Conrad Black - Former CEO of Hollinger International HARDtalk

to maintain the ship. Now on BBC News it is time for

HARDtalk. From global media baron to

convicted criminals serving time in a Florida prison, the remarkable

rise and fall of Conrad Black, it has made full use of lurid

headlines, not least in the newspapers that he used to our own.

Now Conrad Black is a free man out to rebuild his reputation on both

sides of the Atlantic. After a turbulent decade, is he a changed

man? Conrad Black, Lord Blyth, welcome

to HARDtalk. You have had an amazing few years, full of bitter

legal battles, and the best part of three years in a US prison. How has

the experience changed do? Significantly, I think so. I

consider live to be a privilege in every form. Even though my

circumstances were much changed, there were still interest. I had to

undergo a process, that I had been falsely accused and falsely

convicted, the fact that I knew it had happene had happenenot prepare me

but I got through it best I can. Falsely accused and falsely

imprisoned, those are notions that I would like to test. But before I

test them, I would like to spend some time considering the rise of

Conrad Black. I want to know why you chose to exercise all your

energy and you dry up in the newspaper industry. It was not your

family's business. Why were you so determined to become a global

player in newspapers? My greatest interest was in the newspaper

business, and the reason was because about time, and we are

going back, many years ago, more than 40 years, in the late 60s, at

that time, it was a very good business as a business. It had 20%

margin, pre-tax profit on total turnover, and that is quite a

handsome return for a business. It was not really labour intensive,

you had plenty of personnel, but it was not overly labour intensive,

like the retail business, and it was not terribly capital intensive

as well. You had to buy new presses every 20 years, but you did not

have to constantly renew it. And beyond that, it was the news, and

by definition it was interesting. It brought you in contact with news

makers. You had a ringside seat on everything. There was a financial

proposition that you found attractive, and to build this

empire, you acquired newspapers right across the globe, but it

brought to something else, the proximity to power. Not just power,

but interesting people. A lot of them are not powerful but they have

done interesting things. When you brought the Daily Telegraph, you

said you had finally a meaningful political voice. That is true.

it ego? It is a rather truncated description. But one can enjoy it

for reasons other than ego. It is not that I thought, and no way in

my book that you will find any suggestions of it, but I thought I

had any great power, but it is undoubtedly interesting in a way,

and not a describable way, satisfying to know that you had

access. When you dined with prime ministers... but I was never

distracted into the delusion that it conferred any great power on to

myself. Very rarely did I any desert any influence on anybody. --

exert. But you will not be stand back newspaper proprietor. That is

a complete fraud. That is like the head of a company is saying that he

is not concerned with the quality of the product. I said as long as

we separate opinion from comment, and as we make the paper

interesting, you would have my absolute support, and not one of my

editors would say that I embark a varied that support. You speak of

Max Hastings, I called him once at ten minutes to midnight. He

exaggerates. He said the best cure to mental depression was a cup of

tea. I want to tease out the rise of Conrad Black. You had acquired

more newspapers, you were making big profits, the turnover of the

group was $2 billion, and then things started to go wrong. Profits

were down, investment was down. And yet as we now know, and that brings

us to the legal battles that to Ford, the payments be received by

you, Conrad Black, from various financial vehicles, were

extraordinary high, into the millions and millions of dollars.

That raised amount -- alarm bells from the minority shareholders.

never made more than $2.5 million. It is not excessive for a $2

billion company. It is not a change. I did not say it was chump change.

You were paying yourself an awful lot of money. Just of options of

stock. Don't imagine that they were living on skid row. I have been in

lifestyle like yours, with the private jets, the mansions in

different locations, and they are high profile extravagance which

made newspaper headlines around the world. You loved all of it. No. I

do not like any reference to extravagance. The private planes

were not private, the company had two, and I used one of them. But so

did editors and employees. I did not use them exclusively. There was

a great deal of hyperbole in certain sections of the media. I

find that kind of discussion, I know that you asked me the

questions, but I find that kind of discussion to be extremely vulgar.

I do not think that shareholders would regarded as vulgar to inquire

that the fact you were using those players for your own personal use

was legitimate. That was a real concern. The total net cost of the

planes, the one plai we hat

we had newspapers in �120 in the Geographic Society would not have

head the head of National Geographic

magazine would not have heard of any of them any of them them

on United Airlines. The plain that I sometimes used, cost the company

perhaps $1 million a year. I was not the only used up. Far from it.

