muddle between two

issues. The issues of on the runs arises out of all peace agreements

and came up after the Good Friday agreement. The British and Irish

Governments wrote to all-party leaders and said they wished to

solve the issue of on the runs, we negotiated the issue for the rest of

the Government from 2001-2007, we never reached the agreement and were

unable to find a comprehensive agreement to on the moneys. People

are modelling the issue of on the runs in a certificate yes, sir of

administrative letters on people who would be wanted. They we sent

individual letters saying they weren't wanted. It is not an amnesty

or secret deal, it was a series of letters. There was a system set up,

a series of letters, to deal with this k we have any confidence that

there aren't other mistakes, there has been this one appalling botch --

appalling botch. Can you sigh there are no other things? The police made

a mistake in dealing with this letter. Instead of checking with the

Metropolitan Police whether this man was wanted or not, they failed to do

so. They issued him a letter saying he wasn't wanted when the

Metropolitan Police wanted him. Weren't there other mistakes with

similar consequences? I note the inquiry drawn out by the Prime

Minister is narrow, it is dealing with whether other mistakes were

made. And the question on could there be further incidents it

couldn't happen. I would like at the letters to see if there were other

mistakes in the letters. Except the system was set up here, there was

mistakes made. The way it has happened has surely damaged the

trust that was so critical to the progress of this whole process? I

think if the price of keeping the Government going was to have an

inquiry that is a sensible thing for David Cameron to do. I think there

is a certain amount of this fury, if you look back at the parliamentary

question answered by John Reed in 2002. He talked about the process

and how many people had been dealt with. It was covered in other

publications. You would have to be Australian observant if you didn't

know it was happening. Do you think the unionists are bluffing some how?

They are approaching elections and people are casting around and

blaming other people. I hope they get to running Northern Ireland and

the success that the Good Friday Agreement has been to bringing peace

to Northern Ireland. They would have had to be fairly unobservant to know

what was going on, that means they are deliberately look away or they

wantant to know? You will -- want to know. You will have to ask them. It

was not a secret, out there in the public domain they could have seen

it. Coming up the North Korean exiles who want to return home.

There are days I ask myself why did I choose to come here in the first

place. If justice delayed is justice

denied, perhaps crimes past should be pursued lend leasely --

endlessly. With some failed celebrity trials the authorities

have been accused of witch hunts. But the director of public

prosecutor, Alison Saunders has made it plain to her prosecutors that

they should press on. The date of alleged plans should not matter. She

will tell us why in a few moments. Out of 16 arrests in Operation

Yewtree, set up after revelations of Jimmy Savile's past crimes, only

four charges have been made. Even if the intentions are laudible, are

they realistic. Recent front pages have been peppered with historic

sexual offence trials. Bill Roache and Michael Lavelle acquitted,

Stuart Hall convicted, and continuing against Dave Lee Travis.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions wants more old

cases to come too trial. Prosecutors will be told not to ignore cases

even though they happened a long time ago. The decision is welcomed

by Labour? What is important is the principle, if you have been abused

we should be able to stand up for you, you should come in and you

should be believed and we should do everything we can to make sure the

case is proved and you get the justice you deserve. T guidelines

apply to all crimes, they are expected to have particular effect

on sexual offences, where victims are often reluctant to come

forwards. If you were to report a burglary to the local police, you

would at least expect them to believe a burglary have happened,

but many victims of sexual advice don't even feel that basic level of

assurance, let alone confidence that their assaliants will come to court.

Thankfully things are getting better, largely because of

specialist police officers who understand the sensitivities around

these crimes. Even so, many victims still stay sigh nt.

Old stigmas remain, and a senior official at the NSPCC told Newsnight

he was worried a new one might be forming. Victims have told the

charity that people will expect a financial notion. It doesn't log how

many historic prosecutions it begins or how many are successful. There

are practical questions about the evidence? We have seen some things

so far, and there is a difficulty for court cases that rely on nailing

down evidence, and what happened, in what time frame, in what

circumstances? To go into that many decades afterwards. That is not

something that can be wished away. There are worries about cost? There

is an awful lot of money being spent on these cases. What I would prefer

to see happen is the resources about be devoted to current issues and

current complaints rather than those going back 30, years. D, 40 years.

