22/10/2012 Newsnight

Not just the left hand not knowing what the right was doing, but each

actively landing blows on the other. To scenes of commission and

omission, the BBC today added a confession of incompetence. Its

justification for not broadcasting the accusations of child sex abuse

on this programme, was significantly inaccurate. Why?

weren't asked to find more evidence, or anything like that, we weren't

asked to get more people on camera, we were told to stop working on the

story. A former editor of ITN and a former

editor of this programme, are here to debate what went wrong.

And then we talk to Conrad Lord Black, once one of the world's most

powerful media magnates, now convicted for fraud and now mad as

hell. I have gone through the process of being falsely charged

and vindicated without losing my mind, and being able to endure a

discussion like this without getting up and smashing your face

in. He's a smoothie compared to our final guest, the President of

Belarus, is the Europe's final dictator, and happy to stay that

way. TRANSLATION: America want to democratise us, why not democratise

Saudi Arabia? Because they are bastards, they are their bastards.

It has been a bad day for the BBC, but it can, at least, take some

comfort, from the fact that much of the damage was done by the BBC. We

are no further forward on the really important issue of whether

the BBC and other organisations failed to protect vulnerable

children from an aggressive, egotistical child molester, called

Jimmy Savile. This programme investigated the claims almost a

year ago, and never broadcast what it found out. That decision was

taken by our editor, and most of us knew nothing much about it until

very recently. The Newsnight editor, incidently, also had nothing to do

with tonight's programme, because he's not around. But the BBC

conceded today that his account of what happened was wrong in key

claims. It has taken 20 days for the BBC to get around to

acknowledging that. And an independent inquiry will now judge

why his account was wrongs. Here is the summary.

For the last three weeks this programme has been at the centre of

what has been called the worst crisis in 50 years at the BBC. The

decision by Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, to drop an

investigation into allegations of child abuse by Jimmy Savile, is now

the subject of an independent inquiry. As you watch this,

Panorama, on BBC 1 is broadcasting interviews with members of the

Newsnight team, who worked on the original investigation. They say

they warned Peter Rippon last year about the consequences of dropping

this story. I was sure the story would come out one way or another,

and if it did, the BBC would be accused of a cover-up. I wrote an

e-mail to Peter saying, "the story is strong enough, and the danger of

not running is substantial damage to BBC reputation". The BBC today

admitted that a blog written by Rippon three weeks ago, explaining

his decision to drop the investigation, was "inaccurate" or

"incomplete in some respects", it is those errors that have forced

him to step aside as editor of Newsnight, until an investigation

chaired by the former head of Sky News, Nick Pollard, reports back.

Three main errors with the blog, were finally identified today.

Crucially these mistakes were left uncorrected for three week, while

BBC managers repeated some of them. Peter Rippon's blog said Newsnight

had no evidence against the BBC. But, in fact, the Newsnight team's

key witness had claimed that some abuse, by Savile and others, took

place on BBC premises. The inquiry will have to ask Peter Rippon why

he didn't judge that this stuet instituted evidence against the BBC

-- institute -- constituted evidence against the BBC. A lot of

people are saying RIH, which is "rot in hell". This is a former

pupil of Duncroft Approved School, a school Jimmy Savile visited

readily. Today the BBC corrected its saying that no-one should have

known about allegation, they corrected that saying allegations

were made, mostly in general terms, by staff, who may have known about

the abuse. Finally, the original blog post said did they withhold

evidence from the police, and they said, no, they were confident that

all the women they spoke to had contacted the police independently.

But the BBC said today that in some cases the women had not spoken to

the police and the police were not aware of all the allegations. This

is important, because we now know that Karin Ward, Newsnight's key

witness, hadn't spoken to the police, and did make allegations

against another celebrity. Gary Glitter was one example. He was

particularly horrible. And only interested in getting as much sex

as he could possibly get from any girl. I can remember seeing him

having sex with one of the girls from Duncroft. In Jimmy Savile's

dressing room. Which was packed with lots of people. Was Jimmy

Savile there? Yeah. He would have known what was going on? Oh yes, he

laughed about it, he thought it was funny.

