16/08/2011 Newsnight

Could this be the most compelling evidence yet of a phone hacking

cover-up at News International, former royal reporter, Clive

Goodman, claims hacking was discussed widely at editorial

meetings, and said he was told he could keep his job if he didn't

implicate the paper in court. shows how many people in the

company were involved in phone hacking, a devastating piece of

evidence. We will discuss what damage these allegations could do

to News International and James and Rupert Murdoch. Four years for

trying to incite a riot on Facebook last week. That was the sentence

given to these two men in the Crown Court today. Rough justice? We ask

a leading QC if the courts are getting it right? Also the

extraordinary world of the 21st century slum and the lessons they

hold for the west. People have built their shantys either side of

this canal, it is only six feet wide in parts. We discover these

Manila residents won't be cleared from their homes. We will fight,

this is what we want, we will fight for our freedom. We will fight for

our community. According to a letter by a former News of the

World reporter, and published today by a Parliamentary Committee, phone

hacking was rife at the News of the World, and discussed at the daily

meetings. A letter by Clive Goodman, also alleges that the editor, Andy

Coulson, offered to let him keep his jop if he agreed not to

implicate the paper in court. As well as evidence from a cover-up

at News International, there were serious questions raised about

whether James Murdoch misled parliament over his knowledge of

the extent of hacking at News of the World.

In the News International version of events, many details thus far

have been obscured, they have maintained throughout that the then

News of the World editor, Andy Coulson, and other senior figures

knew nothing about widespread illegal practices at the paper.

The paper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, pleaded guilty to phone

hacking and in January 2007, was imprisoned for four months. In

parliament, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, has been

pursuing this matter since 2003. At lunchtime today they announced they

were now about to release some important new documents. Within the

evidence that will be published at 1.00, there are some devastating

revelations which will mean the company in general will have

questions to answer. In amongst a huge shrew of

documents released by the parliamentary select committee

today, perhaps the most explosive is this, dated March 2007, it is

from Clive Goodman, he is replying to a letter from News International

telling him they are terminating his employment. He writes back with

some serious allegations about just how widespread hacking was at News

of the World. Mr Goodman complains the decision

is inconsistent because other members of staff were carrying out

the same illegal procedures. He goes on to say that the practice

was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until

explicit reference to it was banned by the editor. The editor, it is

widely assumed tonight, was Andy Coulson. But further on in the

letter Mr Goodman makes another, even more serious allegation. He

says tomorrow Crone and the editor promised on many occasion that is

he could come back to a job on the newspaper if he did not implicate

the paper or any of the staff in the mitigation plea. He did not,

and expected the paper to honour its promise to him. It is obviously

a serious document. Elinor Goodman alleges that is in return for his

sigh - Clive Goodman allege that is in return for his silence News

International would look after him, and others were up to their necks

in phone hacking. He also claims that the senior editor, Andy

Coulson, knew what was happening. Here is the other strange thing, in

amongst the huge pile of document, there was not just one version of

Clive Goodman's letter to his bosses complaining about his

dismissal, but two. With those serious allegation about hacking at

News of the World, there came via the law firm that dealt with the

unfair dismissal case. The other version had the details blacked out,

in some cases missing all together. Who supplied this version to the

committee? News International and James Murdoch. We asked News

International to account for the discrepancy between these two

versions of the letter, but couldn't get any official comment.

In statement though, they told us that they recognised the

seriousness that the materials disclosed and are working in a

constructive and open way with all the relevant authorities.

We learned today also of the payments made to Clive Goodman

after his dismissal by News Why pay so much, the select

committee wants to know, to someone who had been convicted of a

criminal offence. As a former accountant and finance director,

you should always follow the cash, the cash often leads to the truth.

Whether that is trying to track down payments to police, or indeed

payments to employees who have been dismissed. A lot of these things do

need to be answered. Within six months of that letter being written

by Clive Goodman, he received over �200,000 in payments from the

newsgroup, and we need to try to understand why that is. If you

don't believe a word he saying, why would you go and pay all that kind

of money. Some members of the select

committee are concerned they may have been misled over the scale of

these payments to Clive Goodman. In late 2009, Rebekah Brooks admitted

written evidence to the select committee, in it she said the

payment to Goodman, and there was only one, she said, was less than

�60,000, plus an unspecified sum to cover his notice period.