It is a political question. In my view it isth should be many of the

offences against children and women and young people, they are the most

difficult questions, if we are not there to protect them, what is the

system about. The Director of Public Prosecution, Alison Saunders is here

to discuss it with us. In a sense Emily is right, isn't she, this is a

decision, a conscious decision, under political or public pressure

to make up for past mistakes isn't it? It is not. We look at all cases,

no matter when the allegations were or when the report of the offence

takes place. We look at them all in the same way. We look for sufficient

evidence for a Israelestic prospect of conviction, whether it is in the

public interest to prosecute. If you look at them in the same way, why

tell your prosecutors they must press on with historic allegations,

if you looked past that you wouldn't have to make instruction at all. It

is about reaffirming what the prosecution knows which is in some

cases we will look to make sure that justice is done and victims get

their day in court and if traditionally if there is going to

be a very minor penalty imposed, that we might not go ahead. But in

these cases, particularly in sexual offence cases we should think twice

about that and have a look at what the victim also wants. Can you say

hand on heart you will make this change, or reminding your

prosecutors of this, if it hadn't been some of the revelations this

year about how victims are laughed at and dismissed? This is a

consultation that has come about because we have been looking at old

cases. And where allegations have been made some time, there last been

a delay in making them. Our awareness changes about what makes

victims tell their stories later. Why they don't do it at the time and

really king that into account. We have developed in our thinking.

There is not very much that might make victims feel confident of that,

sadly. There is a huge number of people coming forward, the BBC

report that child abuse reporting goes up 80%, but the number of

arrests goes down. Knowing that it is all very well telling your

prosecutors to press on can their cases but how can they have

confidence? Rewest prosecute a large amount of case as year. Sexual abuse

cases we successfully brought out was 80 last year. If allegations

have gone up by 70% it is not good enough. It shows people are

confident in coming forward. You still have to investigate and there

has to be the evidence that is accumulated in order to get an

arrest. Doesn't that come to the difficulty, when you are talking

about things decades ago, the evidence is harder to accumulate,

memories fade, we have seen that in recent case, that is a big problem,

is it not? It is but it is not insurmountable and we can base a few

cases, the school in Buckinghamshire where we looked at prosecuting. A

man was a teacher and headmaster, these took places a few years ago.

Lots of places where we prosecute successful. Does it come down to a

question of cash. You have lost a quarter of your legal staff how can

you possibly devote all the resources you need to push these

cases through. Is it not better to concentrate on cases that are

happening now, when people are coming forward, rather than things

that might be harder to get results on. This isn't an issue about

resources but making sure we have the right evidence and it is in the

public interest to prosecute. Wait in which we have resoared ourselves

in order to deal with the resource issue has allowed us to. We now have

13 RASSU, it is experienced officers looking at the cases who know what

they are doing and really experienced. They really do know

what they are doing. How can you apply extra resources

for sometimes on by when they have made the most of it. We can use the

resources we have changed from digital changes to put into the

safety. It is about making sure we have the right evidence and it is in

the public interest to prosecute them. Do you accept that

prosecutions of allegations made in years gone by are you much -- are

much harder to get results in court? I don't see why victims are treated

any differently if they haven't made the allegation until now, why should

we penalise them again. They should be treated in exactly the same way

as current allegations and current victim, which is what we do. As you

are here I must ask you on what's happened in the last few days in

relation to the John Downey case and the collapse of that trial. Why did

the CPS go ahead with the prosecution, even though he had that

letter guarnteeing immunity. Why did it even come to that? It was a

really serious allegation. When we looked at the letter we thought

there was an arguable case to put before the court that said the

letter didn't actually grant immunity. It was saying if there was

legislative change, which there wasn't, then there would be

immunity. We thought there was an arguable case, we should it before

the court and the judge didn't criticise us for doing so, he

disagreed with us. Could there be a retrial? Not unless there is new

evidence. Is Why Why would you risk life and limb to

escape a brutal regime, only to return. Some of North Korea's 25,000

defectors who made it to the safety of the south are doing just that.

