:00:13. > :00:17.Not just the left hand not knowing what the right was doing, but each
:00:17. > :00:22.actively landing blows on the other. To scenes of commission and
:00:22. > :00:25.omission, the BBC today added a confession of incompetence. Its
:00:25. > :00:29.justification for not broadcasting the accusations of child sex abuse
:00:29. > :00:34.on this programme, was significantly inaccurate. Why?
:00:34. > :00:38.weren't asked to find more evidence, or anything like that, we weren't
:00:38. > :00:41.asked to get more people on camera, we were told to stop working on the
:00:41. > :00:46.story. A former editor of ITN and a former
:00:46. > :00:53.editor of this programme, are here to debate what went wrong.
:00:53. > :01:02.And then we talk to Conrad Lord Black, once one of the world's most
:01:02. > :01:06.powerful media magnates, now convicted for fraud and now mad as
:01:06. > :01:11.hell. I have gone through the process of being falsely charged
:01:11. > :01:13.and vindicated without losing my mind, and being able to endure a
:01:13. > :01:18.discussion like this without getting up and smashing your face
:01:18. > :01:23.in. He's a smoothie compared to our final guest, the President of
:01:23. > :01:29.Belarus, is the Europe's final dictator, and happy to stay that
:01:29. > :01:37.way. TRANSLATION: America want to democratise us, why not democratise
:01:37. > :01:42.Saudi Arabia? Because they are bastards, they are their bastards.
:01:42. > :01:45.It has been a bad day for the BBC, but it can, at least, take some
:01:45. > :01:49.comfort, from the fact that much of the damage was done by the BBC. We
:01:49. > :01:53.are no further forward on the really important issue of whether
:01:53. > :01:57.the BBC and other organisations failed to protect vulnerable
:01:57. > :02:00.children from an aggressive, egotistical child molester, called
:02:00. > :02:04.Jimmy Savile. This programme investigated the claims almost a
:02:04. > :02:08.year ago, and never broadcast what it found out. That decision was
:02:08. > :02:11.taken by our editor, and most of us knew nothing much about it until
:02:11. > :02:15.very recently. The Newsnight editor, incidently, also had nothing to do
:02:15. > :02:20.with tonight's programme, because he's not around. But the BBC
:02:20. > :02:24.conceded today that his account of what happened was wrong in key
:02:24. > :02:27.claims. It has taken 20 days for the BBC to get around to
:02:27. > :02:33.acknowledging that. And an independent inquiry will now judge
:02:33. > :02:37.why his account was wrongs. Here is the summary.
:02:37. > :02:41.For the last three weeks this programme has been at the centre of
:02:41. > :02:45.what has been called the worst crisis in 50 years at the BBC. The
:02:45. > :02:49.decision by Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, to drop an
:02:49. > :02:53.investigation into allegations of child abuse by Jimmy Savile, is now
:02:53. > :02:58.the subject of an independent inquiry. As you watch this,
:02:58. > :03:01.Panorama, on BBC 1 is broadcasting interviews with members of the
:03:02. > :03:05.Newsnight team, who worked on the original investigation. They say
:03:06. > :03:08.they warned Peter Rippon last year about the consequences of dropping
:03:08. > :03:14.this story. I was sure the story would come out one way or another,
:03:14. > :03:19.and if it did, the BBC would be accused of a cover-up. I wrote an
:03:19. > :03:25.e-mail to Peter saying, "the story is strong enough, and the danger of
:03:25. > :03:30.not running is substantial damage to BBC reputation". The BBC today
:03:30. > :03:35.admitted that a blog written by Rippon three weeks ago, explaining
:03:35. > :03:38.his decision to drop the investigation, was "inaccurate" or
:03:38. > :03:42."incomplete in some respects", it is those errors that have forced
:03:42. > :03:46.him to step aside as editor of Newsnight, until an investigation
:03:46. > :03:52.chaired by the former head of Sky News, Nick Pollard, reports back.
:03:52. > :03:56.Three main errors with the blog, were finally identified today.
:03:56. > :04:00.Crucially these mistakes were left uncorrected for three week, while
:04:00. > :04:05.BBC managers repeated some of them. Peter Rippon's blog said Newsnight
:04:05. > :04:09.had no evidence against the BBC. But, in fact, the Newsnight team's
:04:09. > :04:14.key witness had claimed that some abuse, by Savile and others, took
:04:14. > :04:19.place on BBC premises. The inquiry will have to ask Peter Rippon why
:04:20. > :04:25.he didn't judge that this stuet instituted evidence against the BBC
:04:25. > :04:34.-- institute -- constituted evidence against the BBC. A lot of
:04:34. > :04:42.people are saying RIH, which is "rot in hell". This is a former
:04:42. > :04:46.pupil of Duncroft Approved School, a school Jimmy Savile visited
:04:46. > :04:50.readily. Today the BBC corrected its saying that no-one should have
:04:50. > :04:55.known about allegation, they corrected that saying allegations
:04:55. > :04:59.were made, mostly in general terms, by staff, who may have known about
:04:59. > :05:03.the abuse. Finally, the original blog post said did they withhold
:05:03. > :05:09.evidence from the police, and they said, no, they were confident that
:05:09. > :05:13.all the women they spoke to had contacted the police independently.
:05:13. > :05:16.But the BBC said today that in some cases the women had not spoken to
:05:16. > :05:20.the police and the police were not aware of all the allegations. This
:05:20. > :05:24.is important, because we now know that Karin Ward, Newsnight's key
:05:24. > :05:29.witness, hadn't spoken to the police, and did make allegations
:05:29. > :05:36.against another celebrity. Gary Glitter was one example. He was
:05:36. > :05:40.particularly horrible. And only interested in getting as much sex
:05:40. > :05:47.as he could possibly get from any girl. I can remember seeing him
:05:47. > :05:51.having sex with one of the girls from Duncroft. In Jimmy Savile's
:05:51. > :05:56.dressing room. Which was packed with lots of people. Was Jimmy
:05:56. > :06:02.Savile there? Yeah. He would have known what was going on? Oh yes, he
:06:02. > :06:07.laughed about it, he thought it was funny.