We now know the real figure was in excess of �240,000.

News International was still claiming that Goodman was a lone

rogue reporter, but police had more information, Glenn Mulcaire, the

private investigator used by Goodman, had 1 1,000 pages of notes.

Police found an exmail to someone at News of the World from - e-mail

to someone at News of the World marked "for Neville ", it was a

transcript of a message left on the phone of Gordon Taylor, as they

were not interested in the world of football, the implication is

someone else at the paper must have been involved. In April 2008 Taylor

was paid several hundred thousand pounds sanctioned by James Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch has told parliament and others that he was not aware of the

"for Neville" e-mail at the end. When you signed off the Taylor

payment, did you see, or were you made aware of the full Neville e-

mail, or the transcript of the voicemail message. I was not aware

of that at that time. In today's shrew of documents, a letter from

Tom Crone to the select committee. Mr Crone was legal manager at News

of the World at the time. He The final set of revelations today

has come from News International's one time law firm, Harbottle &

Lewis. They were asked by News International to go through some

internal e-mails to see if Clive Goodman's claim of wider knowledge

of the phone hacking stood up. They said they could find no evidence.

Harbottle & Lewis claimed that this information was wrongly

misrepresented as a full scale inquiry. This is James Murdoch from

last month. It is a key bit of legal advice from senior counsel

that was provided to the company. Today the committee has written to

several previous witness, including James Murdoch, posing further

questions. It seems likely that many f not all will be recalled to

give further evidence. We asked News International on to

the programme, but they didn't want to appear. Joining me now in the

studio is former News of the World editor, Paul Connew, columnist for

the Mail, Stephen Glover, and from Hull, the former deputy Prime

Minister, Lord Prescott. How significant do you think these

letters, all these documents are in the action with News International?

Very significant. It is what a lot of us have believed for a long time,

though denied by Murdoch. There was a conspiracy of silence between a

lot of people at the top. When I hear them now contradicting what

was said, why did they keep their mouths shut when all of us were

fight to go show it wasn't a one- person operation. Murdoch's

business philosophy is pay them off, as much money as you can, deny the

evidence, make sure it looks as only one company, and then withhold

information. Murdoch press have been involved in that from the

beginning when a few of us were trying to stop it. The murd mur

press will deny that. We have to - the Murdoch press will deny. That

we have to make clear these are allegations by Clive Goodman, he

was convicted and put in prison and found guilty of a crime, but this

letter is quite self-serving, you have to admit? Those of us saying

there was something wrong, the police were giving us the wrong

information, the PPC hadn't investigated properly. They knew

they had the e-mail of 2007, which said, what he was threatening to do,

he was bargaining, he got paid off, they paid the money, what did they

pay that for. Paul Connew, it wasn't proven they were paying him

off. They agree he was paid, you heard in the production. I think

Rebekah Wade thought it was �60 though, now we hear it is up to a

quarter of a million. We don't know if they were paying them off or

this the notice period they were paying off. Let me bring in the

studio guests in London. He went to jail and committed the

offence, I don't know any other employee gets that situation.

without doubt an explosive moment in this whole saga. But it depends

on whether Clive Goodman's letter is accurate. Now, quite clearly he

was looking for the maximum payment possible. Could there be a veiled

threat in that letter? There could be. Many media observers and former

editor, including myself, have been sceptical about the idea that there

was a lone rogue and people didn't know what was going on. At the

moment, in fact, the only person convicted it Clive Goodman. The PR

disaster for News International, and it has been for some time. But

they don't really know precisely what Mulcaire has got. And there

has always been cover-ups internally, we don't know who has

misled who inside News International. Harbottle & Lewis

believe they were misled in the parliamentary commity. There is a

conflict in evidence, that is the company's lawyers. It is incredibly

murky, this cannot be a good day for the Murdochs? It is, and mind-

boggling involved. We may think we understand it, I have to put a

towel round my head and I'm meant to make a living out of this stuff.