The Jimmy Savile investigation was a high-profile story of the most

sensitive kind. So why would the editor of Newsnight make a public

statement, that it now turns out was incorrect. We haven't heard

Peter Rippon's side of the story, and we probably won't, while he's

the subject of a BBC investigation. Welcome to Top Of The Pops. Then

there is a wider question, about the way in which the BBC has dealt

with this aspect of the Savile scandal. In the days after the blog

post, the two Newsnight journalists behind the original report sent e-

mails to their editor, and senior BBC managers, including the

director-general. They made it clear to their superiors they felt

the blog and other public statements were inaccurate.

It is obviously very damaging that the BBC has had to put out a

statement, saying the initial explanation, as to why the

Newsnight investigation was dropped, was partial and inaccurate. But it

also begs the question why it has taken very nearly three week for

them to make that admission. should there be a way in which BBC

journalists can raise serious editoral concerns, with people at

the very top of the corporation. The Newsnight reporter on the

Savile investigation, Liz MacKean, felt there was nowhere for her

complaints to be properly heard outside the editor's office. It is

obviously very worrying, that the reporter and producer making the

investigation programme felt, so strongly, that their report was

being buried, and didn't seem to be able to do anything about it until

Panorama decided to look into it. As far as the wider impact on the

BBC goes, tonight's Panorama on Savile, could find no evidence to

suggest that Peter Rippon was pressured from above to drop the

report ahead of a Christmas tribute to the star. Tomorrow, the new BBC

director-general, will appear in front of the Commons Culture

Committee. Panorama alleges that Francesca Entwhistle was told about

the Newsnight investigation last year, when he was the BBC's

Director of Vision, but that conversation with the BBC's Head of

News, of said to have lasted less than ten seconds. The committee

will want to know what exactly Francesca Entwhistle was told about

the Newsnight investigation. Why didn't he ask more questions about

the report? And given what he did know, why were those Christmas

tribute programmes, about Savile, allowed to be broadcast?

The crisis has left BBC managers at the highest level, with serious

questions to answer. And, it has raised issues about the culture and

communications of the organisation. No-one would envy the director-

general's task at the Select Committee tomorrow.

Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, declined to be interviewed on this

programme. No-one from senior BBC management decided to appear

tonight, either. But here to discuss this are a

former editor of Newsnight, and now director of the documentary film

company, Make World Media, and Stuart Purvis, a former chief

executive of ITV and now Professor of Television Journalism at City

University. First off, how damaged do you think the BBC is by this,

Stuart Purvis? When you had a corporate statement out there for

at least a couple of weeks, and suddenly you pull it, and say that

wasn't right. It was a statement initiated by the editor of

Newsnight, supported by the Head of Editoral Policy, the director-

general and the chairman of the BBC Trust, it is an embarrassing day.

How can it take 25 days to find out the whole basis of the BBC's

defence was phoney? It is an extraordinary position, and I agree

with Stuart, incredibly damaging. How does it take 20 days? You know,

the BBC is massive institution. It take as long time to get itself

together, to get its lines of argument sorted out. I think,

probably, possibly more fundamental was the fact that the BBC is very

hierarchical, it assumes everybody beneath them has done their job

well, and sorted something out. This was an alleged statement of

fact? It was, they obviously, the fact that the director-general, and

the Chairman of the Trust came out and backed it, I think they thought

it had all been sorted out. That the process of the BBC meant this

was absolutely defensible. What is amazing, was that nobody earlier

had not gone back to the original, to talk to the two, the reporter

and the producer involved, and actually realised that there were

divergent views on this. We got no closer in tonight's Panorama, still

running, on this question, on whether the editor of Newsnight was

lent on by people higher than him to can the investigation. So that

is still pretty opaque? It is, it is perfectly proper that the

Panorama programme should say there is no evidence he was lent on. But

we are only half way through this. Bluntly, the journalists are

winning and the corporates are lose anything this process. We have had

these two BBCs at work, and now the question is can these two positions

be some how reconciled, in some sort of agreed truth. The omens for

that are not really good. It is just continually damaging to the

BBC that they had these two BBCs briefing against each other,

leaking against each other, and I'm not even sure that's finished today.