Why are some of the new arrivals prepared to leave comfort, freedom

and automatic South Korean citizenship behind, to go back to

their repressive homeland. On a clear day soldiers patrolling South

Korea's border can see North Koreans going about their lives. The

closeness of the two warring armies means patrols are thorough. Despite

land mines and watch towers between them, some North Korean defectors

have made it across undetected. The soldiers are warned to be alert for

signs of disturbance on both sides of the defence. A few months ago

their unit shot and killed a man here in South Korea as he tried to

swim across the river to the north. He's not the only one to try. Why

would anyone want to leave South Korea's bustling capital for a life

of hardship and repression in the north. Especially someone like Kim.

He's a North Korean success story, he escaped to the south to # years

ago, he's -- 20 years ago, he's married with two children and a

successful career. He has already tried once to return to the north

and is planning to do so again next year. TRANSLATION: It might appear I

have succeeded in south Korea, I haven't, my parents are in there,

and my siblings too, I haven't been able to see them. It is only natural

for me to find ways to visit and do it openly and legally. It is illegal

for South Korean citizen, including defectors to have any direct contact

with North Korea. No phone calls, e-mails or letters. Those with

family left behind push for warmer relations between the two

Governments in the hope seeing their parents, brothers or sisters

against. TRANSLATION: For me coming to South Korea was like tasting

chocolate for the first time. Taste was so tweet I -- sweet I wanted to

share it with them. I wanted to show what life is like, they have only

the negative view of capitalism, I love this country so much I owe it

to them to show it. He left his South Korean family in Seoul and

travelled to China. He knocked on the door of the North Korean embassy

there and said he wanted to go back to the motherland. Not forever, just

for a holiday. They let him in for a chat and then they told him to get

lost. They were really angry, he said. TRANSLATION: At the time

relations between the two Koreas were good and South Koreans visited

the north, nobody who came to the north tried t I was the first. There

was no problems getting into the embassy, when they learned I was a

part of it. I said I just wanted to visit my home down, they were very

angry. He did manage to take a both across North Korea's border with

China. He moored on the North Korean shoreline and filmed this rare

footage of North Korean soldiers patrolling the river bank.

Incredibly the soldiers allowed themselves to be filmed chatting,

accepting money and even stepping on to the boat. We have blurred their

faces to protect them. But to Mr Kim it is a sign that North Korea isn't

that dangerous at all. Not everyone would agree. We went to meet someone

who knows first hand the risks of living under the North Korean

regime. A North Korean defector to fled here a year ago after leaving

North Korea's prison camp number 12. TRANSLATION: I saw large maggots

going around, coming out of the corpes. People would dash for them

and put them in their pockets, they ate them later. I wondered if they

would be poisonous, and people were eating them to keep alive. I

wondered if I would. Others would capture rats and eat them raw, I

remember their mouths covered in blood. I have seen so many people

killed for breaking minor rules. In my cell alone three people were

killed within a month. Would you go back? Never, why would I go back to

that place of darkness. I wouldn't go, I would rather die. This was the

river that greeted Kim 18 months ago as he arrived in China with his wife

and child. They were North Korean defectors, running from economic

problems in the south. Mr Kim's plan was to redefect to North Korea by

swimming across the river. But the current was too strong, so he went

and knocked on the door of the nearest North Korean consulate

instead. It took him a week to persuade them he was serious, then

they let him in. When he arrived the regime threw and press conference,

Mr Kim and his family were taken to Pyongyang and paraded in front of

journalists there. He told them defectors like him who escaped to

South Korea were the victims of humam rights activists COMPLIERG

against the Korean -- conprioring against the state. Figures kept by

the South Korean Government say 13 defectors have returned home, but

activists say many more have gone back unofficially. For Mr Kim, life

in the south was now a distant memory, it is capitalist democracy

reviled and criticised. Except a few months later he decided to come

back. South Korea wasn't so welcoming a second time. Mr Kim was

hauled in front of this court behind me and asked to explain his erratic

behaviour. His lawyer cited financi difficulties in the north, other

propers suggested he may have feared for his safety. The court was

unamused and gave him a three-year jail sentence. We asked permission

to visit Mr Kim but it was denied. We moat to him instead and got this

reply. In it Mr Kim says that the press conferences arranged by North

Korea to showcase return detectors are compulsory, with speakers forced

to take part. This is my real and desperate story, he writes. Finding

place in South Korean society isn't easy for defectors. At this boarding

school for North Korean children in Seoul, staff teach core values like

trust and self-sufficiency alongside lessons in basic Korean language.