:06:07. > :06:10.The Jimmy Savile investigation was a high-profile story of the most
:06:10. > :06:14.sensitive kind. So why would the editor of Newsnight make a public
:06:14. > :06:17.statement, that it now turns out was incorrect. We haven't heard
:06:17. > :06:22.Peter Rippon's side of the story, and we probably won't, while he's
:06:22. > :06:26.the subject of a BBC investigation. Welcome to Top Of The Pops. Then
:06:26. > :06:30.there is a wider question, about the way in which the BBC has dealt
:06:30. > :06:34.with this aspect of the Savile scandal. In the days after the blog
:06:34. > :06:38.post, the two Newsnight journalists behind the original report sent e-
:06:38. > :06:41.mails to their editor, and senior BBC managers, including the
:06:41. > :06:45.director-general. They made it clear to their superiors they felt
:06:45. > :06:49.the blog and other public statements were inaccurate.
:06:49. > :06:52.It is obviously very damaging that the BBC has had to put out a
:06:52. > :06:56.statement, saying the initial explanation, as to why the
:06:56. > :06:59.Newsnight investigation was dropped, was partial and inaccurate. But it
:06:59. > :07:05.also begs the question why it has taken very nearly three week for
:07:05. > :07:08.them to make that admission. should there be a way in which BBC
:07:08. > :07:12.journalists can raise serious editoral concerns, with people at
:07:12. > :07:15.the very top of the corporation. The Newsnight reporter on the
:07:15. > :07:19.Savile investigation, Liz MacKean, felt there was nowhere for her
:07:19. > :07:26.complaints to be properly heard outside the editor's office. It is
:07:26. > :07:30.obviously very worrying, that the reporter and producer making the
:07:30. > :07:34.investigation programme felt, so strongly, that their report was
:07:34. > :07:38.being buried, and didn't seem to be able to do anything about it until
:07:38. > :07:42.Panorama decided to look into it. As far as the wider impact on the
:07:42. > :07:46.BBC goes, tonight's Panorama on Savile, could find no evidence to
:07:46. > :07:50.suggest that Peter Rippon was pressured from above to drop the
:07:50. > :07:54.report ahead of a Christmas tribute to the star. Tomorrow, the new BBC
:07:54. > :07:57.director-general, will appear in front of the Commons Culture
:07:57. > :08:00.Committee. Panorama alleges that Francesca Entwhistle was told about
:08:00. > :08:05.the Newsnight investigation last year, when he was the BBC's
:08:05. > :08:09.Director of Vision, but that conversation with the BBC's Head of
:08:09. > :08:13.News, of said to have lasted less than ten seconds. The committee
:08:13. > :08:15.will want to know what exactly Francesca Entwhistle was told about
:08:15. > :08:20.the Newsnight investigation. Why didn't he ask more questions about
:08:20. > :08:23.the report? And given what he did know, why were those Christmas
:08:23. > :08:28.tribute programmes, about Savile, allowed to be broadcast?
:08:28. > :08:32.The crisis has left BBC managers at the highest level, with serious
:08:32. > :08:36.questions to answer. And, it has raised issues about the culture and
:08:36. > :08:41.communications of the organisation. No-one would envy the director-
:08:41. > :08:44.general's task at the Select Committee tomorrow.
:08:44. > :08:48.Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, declined to be interviewed on this
:08:48. > :08:52.programme. No-one from senior BBC management decided to appear
:08:52. > :08:56.tonight, either. But here to discuss this are a
:08:56. > :09:01.former editor of Newsnight, and now director of the documentary film
:09:01. > :09:06.company, Make World Media, and Stuart Purvis, a former chief
:09:06. > :09:10.executive of ITV and now Professor of Television Journalism at City
:09:10. > :09:13.University. First off, how damaged do you think the BBC is by this,
:09:13. > :09:17.Stuart Purvis? When you had a corporate statement out there for
:09:17. > :09:20.at least a couple of weeks, and suddenly you pull it, and say that
:09:20. > :09:24.wasn't right. It was a statement initiated by the editor of
:09:24. > :09:29.Newsnight, supported by the Head of Editoral Policy, the director-
:09:29. > :09:34.general and the chairman of the BBC Trust, it is an embarrassing day.
:09:34. > :09:39.How can it take 25 days to find out the whole basis of the BBC's
:09:39. > :09:43.defence was phoney? It is an extraordinary position, and I agree
:09:43. > :09:47.with Stuart, incredibly damaging. How does it take 20 days? You know,
:09:47. > :09:55.the BBC is massive institution. It take as long time to get itself
:09:55. > :10:01.together, to get its lines of argument sorted out. I think,
:10:01. > :10:05.probably, possibly more fundamental was the fact that the BBC is very
:10:05. > :10:09.hierarchical, it assumes everybody beneath them has done their job
:10:09. > :10:14.well, and sorted something out. This was an alleged statement of
:10:14. > :10:18.fact? It was, they obviously, the fact that the director-general, and
:10:18. > :10:23.the Chairman of the Trust came out and backed it, I think they thought
:10:23. > :10:27.it had all been sorted out. That the process of the BBC meant this
:10:27. > :10:32.was absolutely defensible. What is amazing, was that nobody earlier
:10:32. > :10:36.had not gone back to the original, to talk to the two, the reporter
:10:36. > :10:42.and the producer involved, and actually realised that there were
:10:42. > :10:47.divergent views on this. We got no closer in tonight's Panorama, still
:10:47. > :10:51.running, on this question, on whether the editor of Newsnight was
:10:51. > :10:55.lent on by people higher than him to can the investigation. So that
:10:55. > :10:58.is still pretty opaque? It is, it is perfectly proper that the
:10:58. > :11:01.Panorama programme should say there is no evidence he was lent on. But
:11:01. > :11:05.we are only half way through this. Bluntly, the journalists are
:11:05. > :11:09.winning and the corporates are lose anything this process. We have had
:11:09. > :11:13.these two BBCs at work, and now the question is can these two positions
:11:13. > :11:17.be some how reconciled, in some sort of agreed truth. The omens for
:11:17. > :11:21.that are not really good. It is just continually damaging to the
:11:21. > :11:25.BBC that they had these two BBCs briefing against each other,
:11:25. > :11:31.leaking against each other, and I'm not even sure that's finished today.