You have sat in that editor's chair, is it conceivable it was an

individual decision? I find it, I find that difficult to believe. To

be honest. I'm not ruling it out, as Stuart has said, we have not got

to the end of it, we don't know. You wouldn't necessarily have to be

instruct, presumably after a while, osmoticall and intuitively you

understand what your bosses want? don't feel there was a corporate

squash. But, having said that, so many things have come out about

this, which have undermined and changed the story, that even I, who

absolutely believed that, wouldn't be surprised if something did come

out now. Because of the changes that there have been. The important

thing in all of this, is, of course, not which programme said what about

whom, it is about child abuse? And whether corporately there was a

catastrophic failure, not just in the corporation, but particularly

in the corporation in this case. How much do these two things feed

across to one another, do you think, this general feeling that there was,

that something went really badly wrong here? I think the common

factor here is defensiveness. If you think about it, Francesca

Entwhistle has nothing to be ashamed of, in temples of he had no

role in the historic element, but the moment that ITV went public

with their allegations, a defensiveness spread across the BBC

about what happened 20, 30 years ago, as well as what happened on

Newsnight. They really needed to keep those two processes separate.

They should have said these are serious allegations about the past,

we will look into it, and in the case of Newsnight, they needed to

be more on the ball about what they were saying. One other element that

is similar. They didn't actually take them seriously, right off.

Having done a child abuse investigation myself, it is very

easy to dismiss the people who come forward as not being credible. I

think there is an element of how people have viewed the past, and

what happened in the past, and possibly, what actually came out in

a Newsnight investigation, that just wasn't taken as seriously as

it should have been There is certainly a hint in the e-mails

that we only have a the word of the victims. You kind of think that is

a pretty strong word. Having done it, it is incredibly hard for the

victims to come forward. Let's come back to this dreary media point,

perhaps, Chris Patten, the BBC bruft, are also on the hook, --

Trust, are also on the hook, on the basis of the statement initially

issued, there are serious issues for corporate governance there? I

think there was, when Chris Patten got the job there was a sigh of

relief in the BBC. He's a political heavyweight, he wanted to bring the

Trust and the management closer together than under his predecessor.

There are echos, hearing Gavin Davies in the Hutton affair,

calling the governance together saying we must support the

management. He didn't need to say the things he said. He resigned

didn't didn't he? He had to resign. Chris Patten said we told the

police as soon as we knew we had evidence, that now turns out to be

untrue. Now, monsters Inc, Conrad Moffat

Black was once one of the most powerful men in the kingdom. As

owner of the Daily Telegraph and other places, he was courted by the

political class, and flattered by the investors' tip sheets. Then he

fell foul of the American justice system, and charged with being

seriously myopic when figuring out what was his company and what was

the company's. Lord of the Holy ap see, he became prisoner 18334 he

didn't like it, and he went to see him about it earlier. First we

shine some light on him. It was a calamitous fall, compared to the

ficticious Citizen Kane, Lord Conrad Black was a real newspaper

baron, whose crimes were covered in papers he once owned and defrauded.