The two countries have been insulated from each other for so

long, that even the words used in the south can be foreign. It is hard

to find an America Di Canio know in the -- Americaano. But the

curriculum here is designed to steer them towards jobs that don't require

IT or employment skills. Mr Son, like other defectors got a package

of Government support on arrival, including this But debt problems

meant bailiffs took his fridge and washing opinion. Now his food ass

are stored on the unbeated balcony. Strapped between financial struggle

in the south and lack of contact with his family in the north. Mr Son

has drawn attention by applying to the Korean Government for permission

to go home. TRANSLATION: Over the years I have noticed the political

indifference and the interior battles they have. I asked myself

why I chose to come here, anywhere a North Korean person goes can face

discrimination. But the discrimination from your people is

terrible. One rule suggests 10,000 hours of practice leads to mastery

in each instrument. There is a new theory in town, and it is very

controversial. Academics from Yale University, Amy Chua, and Jen

Rubenfeld, also husband and wife are advocating the triple package. We

will hear from them in just a second. First why don't they think

three is the magic number. This book struck a nerve and generateded a

roar of publicity, with an unswerving part biographical

synopsis of strict Chinese parenting. Now she's back with a new

theory. This time tackling the apparent taboo of why some cultural

groups in America are queen cyst tently more successful -- are consit

tently more successful than others. Statistics show it is down to a so

called triple package of factors. The first is superiority complex,

people in some groups, she says, simply believe in their own talents

or feel they are destined to improve. The second in congras

diction is insecurity. Immigrants for example, she claims, feel like

they have more to prove. Or need to try harder just to be equal. And

then it is impulse control, good old fashioned self-discipline, some

parents are better at instilling than others. Is this really ground

breaking research or just a new list of cultural stereotypes.

It is a fascinating territory this. But when you look at some of the

things you say in the book, for example, why do so many Jews win so

many noble and Pulitzer Prizes, that sounds like a new modern kind of

racism doesn't it? I think it is the opposite what we show in their book,

first of all, is some of the most successful groups in America today

are black and Hispanic. Right off the bat it shows success has nothing

to do with skin colour or race. Secondly we showed the groups that

are very successful change dramatically over time. Asian

Americans they are extraordinary successful academically in the first

and second generations, by the third generation Asian American students

perform no better than the rest of the country. It is nothing

instrainsic in the culture. Let's take another example, why are

Mormans running the business and finance sections. You are running

massive broad brush-type assumptions here? It is not assumptioning. It is

a matter of fact, American Jews are less than 2% of the adult

population, and they have over a third of America's Nobel Prizes.

That is a fact and a little puzzling to me, what does it mean, you can't

state facts. Have you we got to the point if we state facts about

racism. We say things in the book like Asian American kids are

spending 70-100% more time on school work than the rest of the country.

It is a matter of fact. That is called cultural racism. If that is

cultural racism to state that fact, we will leave the entire stream of

race to the extremists who have genuine racist views happy to tell

you what they think all over the media. If pro--ive people are too --

progressive people are to afraid to enter the fray then... You say all

you are doing is highlight he can success here, who are not on your

list? First of all it is not about good and bad groups. That is what

your book is all about, success, superiority, how do you get to the

top? It is about certain behaviours and who is doing well right now. We

say there are certain behaviours, partly the combination of feeling

exceptional and insecure that creates this drive and discipline.

These behaviours are open to people of any ethnicity and any group. You

pick out groups that are doing well and those who are not. Certain

groups are instilling the qualities more in their families, in their

children, and therefore they are doing better. Our idea is rather

than make it taboo let's figure out some behaviours, it is pretty

simple. We show these groups start at a young age, pre-school, more

fork can hes used behaviour -- focussed behaviour. If we hide the

information, you don't he don't need to worry, you can't say that because

how can it lead to progress and deal with education reform. What about

happiness, you are preaching in this group, your triple package,

security, discipline. What about enjoying yourself? We have two

chapters where we lay out the problem. It is an honest look of the

costs of this drive that some groups are instilling with their kids, it

is not a mischaracterisation in the book. We point out at the extreme

this is culture and upbringing can produce a great deal of unlapness.