Whether the dog or the duck remotely follows what is going on,

it is not a good day for the Murdochm pyre, the story has

advanced a bit - Murdoch empire, the story has advanced a bit, but

there are some revelations. They will ask James Murdoch to come back,

he can handle himself very well, he's a very shriek, some what

slippery character. Who knows what will happen. I think we are

advancing towards what we know in our hearts is that the News of the

World was a dysfunctional paper, and there were lots of executives

who knew what was going on. didn't write that to begin with,

you disbelieved all the arguments that a few of us were trying to put

up. Like most of the press they ignored it. What I said, and what I

still do say, is that I don't think this is the most important story in

the world. Isn't it the case that because t apart from it being going

on for a long time. The people that have been affected are people, by

and large, are people perhaps that can fight for themselves, but

actually, the wider world, the great British public is getting

less and less concerned about this? I'm not sure that's true. Some of

them are making contrast, if you look at Twitter, two guys have got

four years for using the social network to advocate riot, terribly

wrong, no doubt about it, four yirs and we have been about five years -

four years, and we have been about five years trying to get a company

to admit it was involved in a criminal conspiracy. I have been

involved in phone-ins over the last weeks and months. What is

interesting is callers are pretty evenly de divided, a lot of they

will feel there is a grave danger here that politicians are looking

for way to actually control the press through statutory regulation

and they don't like it. They want a robust press, even one that is

flawed. If the public see that wrongdoing is going unpunished, why

should they have any faith? There is a crisis of confidence in the

public about so many cornerstones of democracy, press, politicians,

and the police. There is no reason for people, if they have been

guilty of wrongdoing to get away with it by phone hacking? I'm not

suggesting that. There is a real public crisis of confidence here,

and it goes beyond the press, the press is part of their

disillusionment at the moment. you support the PCC, its role has

been abominable. They have behaved badly, but I still believe in self-

regulation, but with real teeth. In fact, a recent study showed that of

the 25 countries with effective free press, 21 of them had self-

regulation, only four had statutory regulation, and two of those are

thinking of changing it. For the public to have faith in the press

again, do you think there has to be regulation, or is self-regulation

sufficient? Self-regulation will have to be tightened up. When Lord

Prescott rails against the PCC, they didn't have vast resources and

they were lied to by people from News of the World again and again.

In those circumstances it is difficult for anybody, when the

wool is pulled over their eyes, to go on. Where do you think it will

go on from here, we know letters have been issued for clarification,

and we know there will be more sittings on the 6th September. Are

you saying you will keep pushing away at this for as long as it

takes? I am pushing away at the courts, with the judicial review,

the police didn't carry out their proper job. I want the courts to

bring them in and explain why they didn't look at the evidence. What

was the influence with the Murdoch press, I'm in that battle with one

or two others. The PPC, we should have taken the 1997 solution, which

was opposed by the press, was still a form of regulation but had

sanctions. That is the way forward to guarantee some accountability of

a press that is, frankly, out of control. Let's look at the what ifs,

if it is found that James Murdoch did mislead parliament, is it

conceivable he could run any part of the Murdoch empire? I don't

think so, if that was established beyond doubt, that would be the end

of James Murdoch. There is a wider question any way as to whether

Rupert Murdoch will maintain control over the empire. A lot of

people in New York don't like the fuss, who don't regard the British

newspapers as particularly important, and think that Mr

Murdoch is too involved. biographer has been talking about

the fact that Rupert Murdoch is ready to sell News International?