:11:31. > :11:38.You have sat in that editor's chair, is it conceivable it was an
:11:38. > :11:41.individual decision? I find it, I find that difficult to believe. To
:11:41. > :11:45.be honest. I'm not ruling it out, as Stuart has said, we have not got
:11:45. > :11:50.to the end of it, we don't know. You wouldn't necessarily have to be
:11:50. > :11:54.instruct, presumably after a while, osmoticall and intuitively you
:11:54. > :11:58.understand what your bosses want? don't feel there was a corporate
:11:59. > :12:05.squash. But, having said that, so many things have come out about
:12:05. > :12:09.this, which have undermined and changed the story, that even I, who
:12:09. > :12:12.absolutely believed that, wouldn't be surprised if something did come
:12:12. > :12:18.out now. Because of the changes that there have been. The important
:12:18. > :12:23.thing in all of this, is, of course, not which programme said what about
:12:23. > :12:26.whom, it is about child abuse? And whether corporately there was a
:12:26. > :12:31.catastrophic failure, not just in the corporation, but particularly
:12:31. > :12:35.in the corporation in this case. How much do these two things feed
:12:35. > :12:38.across to one another, do you think, this general feeling that there was,
:12:38. > :12:41.that something went really badly wrong here? I think the common
:12:41. > :12:44.factor here is defensiveness. If you think about it, Francesca
:12:45. > :12:49.Entwhistle has nothing to be ashamed of, in temples of he had no
:12:49. > :12:53.role in the historic element, but the moment that ITV went public
:12:53. > :12:56.with their allegations, a defensiveness spread across the BBC
:12:57. > :13:01.about what happened 20, 30 years ago, as well as what happened on
:13:01. > :13:04.Newsnight. They really needed to keep those two processes separate.
:13:04. > :13:08.They should have said these are serious allegations about the past,
:13:08. > :13:12.we will look into it, and in the case of Newsnight, they needed to
:13:12. > :13:17.be more on the ball about what they were saying. One other element that
:13:17. > :13:20.is similar. They didn't actually take them seriously, right off.
:13:20. > :13:25.Having done a child abuse investigation myself, it is very
:13:25. > :13:28.easy to dismiss the people who come forward as not being credible. I
:13:28. > :13:32.think there is an element of how people have viewed the past, and
:13:32. > :13:36.what happened in the past, and possibly, what actually came out in
:13:36. > :13:39.a Newsnight investigation, that just wasn't taken as seriously as
:13:39. > :13:45.it should have been There is certainly a hint in the e-mails
:13:45. > :13:48.that we only have a the word of the victims. You kind of think that is
:13:48. > :13:53.a pretty strong word. Having done it, it is incredibly hard for the
:13:53. > :13:57.victims to come forward. Let's come back to this dreary media point,
:13:57. > :14:02.perhaps, Chris Patten, the BBC bruft, are also on the hook, --
:14:02. > :14:07.Trust, are also on the hook, on the basis of the statement initially
:14:07. > :14:10.issued, there are serious issues for corporate governance there? I
:14:10. > :14:16.think there was, when Chris Patten got the job there was a sigh of
:14:16. > :14:19.relief in the BBC. He's a political heavyweight, he wanted to bring the
:14:19. > :14:23.Trust and the management closer together than under his predecessor.
:14:23. > :14:26.There are echos, hearing Gavin Davies in the Hutton affair,
:14:26. > :14:29.calling the governance together saying we must support the
:14:29. > :14:35.management. He didn't need to say the things he said. He resigned
:14:35. > :14:38.didn't didn't he? He had to resign. Chris Patten said we told the
:14:38. > :14:45.police as soon as we knew we had evidence, that now turns out to be
:14:45. > :14:48.untrue. Now, monsters Inc, Conrad Moffat
:14:48. > :14:53.Black was once one of the most powerful men in the kingdom. As
:14:53. > :14:57.owner of the Daily Telegraph and other places, he was courted by the
:14:57. > :15:01.political class, and flattered by the investors' tip sheets. Then he
:15:01. > :15:04.fell foul of the American justice system, and charged with being
:15:04. > :15:14.seriously myopic when figuring out what was his company and what was
:15:14. > :15:16.
:15:16. > :15:20.the company's. Lord of the Holy ap see, he became prisoner 18334 he
:15:20. > :15:27.didn't like it, and he went to see him about it earlier. First we
:15:27. > :15:31.shine some light on him. It was a calamitous fall, compared to the
:15:31. > :15:36.ficticious Citizen Kane, Lord Conrad Black was a real newspaper
:15:36. > :15:41.baron, whose crimes were covered in papers he once owned and defrauded.