In fact if any of us had a potten to to push that chose between success

and happiness, we all pick happiness. Is it that simple. You

over row Manchester United nice kids, you don't give them the tools

to survive in this economy. Will they be happy? I suspect your

message might raise more eyebrows than it has in the US. What can we

learn from what you are preaching and put anything the book? One thing

we notice is a lot of the successful groups are instilling in their

families and children this message. Which is very unpolitically correct,

we believe in you but not good enough yet. That feeling seems very

nasty to tell your child they are not good enough yet, but I think

about the other extreme, feeling you are not quite good enough and

feeling you need to prove yourself is titled wide. The arts market

isn't always a pretty picture, people with enormous chequebooks

buying books they don't really want, because they can. On show right now

is something rather different, a collection put together with love. A

pick and mix of misselly, a thousand pigs, s or Saab wells -- Orsan Wales

script. Outfoxed but criminally undervalued, Stephen Smith took

himself along to Sothebys for an exclusive look at the catalogue. It

is one of those things you can't not want to take home with you, it was

awkward because it wouldn't fit in the back of the cap!

This is fun I like this. Chris is parting with the collection of a

lifetime. Art and furniture. Object and conversation pieces. Some of

them more like ex-clam makes mark -- ex-clamation marks. The

extraordinary thing about this, it was discovered by an amateur

archaeologist. Somebody who was able to recognise that this was an

Anglo-Saxon limestone, I think it is, have you found it in a ladies'?

Garden and went and inyard about it, the lady said it was a stone she had

found and used it as a sort of head stone for a dead stray cat. It was

called Winkle. How sweet. For more than 30 years Chris on the right

here was the partner of Stanley Seeger, the heir to an oil and

timber fortune. Their homes were cabinets of curiosities, filled with

great paintings. But also store-front-signage that caught

their eye, and dinosaur eggs. Were you as bad as each other, if you

forgive the expression, or did Stanley take the lead? We competed.

Did you? We competed, we were like a two-man raid. I think Stanley wanted

to impress me with what he had found, and I would have to find

something that was probably even more... That could thump it?

something that was probably even Yes. We helped each other, we were

like two naughty school boys, we would have stolen apples together if

that is what it took. It was fun. It was great. It was a spree and a

laugh? ? It was a spree and a lark. 1,000 curios are going under the

hammer next week. With estimates ranging from ?100 to ?120,000. Many

have an interesting provenance, as they say. This belonged to Rudolf

you are in yes the world's best -- Nureyev, the world's best coat

stand, you get a lot on there. It is great. This was presented to Al

Capone, by the boys. In 1932. "To a regular guy" isn't that great. There

is a certain frisson to a bloody Mary served out of that. Nelson's

teapot, I think this is what he is meant to have taken to sea? You

didn't just acquire these things and put them in a humidified vault to

appreciate did you. Unlike some collectors with their treasures. I

don't know, no, we look at these things. You are very hands on. Did

you enjoy saying to each other fancy a couple of tea from the Nelson

depot. It sounds precious. More movie buffs this particularly lot is

the equivalent of the Dead Sea scrolls, it ises or son Orson Wells

own copy of the script. It would have been on the desk of the

director for read throughs. There was only a quibble, don't call it

American, why not go with Citizen Kane. Home for stand low and Chris

was once Paul Getty's former mansion, Sutton Place, they made

sure they weren't in if there were visitors. Who acquired those

horrific works of art? Well they are part of Mr Seeger's collection. It

was Francis Bacon which the pair sold in 2001, for a record price of

?9 million. A fraction of what it is worth now. They also had # eight

Picassos for a time. I remember at breakfast saying Christopher I need

a rose picture, a rose period. Keep your ayes open. One came along and

then the collection was sort of done. Proceeds from the auction will

benefit Seeger's favourite charities and academic research. The only

problem for me is that since Stanley died I'm constantly being reminded's

dead. Everywhere I look it is "the late Stanley J Seeger". It might be

better if it was the early Stanley J seeinger, I wouldn't mind having him

back. Guess what know -- snow on the way for most of us. According to its

creator it took a microscope and to produce it. He then did something in

the edit because it looked nicer. Good night. Wintry weather

overnight, further south strong winds for a time in the far

south-west, easing through the morning and there will be some snow.