think James Murdoch's position, should Colin Myler and Tom Crone

version be correct, then obviously he's an untenable position, and

even Rupert Murdoch won't be able to...Why Didn't they say it before,

when this is going on for years, Mr Myler said he inspected all the

evidence and e-mails and he could say there is no other fd. He said

that then when he - evidence, he said that then when he must have

known that information? There is a dispute over who saw what. That is

one of the great mysteries. It is unedifying when everyone is

scrabling to save their skins? Absolutely, the other point is the

public are very quick to point out it was the press that has actually

exposed the phone hacking scandal. You mean the Guardian. The rest of

the press kept quiet about it. Before we finish this conversation,

I would like to bring one person's name into the frame who hasn't been

discussed tonight, that is Coulson. Again, these are just allegations,

for Andy Coulson this is extremely bad day? Yes, and for David Cameron

too. A lot of people felt it was hostage to fortune with that

appointment. Whether Andy Coulson is guilty of anything or not, it

was still a very risky decision, and David Cameron must be rueing it

tonight. Even if Coulson turns out to be innocent, and he is until

proved guilty, we can all say it was a bad misjudgment on Mr

Cameron's part. There were people telling him, I wrote to him in 2009

in July saying it is unwise to appoint Coulson, I said you were

the opposition at the time, and if you come into Government and

appoint him as a civil servant, that would be terribly brong and

reflect on his judgment. 2009 - wrong and will reflect on his

judgment. It is beginning to do that now. The sentencing of people

involved in the criminal rioting and damaging last week is carrying

on. Two young men received a custodial sentence, after they used

to Facebook to try to incite disorder in Warrington.

The men of previous good character are going to jail for four years.

Does the punishment fit the crime or are the judges overreacting to

the riots. Here is our report.

Justice has been swift, sentences stiff, the Government's tough

rhetoric, matched by tough decisions from the courts. Today

these two men were jailed for four years each, or inciting disorder on

Facebook. Neither had previous convictions and no riots actually

took place. The police had been monitoring what was being posted.

The Assistant Chief Constable of Cheshire Police said tonight that

social media had been used to incite behaviour that would strike

fear into communities, the sentences are meant as a deterrent.

In the wake of last week's looting, it is alleged that magistrates are

to disregard normal guidelines and issue tougher sentences than they

normally would. This is Hackney last week, looters running riot.

Today, as you see, life is pretty much back to normal here. But

plenty of young people now face court that has been sitting through

the night and weekends. Unprecedented times, but are the

sentences being meted out commensurate with the crimes.

Government is taking it a bit too far. Giving people custodial

sentences for theft, because it is actually theft, it is not burglary,

and I think it is ridiculous, it is over the top. What the Government

is trying to do is send a message out to all the other people so it

doesn't happen again. I think some of them are too harsh, I heard a

boy got sentenced for six months for stealing water worth �3.50.

That is too harsh. I understand they should be punished. It is a

bit extra really. It is not the bottle of water, but what you would

have had, the effect it would have had on the people inside.

support very strong sentences? if it will be a deterrent.

Others told us the looters should be made to clear up what they have

broken rather than be put behind bars, and not surprisingly

differences of opinions here are echoed far way in the Westminster

world. There are cases where offenders who have committed

serious crimes should expect very serious sentences, that is what I

expect to happen. But there have been some case where is people who

have committed petty offences have received sentences which, if they

had committed the same offence a day before the riots they would not

have received a sentence of that nature. I think we need to be very

careful of that, that this should be about restorative justice, in

other words making people acknowledge the offences they have

committed and preferably if the victims wanted, to actually sit

down, face-to-face with the victims to hear from the victims the impact

they have had, but it should not be about retribution. This is one of

the most memorable images of what what happened in England last week,

a furniture store in Croydon in flames. The MP for the area has

strong views about how to proceed. We are seeing the sentencing people

have wanted to see for years. I sent out an e-mail to all the

people in my constituency that I have an e-mail address for, on

Tuesday, I had over 1300 responses, there was a virtual unanimity that

people wanted the courts to get tough with the people that caused

the terrible criminality in Croydon. It will help people restore

confidence in the justice system, and send out a clear message that

this kind of disorder will not be tolerated. Over 1,000 people have

appeared before the courts. With many more still to be processed,

the controversy will continue over how they should be treated.