:15:41. > :15:45.He has been consistently accused by the courts and others of being
:15:45. > :15:49.dishonest, always his reply is, "I'm the victim". This is no
:15:49. > :15:54.different now. Conrad Black has always played the victim card in
:15:54. > :15:58.his defence of his criminal behaviour. Ennobled in the Lords,
:15:58. > :16:05.this was the zenith of Conrad Moffat Black's career, and the
:16:05. > :16:08.beginning of the end. I Conrad Lord Black of Crossharbour, do swear by
:16:08. > :16:14.Almighty God...The Son of a wealthy Canadian industrialist, 20 years
:16:14. > :16:19.after buying his first paper in qek beck, Black had taken over the
:16:19. > :16:23.Telegraph, he was soon alleged to be looting his cop on a grand scale
:16:23. > :16:27.-- company on a grand scale. What is comical, when he was in London
:16:27. > :16:30.as owner of the Telegraph, he was always saying what genius
:16:30. > :16:34.capitalism was, when it was the capitalists, the shareholders in
:16:34. > :16:39.his own company, who said in 2001, you are stealing the shareholders'
:16:39. > :16:42.money, you are defrauding the Telegraph Group, it was he that
:16:42. > :16:46.said he was the victim of capitalism. Because he wanted to
:16:46. > :16:50.take as much money as he needed. said was the victim of the American
:16:50. > :16:55.prosecutors? Of course he was, they prosecuted a fraudster. Five years
:16:55. > :17:03.ago, Conrad Black was convicted in an American court of defrauding the
:17:03. > :17:06.company he had led, Hollinger. Report He was initially jailed for
:17:06. > :17:09.six-and-a-half years. But served less than half that, after winning
:17:09. > :17:14.appeals against a number of the fraud counts. He still claims to be
:17:14. > :17:17.innocent of all crimes. But back home in Canada, the country he had
:17:17. > :17:21.once renounced as being in decline, he remains a controversial figure.
:17:21. > :17:27.He currently has a one-year residency visa, and the opposition
:17:27. > :17:31.want him booted out. It is a far cry from the days when he and
:17:31. > :17:34.Barbara Amiel, his second wife, had two private jets and homes in
:17:34. > :17:42.London's Kensington and Park Avenue New York.
:17:42. > :17:45.Barbara Amiel for Conrad Black was an awakening, and enlightenment, an
:17:45. > :17:48.apparition, she was a goddess, because she combined beauty and
:17:48. > :17:55.intelligence, and sassyness, and everything else. The problem was,
:17:55. > :18:00.she also had this insaitable extravagance. As she said, her
:18:00. > :18:05.extravagance knows know bounds. one time, he ran one of the biggest
:18:05. > :18:10.newspaper businesses in the world, it was said he was a millionaire
:18:10. > :18:15.with a billionare's life standard. Others say Conrad Black was less
:18:15. > :18:20.modest. In the end, Conrad Black believes
:18:20. > :18:25.he's God, and everyone must bow to him. His hero is Napoleon, except
:18:25. > :18:29.he doesn't figure in the same way as nappol lan, he's always defeated
:18:29. > :18:33.whatever he does. The one thing you can't say about him, is he's a
:18:33. > :18:39.physical coward. In the end he calls comes back, and again and
:18:39. > :18:43.again and again, -- in the end he always comes back again and again,
:18:43. > :18:46.he's a fighter, that is how he makes his money. Lord Black is
:18:46. > :18:51.indeed back. Plugging his book, claiming he has been wrongly
:18:51. > :18:56.convicted, and trying 0 rebuild a reputation. -- trying to rebuild a
:18:56. > :19:00.rep taiing. That will take some fight.
:19:00. > :19:04.REPORTER: Do you think prison made you a better person? Hard to saying,
:19:04. > :19:08.I'm suspicious of people who say it make awe better person. It was a
:19:08. > :19:12.broadening experience, I can say that. It was, in a way, a humbling
:19:12. > :19:18.one. That is normally good for us. I suppose I would say, yes, but I
:19:18. > :19:22.don't want to give your viewers that I'm trumpeting myself as an
:19:22. > :19:26.altogether madeover virttuous person. Not at all, you deny all
:19:26. > :19:32.the charges against you? They are rubbish, everyone can see their
:19:32. > :19:35.rubbish. You are a convicted fraudster? No, I'm not. In the
:19:35. > :19:39.first place, under British and Canadian rules none of this would
:19:39. > :19:42.stand up. We got rid of all the counts and had the prosecuting
:19:42. > :19:48.statute declared unconstitutional. When you read the remarks of the
:19:48. > :19:50.judges, for example the judge in Delaware, that you are "evasive and
:19:50. > :19:58.unreliable"? That was not a criminal case, that was a
:19:58. > :20:02.completely, just a minute, that was a completely falacious judgment, in
:20:02. > :20:07.fact, absolutely defied by the jurors. It is the opinion of a
:20:07. > :20:17.judge? And you have been convicted? Will you stop thisburg
:20:17. > :20:20.
:20:20. > :20:24.woipriingishness. What is bourg wore drg bourg war -- bourgeois?
:20:24. > :20:28.you think a British court, all of it thrown out, the Supreme Court,
:20:28. > :20:35.equivalent in this country, denouncing the lower court judges
:20:35. > :20:39.as idiots, the infirmity of inventing law and telling them.
:20:39. > :20:43.misunderstood what was legal? Nothing I misunderstood was legal.
:20:43. > :20:48.Why are you convicted? 99% of people are convicted in the United
:20:48. > :20:52.States. It is a all fascistic conveyor belt of justice that is
:20:52. > :20:58.what it is. 5% of the population of the world are Americans, 25% of the
:20:58. > :21:04.incarcerated people are, and 50% of the lawyers are. 99.5% conviction
:21:04. > :21:08.rate. This sits very odd. Six to 12 times as many people per capita
:21:08. > :21:12.incarcerated as Britain, France, Germany and Japan, how do you
:21:12. > :21:17.explain that? I don't think I have to? Give it a try. Why? Before you
:21:17. > :21:22.accuse me of being a criminal, give it a try. You are a convicted
:21:22. > :21:25.criminal? You are a fool, a priingish British, fool, who takes
:21:25. > :21:29.seriously this ghastly American justice system, that any sane
:21:29. > :21:32.person knows is an outrage. This sits very oddly with our
:21:32. > :21:36.protestation you are a Roman Catholic, don't you do penance?
:21:36. > :21:41.do, I do, and I believe in the punishment of crime, as well as the
:21:41. > :21:46.confession of wrongdoing. Do you not think that a man found guilty
:21:46. > :21:50.by due process of law, ought to be slightly penitent? If it is, in
:21:50. > :21:54.fact, due process. There was no due process of law in that. You see
:21:54. > :22:01.Jeremy, your problem is you have no idea how the system operates.