He has been consistently accused by the courts and others of being

dishonest, always his reply is, "I'm the victim". This is no

different now. Conrad Black has always played the victim card in

his defence of his criminal behaviour. Ennobled in the Lords,

this was the zenith of Conrad Moffat Black's career, and the

beginning of the end. I Conrad Lord Black of Crossharbour, do swear by

Almighty God...The Son of a wealthy Canadian industrialist, 20 years

after buying his first paper in qek beck, Black had taken over the

Telegraph, he was soon alleged to be looting his cop on a grand scale

-- company on a grand scale. What is comical, when he was in London

as owner of the Telegraph, he was always saying what genius

capitalism was, when it was the capitalists, the shareholders in

his own company, who said in 2001, you are stealing the shareholders'

money, you are defrauding the Telegraph Group, it was he that

said he was the victim of capitalism. Because he wanted to

take as much money as he needed. said was the victim of the American

prosecutors? Of course he was, they prosecuted a fraudster. Five years

ago, Conrad Black was convicted in an American court of defrauding the

company he had led, Hollinger. Report He was initially jailed for

six-and-a-half years. But served less than half that, after winning

appeals against a number of the fraud counts. He still claims to be

innocent of all crimes. But back home in Canada, the country he had

once renounced as being in decline, he remains a controversial figure.

He currently has a one-year residency visa, and the opposition

want him booted out. It is a far cry from the days when he and

Barbara Amiel, his second wife, had two private jets and homes in

London's Kensington and Park Avenue New York.

Barbara Amiel for Conrad Black was an awakening, and enlightenment, an

apparition, she was a goddess, because she combined beauty and

intelligence, and sassyness, and everything else. The problem was,

she also had this insaitable extravagance. As she said, her

extravagance knows know bounds. one time, he ran one of the biggest

newspaper businesses in the world, it was said he was a millionaire

with a billionare's life standard. Others say Conrad Black was less

modest. In the end, Conrad Black believes

he's God, and everyone must bow to him. His hero is Napoleon, except

he doesn't figure in the same way as nappol lan, he's always defeated

whatever he does. The one thing you can't say about him, is he's a

physical coward. In the end he calls comes back, and again and

again and again, -- in the end he always comes back again and again,

he's a fighter, that is how he makes his money. Lord Black is

indeed back. Plugging his book, claiming he has been wrongly

convicted, and trying 0 rebuild a reputation. -- trying to rebuild a

rep taiing. That will take some fight.

REPORTER: Do you think prison made you a better person? Hard to saying,

I'm suspicious of people who say it make awe better person. It was a

broadening experience, I can say that. It was, in a way, a humbling

one. That is normally good for us. I suppose I would say, yes, but I

don't want to give your viewers that I'm trumpeting myself as an

altogether madeover virttuous person. Not at all, you deny all

the charges against you? They are rubbish, everyone can see their

rubbish. You are a convicted fraudster? No, I'm not. In the

first place, under British and Canadian rules none of this would

stand up. We got rid of all the counts and had the prosecuting

statute declared unconstitutional. When you read the remarks of the

judges, for example the judge in Delaware, that you are "evasive and

unreliable"? That was not a criminal case, that was a

completely, just a minute, that was a completely falacious judgment, in

fact, absolutely defied by the jurors. It is the opinion of a

judge? And you have been convicted? Will you stop thisburg

woipriingishness. What is bourg wore drg bourg war -- bourgeois?

you think a British court, all of it thrown out, the Supreme Court,

equivalent in this country, denouncing the lower court judges

as idiots, the infirmity of inventing law and telling them.

misunderstood what was legal? Nothing I misunderstood was legal.

Why are you convicted? 99% of people are convicted in the United

States. It is a all fascistic conveyor belt of justice that is

what it is. 5% of the population of the world are Americans, 25% of the

incarcerated people are, and 50% of the lawyers are. 99.5% conviction

rate. This sits very odd. Six to 12 times as many people per capita

incarcerated as Britain, France, Germany and Japan, how do you

explain that? I don't think I have to? Give it a try. Why? Before you

accuse me of being a criminal, give it a try. You are a convicted

criminal? You are a fool, a priingish British, fool, who takes

seriously this ghastly American justice system, that any sane

person knows is an outrage. This sits very oddly with our

protestation you are a Roman Catholic, don't you do penance?