I'm joined by the leading criminal barrister, John Cooper QC, and the

Conservative MP for Stourbridge. The two men inciting violence, four

years, a good decision? I wouldn't want to second guess the court and

the judge. I wouldn't challenge the decision. The young men involved

were inciting a riot, trying to organise a sort of mayhem that we

saw on the streets eight nights ago in Salford. Which would have put

lives at risk. And at the very least they distracted the police

from trying to deal with that crisis. They put a lot of fear into

people. At least one of them turned up at the site with full intention

to steal and loot. Four years a reasonable sentence for that?

I do think so, yes. A reasonable sentence, it was a serious crime,

if they had incited violence there could have been mayhem, injuries

and a lot of looting? All offences are serious offences, nothing I

have to say can take-away from that. This sentence in my view is over

the top. I anticipate it going to the Court of Appeal, and probably

being overturned there. A lot of these sentence also they go to the

Court of Appeal? I anticipate a lot will. What we need to remember is

there is a protocol for sentencing, there are rules and procedures in

sentencing which make them effective and fair. What we can't

do, in my view, in situations like this, is suddenly throw the

rulebook away, simply because there is a groundswell of opinion. We

don't sentence people by virtue of a reality television programme or

an X-factor, your contributor earlier on, one of the MPs, said he

had contacted all his constituents and this is what they think. If

sentences were based on that it would be a great reality TV show

but not great justice. You are saying earlier on the judges are

becoming hysterical, it sounds like a lot of people are hugely charged

up and no wonder, in a way, because of the atmosphere? I don't think it

is an overreaction, I think this time a week ago, eight or nine

nights ago, this country was in had a terrible state. People lost their

lives. Police were faced with unprecedented levels of violence

from a mob. People were just going in and helping themselves to things.

Certainly, in my lifetime, I don't think I have ever been as shocked

and ashamed by anything in this country. Is the atmosphere

different to before the riot, and you were talking about discounting

sentencing in your own party, but people going for the maximum

sentences, and you want judges to go for that? I have certainly

argued for that, I respect your point that it is not up to the

public or MPs as to what is a sentence in the court of law. I

would hope that judges would air on the side of severity for cases like

this. It is not for anyone else but the judges or the magistrates to

make these decisions. When we hear that Government are telling judges

and magistrates to sentence on a wholly different set of priorities.

There is direction coming from the clerks of the court, but not

politicians? Certainly there is a suggestion that an indication has

been given. I certainly haven't heard the Home Secretary, the

Justice Secretary or the Prime Minister try to second guess the

courts and tell them what they should be doing. That is reashuergs

to hear that, I am reassured. You were talking about the MPs

hearing from constituents, isn't the job of MPs to reflect the

public mood. If people are feeling insecure and feeling people should

be put away for crimes, that if they are not put away for, may

commit again quickly, you can understand why people feel insecure

at the moment? I can absolutely understand why people feel insecure,

and the emotion barely a woke after it happened, but it is part and

process of the legal procedure to take a step back from this, and

make sure justice administered isn't quick justice, but sound

justice. Another point I would like to make. A lot of people at the

moment who have been arrested, who would normally get bail, are not

being given bail, but being held in custody, for reasons no other than

the public mood is up. I think the reason is that they have taken part

in a riot and put lives at risk. There is a difference between going

into a shop and shoplifting something, that is a serious crime

in itself, it is different to using violence and mayhem to create that

opportunity. Some of these people haven't. Do you think we are in an

atmosphere where you should revisit sentencing and make it tougher, and

the road the Conservative Government started down was the

wrong one, discounting sentences for a guilty plea? That was a

consultation that the Government decided to not proceed with. I

think we all know there is an issue with jail spaces, and the early

guilty plea does have merit, and it is a current policy. But there was

a feeling that 50% reduction was a step too far. Do you seriously

think now, that people, the mood in the country is for tougher

sentences? I think the mood in the country is for tougher sentences

than we have had for many years. I don't think this is a product of

the riots just. I want to make one point, one of the people on the

preamble were talking rightly about restorative justice, and community

payback. Cleaning up the mess they have created. These things are not,

they don't contradict a prison sentence. There is no reason why

you shouldn't serve some time in prison, and also give the victims

of your crime restorative justice. It is estimated around one billion

people live in shantytowns all over the developing world. That number

is predcted to double by 2050. We are familiar with the slums in slum

dwellings, at risk by typhoon and flood. There is a feeling that the

shantys have a lot of positive aspects that we in the rich west

could learn from. We enter the extraordinary lab brint world where

people koufrpb - lab brint world where people often spend the whole

of their lives. This is the Rice Belt of the Philippines, it is

illusion, calm, idyllic. But more than one million people a year are

leaving it. Poverty, climate change and a population boom are pushing

people off the land. The places they end up in look like this.