:22:01. > :22:08.are the one who chose to locate his business there? I did. Yes.
:22:08. > :22:12.were just foolish or what? In fact, I wouldn't say, I would say that is
:22:12. > :22:18.slightly overstatinging it. I underestimated the corruption of
:22:18. > :22:23.the American legal system, I confess to that, I'm penitent about
:22:23. > :22:30.it as well. What will surprise our viewers, that a man who has within
:22:30. > :22:34.through this will show no humility and shame? Of course not, I'm sick
:22:34. > :22:38.to death, I'm proud of being in a federal prison and survived it as
:22:38. > :22:42.well. I had no problem with the regime or fellow residents. I'm
:22:42. > :22:46.proud of having gone through the terribly difficult process of being
:22:46. > :22:54.falsely charged, falsely convicted, and ultimately almost kpwhrotly
:22:54. > :22:58.vindicated, without losing my mind, becoming irrational, stopping being
:22:58. > :23:03.a reasonable and penitent person, and enduring a discussion like this,
:23:03. > :23:08.without getting up and smashing your face in, which most people
:23:08. > :23:12.would have done if they-through what I have been. Get up then?
:23:12. > :23:17.don't believe in violence. Do you expect to retain your seat in the
:23:17. > :23:20.House of Lords? Why not. You're a convicted criminal? There is not a
:23:20. > :23:28.prohibition on a convicted criminal sitting in that House. You don't
:23:28. > :23:32.believe a man who has done time in prison should be to help frame the
:23:32. > :23:36.laws of a country? Yes I do. If there is a question about his guilt
:23:36. > :23:42.in the first place, say it was a person convicted in North Korea, on
:23:42. > :23:45.that theory Nelson Mandela couldn't sit. And, if I were you I would be
:23:45. > :23:48.careful about being such a gullible rubber stamp to the crooked
:23:48. > :23:52.American system. You think a convicted paedophile, for example,
:23:52. > :23:57.should be able to sit in the House of Lords and make laws on child
:23:57. > :24:01.protection? That is not what I said. No? If you ask it in those terms.
:24:01. > :24:06.If he was a legitimate, legitimately convicted paedophile,
:24:06. > :24:09.I would say there were serious problems about him sitting in a
:24:09. > :24:13.legislative party. The whole legal process is about determining
:24:13. > :24:19.whether people are justly convicted or acquitted, you put yourself
:24:19. > :24:24.above that, don't you? No I do not. I put myself in the camp of Henry
:24:24. > :24:27.David this. Oroeoux, who says in a society that routinely sends
:24:27. > :24:33.innocent people to prison, the place for innocent people is in
:24:33. > :24:37.prison. The idea I would sit in a public company and steal $285,000,
:24:37. > :24:41.that is what they are down to, they don't even claim it is a theft or
:24:41. > :24:46.fraud. They claim it is an inproper reception of money voted by the
:24:46. > :24:49.directors and published as a fact. That is what you are waxing so
:24:49. > :24:54.sanctimonious about. Does having a very extravagant wife make that
:24:54. > :24:59.sort of thing more likely? Oh God, I'm going to throw up! After seven
:24:59. > :25:03.years, my first morning back in Britain,am I to be subjected to
:25:03. > :25:09.this. She wasn't extravagant, she's a magnificent wife, she visited me
:25:09. > :25:13.every week in prison, even coming back from China to do it. Why did
:25:13. > :25:17.you suddenly start spending so much money? I didn't start spending so
:25:17. > :25:26.much money, I was a well-to-do man. I spent in accord with my means,
:25:26. > :25:31.and my means went up. You are a man traducced, if I'm to understand
:25:31. > :25:35.you? I am. I have been forcible with you, I don't want to disabuse
:25:35. > :25:40.your viewers that I think I'm always right, I made terrible
:25:40. > :25:43.mistraik, but not ethical mistake, -- mistakes, and not ethical
:25:43. > :25:47.mistakes, and certainly not acts of thefts.
:25:47. > :25:50.Look at me, I'm not knocked about by events, David Cameron tried to
:25:50. > :25:55.establish some authority It's All Over Now things, after last week's
:25:55. > :25:58.pitfalls, like the resignation of the Chief Whip. He says he's going
:25:58. > :26:02.to transform the criminal justice system, and not spending any more
:26:02. > :26:06.money, in fact at a time when he's cutting money spent on prison. He
:26:06. > :26:16.went to a jail for the usual photocall, and the disappointment
:26:16. > :26:21.
:26:21. > :26:25.of his critics, he came out. A surprising soupy fog descended
:26:25. > :26:28.today. Westminster was lost in a Dickensian mist, as the Prime
:26:28. > :26:32.Minister, we were told, was about to take criminal justice policy
:26:32. > :26:37.back in time too. Except David Cameron didn't then go quite as far
:26:37. > :26:40.as been prebriefed, said he wanted to focus on the grey bits of modern
:26:40. > :26:45.life. With the crime debate, people seem to want it black or white.
:26:45. > :26:49.Lock them up or let them out. Blame the criminal, or blame society. Be
:26:49. > :26:53.tough or act soft. We're so busy going backwards and forwards, that
:26:53. > :26:56.we never actually move the debate on. What I have been trying to do,
:26:56. > :27:02.in opposition and now in Government, is to break out of the sterile
:27:02. > :27:07.debate, and show a new way forward, tough, but intelligent. So, not
:27:07. > :27:11.sterile and indeed not monochrome, but at the weekend, in black and
:27:11. > :27:17.white, a newspaper headline previewing this speech screamed
:27:17. > :27:21."mug a hoodie", was a new direction coming into focus? Not really.