do, I do, and I believe in the punishment of crime, as well as the

confession of wrongdoing. Do you not think that a man found guilty

by due process of law, ought to be slightly penitent? If it is, in

fact, due process. There was no due process of law in that. You see

Jeremy, your problem is you have no idea how the system operates.

are the one who chose to locate his business there? I did. Yes.

were just foolish or what? In fact, I wouldn't say, I would say that is

slightly overstatinging it. I underestimated the corruption of

the American legal system, I confess to that, I'm penitent about

it as well. What will surprise our viewers, that a man who has within

through this will show no humility and shame? Of course not, I'm sick

to death, I'm proud of being in a federal prison and survived it as

well. I had no problem with the regime or fellow residents. I'm

proud of having gone through the terribly difficult process of being

falsely charged, falsely convicted, and ultimately almost kpwhrotly

vindicated, without losing my mind, becoming irrational, stopping being

a reasonable and penitent person, and enduring a discussion like this,

without getting up and smashing your face in, which most people

would have done if they-through what I have been. Get up then?

don't believe in violence. Do you expect to retain your seat in the

House of Lords? Why not. You're a convicted criminal? There is not a

prohibition on a convicted criminal sitting in that House. You don't

believe a man who has done time in prison should be to help frame the

laws of a country? Yes I do. If there is a question about his guilt

in the first place, say it was a person convicted in North Korea, on

that theory Nelson Mandela couldn't sit. And, if I were you I would be

careful about being such a gullible rubber stamp to the crooked

American system. You think a convicted paedophile, for example,

should be able to sit in the House of Lords and make laws on child

protection? That is not what I said. No? If you ask it in those terms.

If he was a legitimate, legitimately convicted paedophile,

I would say there were serious problems about him sitting in a

legislative party. The whole legal process is about determining

whether people are justly convicted or acquitted, you put yourself

above that, don't you? No I do not. I put myself in the camp of Henry

David this. Oroeoux, who says in a society that routinely sends

innocent people to prison, the place for innocent people is in

prison. The idea I would sit in a public company and steal $285,000,

that is what they are down to, they don't even claim it is a theft or

fraud. They claim it is an inproper reception of money voted by the

directors and published as a fact. That is what you are waxing so

sanctimonious about. Does having a very extravagant wife make that

sort of thing more likely? Oh God, I'm going to throw up! After seven

years, my first morning back in Britain,am I to be subjected to

this. She wasn't extravagant, she's a magnificent wife, she visited me

every week in prison, even coming back from China to do it. Why did

you suddenly start spending so much money? I didn't start spending so

much money, I was a well-to-do man. I spent in accord with my means,

and my means went up. You are a man traducced, if I'm to understand

you? I am. I have been forcible with you, I don't want to disabuse

your viewers that I think I'm always right, I made terrible

mistraik, but not ethical mistake, -- mistakes, and not ethical

mistakes, and certainly not acts of thefts.

Look at me, I'm not knocked about by events, David Cameron tried to

establish some authority It's All Over Now things, after last week's

pitfalls, like the resignation of the Chief Whip. He says he's going

to transform the criminal justice system, and not spending any more

money, in fact at a time when he's cutting money spent on prison. He

went to a jail for the usual photocall, and the disappointment

of his critics, he came out. A surprising soupy fog descended

today. Westminster was lost in a Dickensian mist, as the Prime

Minister, we were told, was about to take criminal justice policy

back in time too. Except David Cameron didn't then go quite as far

as been prebriefed, said he wanted to focus on the grey bits of modern

life. With the crime debate, people seem to want it black or white.