Half Manila's population live in slums. And the new global orthodoxy

in urban planning says that is good. Slums are now Lorded as models of

cohesion and sustainability. But here, they are the frontline in war

between the rich and poor. They always look down on us as if we are

just like a little on their eyes. They always refer to us as the

eyesore of the society. This is the Estero de San Miguel.

It is 600ms long, 600 families live on either side. Though it looks

utterly temporary, it is decades old, and so is the pofrpt of those

who live here. - poverty of those who live here. Mina, who has made

her home in the slum, is about to show me how people survive here.

And though I have been in slums before, I have never seen anywhere

like this. It is like a mine. Just a tunnel, dark tunnel, and just

people live off it, like a mine. The tunnel, less than four feet

wide is the centre of their world. This is the queue for the bathroom.

And this, the playground. This is the public space. And as for the

private space? There is very little. So this is where you live.

Three adults, a teenager and a child live here. It is clean, but

the sleeping arrangements are cramped. Where do you sleep,

upstairs? There. You sleep on the floor there. I sleep up, and

husband and wife sleep there. while for some people, slums are

just one stage on the root out of poverty, here most people are

trapped. 20 years. You have been here 20 years. In this house?

As I get further into the Estero de San Miguel, it is like seeing the

worst of 18th century Europe. But why does this survive alongside

skyscrapers, that, really, is the question I'm here to answer. There

is a theory in the world that we can all learn from places like this,

informal settlements, or slums, as we call them, it is true, there is

social cohesion, and entrepeneurship, because if they

didn't they would die. They are living inches from canal full of

sewage, into which sewage is being thrown. I can't help thinking that

the whole theory is a bit of a coppout. Why was it that the

Industrial Revolution was able to clear places like this within a

generation. And yet, in it the era of globalisation, we seem content

to tinker with it. As I'm about to learn the answer is not simple,

because without slum dwellers, many of our global megacities couldn't

function at all. Clean your house, drive your car,

clean your garden, take care of your baby, and if these people get

out of the city the city will die. In a slum called Payatas, right

next to a mountain of gash an, imcome to meet Father Nobilo, he

thinks the slums are unclearable. In an age of scarce resources,

there are lessons here for all of us. You don't need more as a human

being to live. Because of the imbalance of having and not having

is really vast, so what can we learn not only by the rich, but by

everybody, how can you survive and manage scarcity and do little and

do something. - have little and do something. What you notice in the

slum is how organised things are, sports teams, church, women's

groups, even the water fights have rules. Being in a place like this

is a process of stripping away illusions, first that it is

horrible, because it isn't. Second, that the women's groups and the

Credit Unions can sort it all, because they can't. The fundamental

problem is that in an era of land hunger, 98% of the people who live

here, don't have the right to. And the Filipino Government has decided

to clear half a million slum dwellers out of the city by force,

if necessary. You really want live well if you smell sewage, how can

you live well. Attention river warriors.

The baby's water is clean. Meet Gina Lopez, she's on a mission to

clear Manila's water slums and bring the rivers back to life.

Her charity, the River Warriors, recruits local people to clear the

slums, lay drains and patrol the place, to maintain order. Security

around Gina is tight, because she's part of a powerful business family.

They own the energy company, the main TV station, large chunks of

downtown be Manila, she take as traditional view on slum clearance.