We had a $400 million pre-tax profit. Let's keep things in

to live with the perception, that began with began with tigation

commissioned by your own company, it went through US federal criminal

investigators, it went through the courts, to the Supreme Court, back

to an appeals court, there has been a constant drip of allegations

against you, many of them were ultimately not turned into criminal

charges, that at the end of all of this, you sit here as a convicted

criminal. That is the trip. No, it is not and I will tell you why. In

the first place, let us take note of the $500 million... it takes

down -- it comes down to the rejection by jurors. And the

spurious retrieval by a judge in such -- Chicago of $285,000. That

money, it is uncontested, it was approved by the audit committee,

are approved by the directors, part of a much larger profit that the

company made as a result of my actions, was received by its office,

and I was assured by the senior legal officer out that it was

lawful, and it was fully publicised and highlighted in the filings.

problem that you have, as I ended in my previous statement, was that

you are a convicted criminal. And you said no. The reason I said no,

is to fold, I requested to be judged on the basis of what the law

would decid would decidWith respect, that is irrelevant. You

chose to do business in the US. Implicitly, you must abide by the

laws of the land. And Nelson Mandela at lives in South Africa.

Would you call him a convicted criminal? And you feel that you

work living in North Korea, as how they approach to the rule of law?

90% are settled on a plea. The 3% that are trialled, 85% of them are

in dictions. People receive four times as great... that will not

stand up in any court of law. The basis for your innocence? I will

tell you the basis for my innocence. If these matters occurred in this

country, no charges would have been laid, the same in Canada. The

second thing, if it had been vacated by the High Court

unanimously, they would not have remanded into the same people, the

instruction to look at the grave city of their own areas. -- gravity.

I agree on its face and that it was a conviction... it leaves you with

a criminal record and are able to enter the US. That is the reality

that to appear are able to deal with. You have to accept that if

you are going to answer the questions, my presence here is

irrelevant. I can deal with it, but I expect the status to change.

Three, the case that remains of it, is still under appeal. Of course it

is under appeal. You never give up. Why should I, I am innocent.

stand before me not as an innocent man but a convicted criminal. It is

the psychology that I am interested in. Let me ask you something that

is relevant to what you are asking me. Let's say for a moment that I

actually broke the law, but what is the idea? I served three years in a

US prison, so I am not a criminal any more. You still had a criminal

record. If you actually believe all the buck, and no Americans do,

because they know how the system works, it is this insane head boy

it using trainers that I encounter in this country. The British know

that the US is a half-mad country, they know how corrupt the justice

system is, why am I being confronted with this? If it is a

half-mad country, with a legal system akin to North Korea, why did

you embrace it? You have a palatial home in Florida, you had a home in

New York. You appear to relish life in this land which you now...

a great country, the fact that it has prosecuted me. North Korea is

not a great country. The legal systems are the same, but not in

any other ways. Do you believe the legal system is rotten in the core,

you would not have invested tens of millions of dollars in businesses

that were fundamental to you and your shareholders. It would have

been utterly irresponsible. If I had known how corrupt the legal

system was, I would not have I just wonder, perhaps on a

philosophical level, as you sat in prison, you had plenty of time to

think. I wonder if you were thinking about other mistakes that

you made. Beyond a certain point, you will appreciate that it is not

a legitimate thing for the BBC to ask me that. I have confessions to

make and unmake them to authorised professionals indiscreet

circumstances. -- and I make them. I believe in confession and I

believe in the punishment of crime. I also believe it when people have

paid the legally approved penalty, that is the end of that. They

should stop being badgered. What about reflecting on shareholders?

Let me tell you something, brother. They had a flourishing company for

two years after I left. The you are seeing the collapse of Hollinger

had nothing to do with you. The I ran a good company and nobody

disputes that. Do you regard it as a mistake that you gave up your

Canadian citizenship? You used some words which infuriated you fellow-

countryman. You said that Canada had become a trap for you and it

had become an impediment to your progress. Do you regret that?