:27:21. > :27:27.many people, when it comes to crime, I'm the person associated with
:27:27. > :27:30.those three words, two of which begin with "h" and the last one is
:27:30. > :27:35.hoodie. I never actually said it, and haven't again today. For others
:27:35. > :27:40.I'm a politician who has argued frequently for tough punishment. Do
:27:40. > :27:45.I take a tough line on crime or a touchy feely one. In ore no other
:27:45. > :27:50.area of public debate do the issues get as polarised as this. He has
:27:50. > :27:54.been on a journey, when he came to the CSJ with the hug a hoodie
:27:54. > :27:58.speech, he talked about young people and what leads them to crime,
:27:58. > :28:02.in terms of causes of crime and rehabilitation, he has been pretty
:28:02. > :28:06.consistent. What we are seeing now is a sense, with the new Justice
:28:06. > :28:09.Secretary, Grayling grey, an opportunity to talk tougher --
:28:09. > :28:14.Chris Grayling, an opportunity to talk tougher, he's not in battle
:28:14. > :28:19.with other politicians to talk tougher. There was one policy
:28:19. > :28:23.innovation, the hoodie would not be mugged or hugged, but companies who
:28:23. > :28:27.stopped reoffending would get hugged, or at least a fee. With
:28:27. > :28:30.payment by results, your money will go to what work, criminals go
:28:30. > :28:35.straight, crime going down and the country getting safer. It is such a
:28:35. > :28:40.good idea, I will put rocket boosters under it. I have an
:28:40. > :28:45.announcement to wait. By the end of 2015, I want payment by results
:28:45. > :28:49.spread right across rehabilitation. But this is controversial, with the
:28:49. > :28:54.role out being announced before pilots have finished. It may not be
:28:54. > :28:57.blain sailing either. We have seen ho -- plain sailing either. We have
:28:57. > :29:01.seen how difficult it is with welfare-to-work. There has been
:29:01. > :29:04.payments there, and there is a lot of criticism about how it is
:29:04. > :29:09.working out. That is fairly simple compared to what they are asking
:29:09. > :29:14.for a justice system. Getting someone into a job is simple,
:29:14. > :29:17.getting someone to stop reoffending, and people have chaotic lives in
:29:17. > :29:21.and out and prison. Was this the Prime Minister's first speech on
:29:21. > :29:24.crime since taking office, a steadier pace than the previous
:29:24. > :29:30.Government, why not a little more from David Cameron? One reason is
:29:31. > :29:35.crime is falling, and concern about crime has fallen away with the
:29:35. > :29:40.economy and unemployment swamping it as an issue. But also because
:29:40. > :29:43.his lead over Labour has been pretty solid for a very long time.
:29:43. > :29:47.It remains 10% more people believing the Conservatives have
:29:47. > :29:54.the best policies on crime than the Labour Party. There wasn't much new
:29:54. > :29:58.in today's speech, it wasn't about policy but positions. In less than
:29:58. > :30:01.a month's time there will be a speech on elections of crime
:30:01. > :30:05.commissioners, but there hasn't been much effort from the Prime
:30:05. > :30:09.Minister to make sure they are a success. Today's speech is about
:30:09. > :30:14.associating in the public's minds cram Ron against crime F that
:30:14. > :30:16.doesn't happen, there is a fear that next month's elections could
:30:16. > :30:20.be the latest Downing Street damp squib.
:30:20. > :30:24.The Government has made many unforced errors recently, and many
:30:24. > :30:30.yes or no for some stability. Within the fog, some even discern
:30:30. > :30:35.the outlines of an economic recovery.
:30:35. > :30:41.The minister for policing and criminal justice, Roy Greenslade,
:30:42. > :30:46.is with us now, -- Damien Green is with us now, where is the evidence
:30:46. > :30:49.that rehabilitation payment works? The pilots done by the Justice
:30:49. > :30:53.Department in four prison, Peterborough has a very good
:30:53. > :30:58.project by a charity there, which is seeing some early results. And
:30:58. > :31:01.also, the wider experiment in the welfare system, we have used
:31:01. > :31:05.payment by results to get people back into work, and through the
:31:05. > :31:11.work programme, more young people are in work than before.
:31:11. > :31:16.Specifically on the penal policy, are those results published? No, we
:31:16. > :31:19.are still at the evaluation stage. The early signs are good. You have
:31:19. > :31:23.not yet evaluated whatever weather it does comprehensively work?
:31:23. > :31:29.have seen evidence it does work. What we do know is the current
:31:29. > :31:34.system absolutely doesn't work. yes, it may be that your new system
:31:34. > :31:38.doesn't absolutely work either, but how do you measure, in order to
:31:39. > :31:44.make sure they get paid? measurement of success is stopping
:31:44. > :31:47.reoffending. That what we want is people, what we have now is a
:31:47. > :31:50.revolving door where people go into jail, come out, commit more crime,
:31:50. > :31:55.go back into jail, that is clearly something that has to change. What
:31:55. > :31:59.we want to do is bring energy to bear from charities and from the
:31:59. > :32:02.private sector. So that if they can actually change people's lifestyle,
:32:02. > :32:05.I agree with those people saying this is a difficult ask, that is
:32:05. > :32:12.why we need all this expertise from all over the place F they succeed,
:32:12. > :32:18.then they get paid. So -- If they succeed, then they get paid. To get
:32:18. > :32:22.paid, the offender concerned can't reoffend at all. It won't be
:32:22. > :32:27.sufficient that somebody committing 60 burglaries a year goes to ten
:32:27. > :32:30.burglaries a year, that wouldn't be a result? The principle will be
:32:30. > :32:34.that for a certain amount of time, and one can argue about the amount
:32:34. > :32:38.of time for different offences, but say for a year, after you come out
:32:38. > :32:42.of prison, you are not convicted to go back into prison. Of any crime?
:32:43. > :32:48.The sort of crime that will land you back in prison.