Lock them up or let them out. Blame the criminal, or blame society. Be

tough or act soft. We're so busy going backwards and forwards, that

we never actually move the debate on. What I have been trying to do,

in opposition and now in Government, is to break out of the sterile

debate, and show a new way forward, tough, but intelligent. So, not

sterile and indeed not monochrome, but at the weekend, in black and

white, a newspaper headline previewing this speech screamed

"mug a hoodie", was a new direction coming into focus? Not really.

many people, when it comes to crime, I'm the person associated with

those three words, two of which begin with "h" and the last one is

hoodie. I never actually said it, and haven't again today. For others

I'm a politician who has argued frequently for tough punishment. Do

I take a tough line on crime or a touchy feely one. In ore no other

area of public debate do the issues get as polarised as this. He has

been on a journey, when he came to the CSJ with the hug a hoodie

speech, he talked about young people and what leads them to crime,

in terms of causes of crime and rehabilitation, he has been pretty

consistent. What we are seeing now is a sense, with the new Justice

Secretary, Grayling grey, an opportunity to talk tougher --

Chris Grayling, an opportunity to talk tougher, he's not in battle

with other politicians to talk tougher. There was one policy

innovation, the hoodie would not be mugged or hugged, but companies who

stopped reoffending would get hugged, or at least a fee. With

payment by results, your money will go to what work, criminals go

straight, crime going down and the country getting safer. It is such a

good idea, I will put rocket boosters under it. I have an

announcement to wait. By the end of 2015, I want payment by results

spread right across rehabilitation. But this is controversial, with the

role out being announced before pilots have finished. It may not be

blain sailing either. We have seen ho -- plain sailing either. We have

seen how difficult it is with welfare-to-work. There has been

payments there, and there is a lot of criticism about how it is

working out. That is fairly simple compared to what they are asking

for a justice system. Getting someone into a job is simple,

getting someone to stop reoffending, and people have chaotic lives in

and out and prison. Was this the Prime Minister's first speech on

crime since taking office, a steadier pace than the previous

Government, why not a little more from David Cameron? One reason is

crime is falling, and concern about crime has fallen away with the

economy and unemployment swamping it as an issue. But also because

his lead over Labour has been pretty solid for a very long time.

It remains 10% more people believing the Conservatives have

the best policies on crime than the Labour Party. There wasn't much new

in today's speech, it wasn't about policy but positions. In less than

a month's time there will be a speech on elections of crime

commissioners, but there hasn't been much effort from the Prime

Minister to make sure they are a success. Today's speech is about

associating in the public's minds cram Ron against crime F that

doesn't happen, there is a fear that next month's elections could

be the latest Downing Street damp squib.

The Government has made many unforced errors recently, and many

yes or no for some stability. Within the fog, some even discern

the outlines of an economic recovery.

The minister for policing and criminal justice, Roy Greenslade,

is with us now, -- Damien Green is with us now, where is the evidence

that rehabilitation payment works? The pilots done by the Justice

Department in four prison, Peterborough has a very good

project by a charity there, which is seeing some early results. And

also, the wider experiment in the welfare system, we have used

payment by results to get people back into work, and through the

work programme, more young people are in work than before.

Specifically on the penal policy, are those results published? No, we

are still at the evaluation stage. The early signs are good. You have

not yet evaluated whatever weather it does comprehensively work?

have seen evidence it does work. What we do know is the current

system absolutely doesn't work. yes, it may be that your new system

doesn't absolutely work either, but how do you measure, in order to

make sure they get paid? measurement of success is stopping

reoffending. That what we want is people, what we have now is a

revolving door where people go into jail, come out, commit more crime,

go back into jail, that is clearly something that has to change. What

we want to do is bring energy to bear from charities and from the

private sector. So that if they can actually change people's lifestyle,

I agree with those people saying this is a difficult ask, that is

why we need all this expertise from all over the place F they succeed,

then they get paid. So -- If they succeed, then they get paid. To get

paid, the offender concerned can't reoffend at all. It won't be

sufficient that somebody committing 60 burglaries a year goes to ten

burglaries a year, that wouldn't be a result? The principle will be

that for a certain amount of time, and one can argue about the amount

of time for different offences, but say for a year, after you come out

of prison, you are not convicted to go back into prison. Of any crime?