There is a theory among some policy makers in the world, that we have

to live with slums and accept slums. I don't agree, exclammation point,

underlined and circled. No way, no way. Why does anyone have to live

like that. I don't think any city can ever come up to its fullest

potential if there are slums and people living like that. But, there

is a problem, the clearance is compulsory, and once they have been

cleared, some people have been coming back. Because, cities are

where the jobs are. In Gina's helicopter, and with

Gina's Chief-of-Staff, I'm off to see the place the slum dwellers

have been moved to. It is 30 minutes, as the chopper flies, but

more than four hours by road. Here density is not a problem. The

problem is, there is no mains electricity, no prospect of ever

getting any, and there are no jobs. The market traders have time to

Come and visit Reuben, he came from the slum. Can I come in? Reuben

came here straight from Estero de San Miguel. He likes it, the house

is bright and solid, but there is still a problem. TRANSLATION:

need factories here, people still go back to Manila to find work. We

try very hard to earn money. Because if you don't, we could die

of hunger. The Government accepts this is not ideal, but they are

determined to go on demolishing the slums. Next on the list for

clearance is the slum I first visited, Estero de San Miguel,

where Mina has invited me back after dark. It is amazing, we're on

a bridge, a yard wide, and here, people have built their shan'ties

either side of this canal - shantys, either side of this canal, it is

only six feet wide in parts. I love the people in this place, but how

on earth do people survive? I think that is the ability of the

Filipinos to be very adaptive. longer I stay in this place, the

more my revulsion at the way people have to live gives way to my

admiration of how they do it. And the tunnel itself is full of

surprises. How is business, how is the shop going? She just graduated

from college. You graduated from college, which college? Iris. Tech

college kal institute. What did you study? Business administration.

is doing my head in, I'm in economic, and I'm talking to a

business graduate here. What do you think about the people who want to

clear it out? The people who want to demolish us here, please don't

do that, because...The Gist of it is we have invested all our money

here, we like it here and it is all we really know. You have lived here

from birth? Yes. Congratulations to you, many people could not do this.

Thank you all, good luck with your shop. What is your name? Anis.

I'm interested in all these guys in these uniforms, who are they?

are my local councillors, and police officers. Police officers?

They live also here. Who recruits them? Me. I organise them. I have

20 local police. They have all got sticks.

One of their main jobs is to protect the slum against arson,

because, places resisting demoligs have a strange habit of get -

demolition, have a strange habit of getting burned to the ground. I'm

stood in the middle of a three-foot wide canal, eight dwellings either

side of it, what is this? This is a computer shop. A computer shop in

the middle of here? Yes, Sir. have, one, two, three, four, five,

six, seven screens, somebody's on Facebook. Somebody's playing poker,

and I'm gradually understanding how this settlement is liveable for

people. In the space of 100ms, I have met

three graduates, a semi-official police force and the social media

revolution. With so much invested in this place, social capital,

Tennessee, money, there is no - tennancy, money, there is no

surprise why they don't want to leave. What will you do? We will

barricade, we will fight for it, this is what they want, we will

fight for our community. Some architects now think we can learn

from slum, afterall, they are human habitats designed without the help

of politicians. The measures of zoning and formallised urban

planning, it fragmented our society. This is a world famous architect

who wants to rebuild the Estero de San Miguel, based on the way the

land is divided up at present. bridge to connect both

neighbourhoods across the canal. That is an optimistic vision

compared to what it looks like now. The slum dwellers support the

scheme, and the plans are ready and the Government says it is too

expensive. Would it not be better to clear it, however painful it is

for them, would it not be better to clear it and start again? Since we

have become an independent country it is the wrong policy, slum

upgrading uproots them from the community. It is also a problem

because they keep coming back, they are not assured of jobs where they

are relocated. For now that is the approach, the fate of 6,000 people

hangs in the balance. We used to think these place would

disappear as the world developed. Instead, they have grown. With

technology and education, people have found new ways to live in them.

And millions of people are heading for them all across the world.

That's all from Newsnight tonight, we leave you with the news that the

iconic Chelsea Hotel in New York, which inspired residents such as

Bob Dylan, and others, is being gentrified, to the horror of the

Manhattan community, the sign says they are no longer taking

reservations. # I remember you were in the

Chelsea Hotel # We were talking so brave and so