I have made amends for it. It is more complicated than that. Can I

Finnish answer to the previous question? Abul put them together. -

- Finnish answer. I will put them together. I did contemplate,

naturally, as any sane person would, what mistakes I had made. If I had

not made any, I would not have been there. I made mistakes to be there.

I am not trying to catch you out but I would be fascinated to know

what you regard as a mistake. too much trust in a partner could

turn date to be criminal and they could not have known that. I did

not know how dangerous the legal system was. I was naive. I thought

there was no problem and that would be the end of it. They tore the

place apart and fattened up the legal fees and destroyed the

company. That is what normally happens. I made a number of

mistakes. I did not take the corporate government seriously. It

is essentially a fraud but I did not realise it had great currency

and could severely disrupt my ability to run the company. All of

those were mistakes. The message is, you were naive. Nothing more than

that. I committed no ethical or legal errors. I asked you about

Canada. You give up your citizenship. You wanted to come

here. You could not do that without giving up citizenship. The manner

in which she did it infuriated Canadians. More than 60 % said they

do not want you to become a citizen again. You are referring to one

poll in a newspaper that I never did own that said 68 % of people

were opposed to what was put as a question that was never in fact on

offer as an alternative. You said I should not be allowed back in the

country. Do you think that the British public would be comfortable

with the notion of using in your seat in the UK house of Lords?

Playing a role in the British legislative process. I come back to

it, on the record, in the United States, you have a criminal record.

Do the British people want that? think if they knew the facts they

would be comfortable. Unless it was pushed in their faces in a rather

exaggerated way by the British media then they would not much care.

Why should they care? It is academic. I would have no thought

of trying to play any role in the House of Lords unless controversy

and emotion had subsided and there was a general comfort level about

this. Let's face it, 90 % of people don't care about me and why should

they? If I was a resident here, -- unless I was a resident here, I

could not come flitting in and out. Also, if I ceased to be, as they

have been because of this persecution in the United States,

distracted from these problems. I only know the names of about six to

seven of the cabinet secretaries. I used to know all these people. I

was involved. Before I would consider thinking I could think in

these terms, I would have to be back here but everything settled

down and know what I am talking about. You said you used to know

these guys. I wonder where the meaning of your life lies now. You

were such a driven man to get into newspapers. What drives you now?

am and relaunch mode. You come back from it. I was officiously -- I was

viciously, murderously assaulted. You will never go back into

newspapers. It is not a vibrant industry these days. You will not

go back to the top table of the political elite. What will you do?

I am disappointed with politicians. In all my time, only three or four

made a difference. This has flourished my time as a writer. It

has not damaged mac talents as a financier. Disappointed by

politicians is an interested -- interesting phrase. I don't expect

things from them. You expected from George W Bush. You thought you

could call in some chips. You had supported them. It never happened.

It was supported by his father. His father gave it to him. Your request

for a pardon? It was supported by a number of other people. They told

me that something could be done. ignored due? He did not reject it.

He did not do anything. What does that tell you about the alliance's

and friendships you thought you had? That is a general question.

Most people I thought were friends. 95 % of the people, including

prominent people in this country that they thought were friends,

have been magnificent. If Mitt Romney were to win the presidency,

would you like to see him offer you a pardon? Is it something you might

expect? I would not expect a pardon. You cannot go to the United States

unless something happens. The way I had been treated, I cannot. I would

face up but with fortitude and courage. America is a great world.

What I think will happen, and I won't predict that time, booby the

decision by the home and security department, I am not a person of

such moral turpitude is to be a threat to American society. That is

the recommendation of the court in due cackle and on my prohibition. -

- the court in Chicago. I do not care about a pardon. I hope to win

my appeal. If I do not, I deliver the verdict. I will publish more

akin to that. -- I will live with the verdict. As far as I am

concerned, I won that battle. final thought, not so long ago, you

were a guy could tick away from 500,000 holidays by a corporate jet

to far-flung islands. -- who took your wife away. I am trying to

destroy your lifestyle. And the recent past, you had to clean out

of prison toilet. A shower stall. I never cleaned the latrine. I stand

corrected. As a result what happened to you, are you a humbler

man? I hope so. Do you think? hope so. I think so. I don't want

to be in the position of moral a signing my own expense account. I

try. I do my best. I am a conscientious Christian who tries

to be a decent person. I am not under the illusion I am the nicest