Mr Peter Stothard
Editor
The Times
1 Pennington Street
LONDON E1 9XN

Dear Mr Stothard,

I have been a reader of the Times for forty years, but I must tell you that certain recent events have shaken my faith in the Times, both as a newspaper and as an institution.

In late November and early December, I inserted a paid advertisement in both the Daily Telegraph and in The Spectator, being a short article on the subject of the Pinochet case. In both cases, the matter was arranged within twenty-four hours. On December 6th, however, when I contacted the Times for the same purpose, there was some immediate resistance accompanied by a request for evidence about certain points in the article. This was already most unusual. If Toyota advertises their latest model in the Times, you do not ask them to prove their claims about the new model. And if a political party advertises in the Times, you do not ask them to prove their claims that England will become the Garden of Eden under their rule. If you did, you soon would have no advertisements. However, I decided to cooperate and sent you some more documents and evidence. I then did not hear from you for two weeks, although I rang several different people on your staff in the meantime, all of who promised to ring me back but did not. Is this the courtesy that the Times gives to its advertisers? Finally, after two weeks of silence I received a letter from your company saying that you were refusing to carry the advertisement. The only reason mentioned was that you found it "difficult to accept that all the people executed and imprisoned under the Junta were active Communists".

I must tell you that I found this statement amazing on several levels. Firstly, the fact that you refused a paid advertisement whose only content consisted of historical facts (whether you chose to agree with them or not). Secondly, the fact that you have often printed Communist allegations against Pinochet, none of which have been proven, while you ask us in effect to produce the identities and files of 3,000 people, who were imprisoned thirty years ago. Finally, by underlining the word "all", you imply that if we found even one non-Communist prisoner, that would prejudice our case and preclude us any access to the Times. I am extremely worried that this too obvious partiality and hypocrisy will make the Times a laughing stock.

It may be worthwhile here to remind you from where these Communist allegations come. Lord Irvine admitted in the national press not long ago, that after the Law Lords had reduced the number of allegations outstanding against Pinochet to only three, the Crown Prosecution Service had sent investigators to Spain to try to find more evidence and allegations. Such behaviour by the CPS is unheard of - the CPS is meant to be an impartial body whose only function is to prosecute cases in England for foreign principals, not to help foreigners prepare their cases. The CPS investigators went straight to Judge Garzon, the well-known Communist, and the man behind the warrant against Pinochet. Garzon, in turn, referred them to a man call Juan Garces. Garces was a former advisor to Allende, who was with Allende in the presidential palace in Santiago as it went up in flames. As he was Spanish, the Junta allowed him to return to Spain after the coup. He is a hard-bitten experienced Communist, active in far-left politics in Spain. He advocates the abolition of democracy, and he supports the creation of a totalitarian state. It was he who drew up allegations for the CPS. Lord Irvine also admitted that, not content with Garces, the CPS people had also consulted other Spanish Communist politicians. These are then the people who formulated the allegations against Pinochet (yet our government continues to support them and to pretend that politics "are not involved"), and there are the allegations, which the Times is happy to repeatedly, publicize. But Pinochet supporters are not allowed to reply in the Times.

There are some other points that are important in order to understand the events in Chile. Chile has always been a Christian Democratic country, but in 1970 there was a split in the party and in the 1970 Presidential elections, they fielded two candidates. It was this, and this alone, which allowed Allende to become President. As it was, he just scraped in. He received 36%, the official CD candidate received 35% and the Independent received 28%. In short, he only had a little more than a third of the popular vote. Furthermore, Parliament was still controlled by the Christian Democrats. In short, Allende NEVER had the majority either of the people or of Parliament behind him, and he knew very well that to take power he would have to use force. This force eventually resulted in the Chilean Civil War. By 1973 the people were fed up, and were openly asking the military to depose Allende. Yet the military hesitated, and the people taunted them openly. Whenever they saw soldiers, Chilean women would throw corn down at the soldiers' feet as a sign of contempt. When the coup was finally launched, the whole country, apart from the Communists, was behind the Junta.

The arrival of the Cuban troops set off the Civil War, and the Communists were defeated. Now since the beginning of time, at the end of every Civil War the same thing inevitably happens - whether it is Chile in the 1970's, or Greece in the 1950's, or Spain in the 1930's, or England in the 1640's - the leaders of the losing side are executed or go to jail, because they are considered TRAITORS. (There are some small differences in numbers, however. In Chile 2,279 people died, 1,261 of them during the fighting, and the rest later. In Spain, Judge Garzon's country, only a million people died). The point to remember is, however, that it is only those who fight on the losing side who go to jail - in this case the Communists - because the winners have no reason or incentive to put anyone else in jail. I leave you to decide whether your behaviour regarding my article was that of a first-class newspaper which pretends to be impartial.