The sort of crime that will land you back in prison.

The Prime Minister also is lifting the cap on prison numbers, there

are about 86,500 people in prison now. Are you envisaging it could go

to any number at all? We haven't got a cap on prison number, there

is no targets for prison numbers. Shouldn't there be? No, I don't

think there should. Because crime is falling, as was rightly said in

your report, one would report over time fewer people would go there.

It is nothing to do with whether crime is rising or falling, it is

an absolute? The number of prison places? No, the question question

of whether people should go to prison -- no the question of

whether people should go to prison if they commit a crime is rising

and falling? It is true on the law and the sentencing policy at the

time. The point of principle that the public wants to see, if

parliament have passed a law saying if you commit this particular crime

you should go to jail, then you should go to jail. How many people

are you prepared to see in prison? We don't have a target, as I say.

What we want to do is stop people reoffending, and the effect of that,

because so much crime, such a large percentage of crime is committed by

people who are reoffending, if can you stop some of those people,

hopefully a significant number of those people, reoffending, then

actually what you see is a fall in the prison population, even though

you are being perfectly tough on sending people to jail who deserve

to go to jail. An urgent dispatch today from the

Belarusian Telegraph Agency in Minsk, and an avidly read source in

the Newsnight office t carried the latest thunderous insight of the

President, Alexander Lukashenko, he believes talk of democracy is being

used as a cover for what he calls "plunder" by the west. Last week he

was claiming he is no Stalin. He has a different style of moustache

for one thing. We joined the latest press baron,

Evgeny Lebedev, to conduct a rare interview with the man who is

called Europe's last great dictator, a warning this film contains flash

photography. Right own the edge of Europe, a

place that offends so many European values.

We have come to Minsk, to meet up with Britain's youngest newspaper

proprietor. We're on our way to a rare meeting that Evgeny Lebedev

has managed to secure. Not many get to see the corridors

of Belarusian power. This is an opportunity to put on the spot, the

man known as Europe's last dictator. It's also a challenge, for the

ambitious son of a Russian oligarch. President Alexander Lukashenko has

been in power for 18 years. He has been accused of torture and human

rights abuses. He has thrown his opponents in prison, banned

protests, and restricted freedom of expression. The Belarusian

strongman is banned from travelling to Britain and the United States.

And western journalists rarely get a chance to hold him to account.

The night before the interview, preparations are under way in a

hotel in central Minsk. I decided not to start on international

policy, but more on him as a man. Evgeny Lebedev, once labelled as

London's latest "it" boy, is now in the role of a foreign correspondent,

for a newspaper his father bought for him of the I come here as a

journalist for the Independent Newspaper, the article that I will

write will be in the Independent Newspaper. He considers himself an

authoritarian leader. authoritarian-style, is what he

said. So, what does he expect from the

Belarusian leader? I think one of the interesting things about this,

I really have no idea how it will to. I think it is the first one

that I have done, where I really do not know what to expect. But,

apparently, according to his press secretary, he's up for a fight.

Lebedev's own father made his billion after the break up of the

Soviet Union, in the chaotic, rapid privatisation of state monoplies,

that made a handful of Russians rich, and left millions in poverty.

Alexander Lukashenko never allowed that to happen in Belarus.

The route this country, Belarus, took, was very different from the

one that Russia took. To my mind, Russia went the route of plenty of

democracy, in the 1990s, plenty of democracy, but not very much

fairness. Belarus went the opposite way, there was plenty of fairness,

and not very much democracy. Do you think that is a fair assessment?

But the relative stability of reel rus comes at a price. There is no -

- Belarus comes as a price. There is no presidential term here, and

the 1996 referendum consolidated Alexander Lukashenko's power. Not a

single election here has been deemed free or fair by the west.