:32:48. > :32:54.The Prime Minister also is lifting the cap on prison numbers, there
:32:54. > :32:59.are about 86,500 people in prison now. Are you envisaging it could go
:32:59. > :33:04.to any number at all? We haven't got a cap on prison number, there
:33:04. > :33:09.is no targets for prison numbers. Shouldn't there be? No, I don't
:33:09. > :33:13.think there should. Because crime is falling, as was rightly said in
:33:13. > :33:17.your report, one would report over time fewer people would go there.
:33:17. > :33:21.It is nothing to do with whether crime is rising or falling, it is
:33:21. > :33:25.an absolute? The number of prison places? No, the question question
:33:25. > :33:29.of whether people should go to prison -- no the question of
:33:29. > :33:33.whether people should go to prison if they commit a crime is rising
:33:33. > :33:36.and falling? It is true on the law and the sentencing policy at the
:33:36. > :33:39.time. The point of principle that the public wants to see, if
:33:39. > :33:43.parliament have passed a law saying if you commit this particular crime
:33:43. > :33:46.you should go to jail, then you should go to jail. How many people
:33:46. > :33:51.are you prepared to see in prison? We don't have a target, as I say.
:33:51. > :33:54.What we want to do is stop people reoffending, and the effect of that,
:33:54. > :33:59.because so much crime, such a large percentage of crime is committed by
:33:59. > :34:02.people who are reoffending, if can you stop some of those people,
:34:02. > :34:06.hopefully a significant number of those people, reoffending, then
:34:06. > :34:10.actually what you see is a fall in the prison population, even though
:34:10. > :34:16.you are being perfectly tough on sending people to jail who deserve
:34:16. > :34:20.to go to jail. An urgent dispatch today from the
:34:20. > :34:26.Belarusian Telegraph Agency in Minsk, and an avidly read source in
:34:26. > :34:29.the Newsnight office t carried the latest thunderous insight of the
:34:29. > :34:34.President, Alexander Lukashenko, he believes talk of democracy is being
:34:34. > :34:37.used as a cover for what he calls "plunder" by the west. Last week he
:34:37. > :34:45.was claiming he is no Stalin. He has a different style of moustache
:34:45. > :34:50.for one thing. We joined the latest press baron,
:34:50. > :34:54.Evgeny Lebedev, to conduct a rare interview with the man who is
:34:54. > :34:59.called Europe's last great dictator, a warning this film contains flash
:34:59. > :35:02.photography. Right own the edge of Europe, a
:35:02. > :35:08.place that offends so many European values.
:35:08. > :35:13.We have come to Minsk, to meet up with Britain's youngest newspaper
:35:13. > :35:22.proprietor. We're on our way to a rare meeting that Evgeny Lebedev
:35:22. > :35:26.has managed to secure. Not many get to see the corridors
:35:26. > :35:32.of Belarusian power. This is an opportunity to put on the spot, the
:35:32. > :35:42.man known as Europe's last dictator. It's also a challenge, for the
:35:42. > :35:47.ambitious son of a Russian oligarch. President Alexander Lukashenko has
:35:47. > :35:51.been in power for 18 years. He has been accused of torture and human
:35:51. > :35:57.rights abuses. He has thrown his opponents in prison, banned
:35:57. > :36:02.protests, and restricted freedom of expression. The Belarusian
:36:02. > :36:09.strongman is banned from travelling to Britain and the United States.
:36:09. > :36:13.And western journalists rarely get a chance to hold him to account.
:36:13. > :36:17.The night before the interview, preparations are under way in a
:36:17. > :36:24.hotel in central Minsk. I decided not to start on international
:36:24. > :36:29.policy, but more on him as a man. Evgeny Lebedev, once labelled as
:36:29. > :36:34.London's latest "it" boy, is now in the role of a foreign correspondent,
:36:34. > :36:37.for a newspaper his father bought for him of the I come here as a
:36:37. > :36:44.journalist for the Independent Newspaper, the article that I will
:36:44. > :36:47.write will be in the Independent Newspaper. He considers himself an
:36:47. > :36:51.authoritarian leader. authoritarian-style, is what he
:36:51. > :36:54.said. So, what does he expect from the
:36:54. > :36:58.Belarusian leader? I think one of the interesting things about this,
:36:58. > :37:03.I really have no idea how it will to. I think it is the first one
:37:03. > :37:11.that I have done, where I really do not know what to expect. But,
:37:11. > :37:16.apparently, according to his press secretary, he's up for a fight.
:37:16. > :37:20.Lebedev's own father made his billion after the break up of the
:37:20. > :37:30.Soviet Union, in the chaotic, rapid privatisation of state monoplies,
:37:30. > :37:33.
:37:33. > :37:39.that made a handful of Russians rich, and left millions in poverty.
:37:39. > :37:44.Alexander Lukashenko never allowed that to happen in Belarus.
:37:44. > :37:50.The route this country, Belarus, took, was very different from the
:37:50. > :37:56.one that Russia took. To my mind, Russia went the route of plenty of
:37:56. > :38:00.democracy, in the 1990s, plenty of democracy, but not very much
:38:00. > :38:04.fairness. Belarus went the opposite way, there was plenty of fairness,
:38:04. > :38:14.and not very much democracy. Do you think that is a fair assessment?
:38:14. > :38:51.
:38:51. > :38:56.But the relative stability of reel rus comes at a price. There is no -
:38:56. > :39:01.- Belarus comes as a price. There is no presidential term here, and
:39:01. > :39:04.the 1996 referendum consolidated Alexander Lukashenko's power. Not a
:39:04. > :39:07.single election here has been deemed free or fair by the west.
:39:07. > :39:14.Not a single opposition candidate won a seat in the recent
:39:14. > :39:18.parliamentary vote. Protests have been violently
:39:18. > :39:28.suppressed. But Lukashenko says western calls for democracy in
:39:28. > :39:44.
:39:44. > :39:48.The referendum gave you huge powers over this country, and that was to
:39:48. > :39:53.appoint a Prime Minister, who appoints the Government, to appoint
:39:53. > :39:57.half the Senate, to appoint some of the judges, to appoint the head of
:39:57. > :40:00.the KGB and also appoint the head of the editoral commission. Do you
:40:00. > :40:10.think that is too much power concentrated in the hands of one
:40:10. > :40:48.
:40:48. > :40:54.TRANSLATION: Don't you think it is The west's real agenda, the
:40:54. > :41:03.President says, is to open up the Belarusian economy. Which would
:41:03. > :41:07.make it vulnerable to the problems of the rest of the Europe. This
:41:08. > :41:12.woman is a journalist for a Russian newspaper, owned by Lebedev's
:41:12. > :41:19.father. In 2010, she and her husband, a former presidential
:41:19. > :41:23.candidate, were jailed for organising protests. Their son was
:41:23. > :41:33.three at the time, authorities threatened to take him away.
:41:33. > :41:53.
:41:53. > :41:58.International pressure got them out Today she is allowed to leave the
:41:58. > :42:05.house, but not the city. Police visit regularly, often in the
:42:05. > :42:08.middle of the noit. And, she has a -- in night. And, she has another
:42:08. > :42:12.trial pending. One of our journalists has been arrested and
:42:12. > :42:18.is in this country, she can't leave the country. I can vouch for her
:42:18. > :42:28.personally, I know she's not a criminal. Can I ask why she's not
:42:28. > :42:28.
:42:29. > :42:32.even allowed to go and see a doctor in Moscow? The President looking
:42:32. > :42:38.surprise and asks is she not out of the country already, he turns to
:42:38. > :42:45.his aide, no problem, he says, send her to Moscow tonight. Then minutes
:42:45. > :42:55.later, a memo arrives. Being dictator isn't such a bad
:42:55. > :42:58.
:42:58. > :43:03.thing, he joke, there you go, and don't bother bringing her back.
:43:03. > :43:13.Later in the day, Lebedev brings Irina the news, she's grateful, but,
:43:13. > :43:16.
:43:16. > :43:23.she tells him, she's also sceptical. Because President Lukashenko's
:43:23. > :43:26.Belarus can be a dark, secretive place, where what is said in public,
:43:27. > :43:32.doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. Many believe that was the
:43:32. > :43:38.case with the Minsk Metro bombing, an explosion that killed 15 people
:43:38. > :43:44.in April 2011. Within 48 hours, police arrested two young men.
:43:44. > :43:47.Within weeks they were convicted and executed. The BBC News night
:43:47. > :43:52.investigation into the attack raised a possibility that Security
:43:52. > :44:02.Services were involved in the bombing. And the mother of one of
:44:02. > :44:05.
:44:05. > :44:11.the men said confessions were extracted under torture. Mr
:44:11. > :44:14.Lukashenko dismissed allegations of torture, and it was always under
:44:14. > :44:19.his control, the investigation, and Interpol agreed.
:44:20. > :44:23.Although we were just observers, I asked Lukashenko to follow up on
:44:23. > :44:28.the answer. Your own correspondent and newspaper that covered this
:44:28. > :44:32.trial, talked about what a sham it was, and it was basically a show
:44:32. > :44:42.trial. The BBC had evidence that some of the things said by the
:44:42. > :44:59.
:44:59. > :45:03.judge were simply absurd, what does After the interview the President
:45:03. > :45:09.and Evgeny Lebedev disappeared for a private meeting. At the end,
:45:09. > :45:13.Lebedev never really challenged the Belarusian leader. It has taken the
:45:13. > :45:18.son of a Russian oligarch to get us rare access to this place, and the
:45:18. > :45:22.man known as Europe's last dictator. The fascinating four-hour long
:45:22. > :45:32.conversation between them revealed a man who is well aware of his
:45:32. > :45:36.
:45:37. > :45:42.reputation, and yet, convinced that his country is on the right course.
:45:42. > :45:47.This is a country where facts are easily manipulated, and public
:45:47. > :45:57.accountability is scarce. Which is why, back at her house, Irina says
:45:57. > :46:21.
:46:21. > :46:28.Even if President Lukashenko keeps his promise, she doesn't want to
:46:28. > :46:38.leave Minsk. This is her home, like so many others, Irina wants to find
:46:38. > :46:38.
:46:38. > :46:42.her freedom here, in Belarus. Irina, who was featured in the film,
:46:42. > :46:46.is still under house arrest, it is now more than two weeks since
:46:46. > :46:56.President Lukashenko said she could go free. That's it, we will be back
:46:56. > :47:22.
:47:22. > :47:26.with more tomorrow, until then, Grey will continue to be the
:47:26. > :47:30.dominant sky colour over the next couple of days. Earl low mist and
:47:30. > :47:33.fog gradually lifting through the course of the day, never completely
:47:33. > :47:37.clearing in many places across England and Wales. Not many bright
:47:37. > :47:41.spot, perhaps to the west of the Pennine, bright intervals in the
:47:41. > :47:45.afternoon. The North Sea coast staying resolutely grey, into the
:47:45. > :47:52.Midland, into the south-east of England. Despite the cloud, still
:47:52. > :47:54.mild, 15 in Southampton, brighter in the west of the high ground in
:47:54. > :47:59.south-west England. Barnstaple could see a little glimpse of
:47:59. > :48:04.sunshine, if you are lucky. East Wales, misty. West Wales a little
:48:04. > :48:08.brighter. For Northern Ireland it looks a pretty grey day. Highs of
:48:08. > :48:12.13. Patchy drizzle, certainly a possibility. The real bright spot,
:48:12. > :48:15.is once again, the North West of Scotland, lovely here over the last
:48:15. > :48:19.few days, that will continue after a chilly start. Looking into
:48:19. > :48:23.Tuesday and into Wednesday, not much change. Still most of our
:48:23. > :48:28.featured cities, looking grey. Similar temperatures as well. Maybe
:48:28. > :48:32.not seeing quite as much fog around by Wednesday. Just a little more
:48:32. > :48:35.breeze picking up, it helps pick it up into low cloud. A slight