Not a single opposition candidate won a seat in the recent

parliamentary vote. Protests have been violently

suppressed. But Lukashenko says western calls for democracy in

The referendum gave you huge powers over this country, and that was to

appoint a Prime Minister, who appoints the Government, to appoint

half the Senate, to appoint some of the judges, to appoint the head of

the KGB and also appoint the head of the editoral commission. Do you

think that is too much power concentrated in the hands of one

TRANSLATION: Don't you think it is The west's real agenda, the

President says, is to open up the Belarusian economy. Which would

make it vulnerable to the problems of the rest of the Europe. This

woman is a journalist for a Russian newspaper, owned by Lebedev's

father. In 2010, she and her husband, a former presidential

candidate, were jailed for organising protests. Their son was

three at the time, authorities threatened to take him away.

International pressure got them out Today she is allowed to leave the

house, but not the city. Police visit regularly, often in the

middle of the noit. And, she has a -- in night. And, she has another

trial pending. One of our journalists has been arrested and

is in this country, she can't leave the country. I can vouch for her

personally, I know she's not a criminal. Can I ask why she's not

even allowed to go and see a doctor in Moscow? The President looking

surprise and asks is she not out of the country already, he turns to

his aide, no problem, he says, send her to Moscow tonight. Then minutes

later, a memo arrives. Being dictator isn't such a bad

thing, he joke, there you go, and don't bother bringing her back.

Later in the day, Lebedev brings Irina the news, she's grateful, but,

she tells him, she's also sceptical. Because President Lukashenko's

Belarus can be a dark, secretive place, where what is said in public,

doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. Many believe that was the

case with the Minsk Metro bombing, an explosion that killed 15 people

in April 2011. Within 48 hours, police arrested two young men.

Within weeks they were convicted and executed. The BBC News night

investigation into the attack raised a possibility that Security

Services were involved in the bombing. And the mother of one of

the men said confessions were extracted under torture. Mr

Lukashenko dismissed allegations of torture, and it was always under

his control, the investigation, and Interpol agreed.

Although we were just observers, I asked Lukashenko to follow up on

the answer. Your own correspondent and newspaper that covered this

trial, talked about what a sham it was, and it was basically a show

trial. The BBC had evidence that some of the things said by the

judge were simply absurd, what does After the interview the President

and Evgeny Lebedev disappeared for a private meeting. At the end,

Lebedev never really challenged the Belarusian leader. It has taken the

son of a Russian oligarch to get us rare access to this place, and the

man known as Europe's last dictator. The fascinating four-hour long

conversation between them revealed a man who is well aware of his

reputation, and yet, convinced that his country is on the right course.

This is a country where facts are easily manipulated, and public

accountability is scarce. Which is why, back at her house, Irina says

Even if President Lukashenko keeps his promise, she doesn't want to

leave Minsk. This is her home, like so many others, Irina wants to find

her freedom here, in Belarus. Irina, who was featured in the film,

is still under house arrest, it is now more than two weeks since

President Lukashenko said she could go free. That's it, we will be back

with more tomorrow, until then, Grey will continue to be the

dominant sky colour over the next couple of days. Earl low mist and

fog gradually lifting through the course of the day, never completely

clearing in many places across England and Wales. Not many bright

spot, perhaps to the west of the Pennine, bright intervals in the

afternoon. The North Sea coast staying resolutely grey, into the

Midland, into the south-east of England. Despite the cloud, still

mild, 15 in Southampton, brighter in the west of the high ground in

south-west England. Barnstaple could see a little glimpse of

sunshine, if you are lucky. East Wales, misty. West Wales a little

brighter. For Northern Ireland it looks a pretty grey day. Highs of

13. Patchy drizzle, certainly a possibility. The real bright spot,

is once again, the North West of Scotland, lovely here over the last

few days, that will continue after a chilly start. Looking into

Tuesday and into Wednesday, not much change. Still most of our

featured cities, looking grey. Similar temperatures as well. Maybe

not seeing quite as much fog around by Wednesday. Just a little more

breeze picking up, it helps pick it up into low cloud. A slight