I just wanted to get that across.
We'll start with journalist number one.
First of all, I should say that the exhibit is split into several parts in the sense that different categories of behaviour have been identified, and the first is bullying. We'll see that at the top of the first page. A number of journalists speak about bullying. The first journalist is a journalist of 30 years' experience across the industry, in recent years working as a casual reporter on a number of national titles.
This journalist, I'll call him or her journalist number one, worked for the News of the World for over three years and says quite a number of things about the News of the World. Can I just paraphrase them in this way: first he says that -- when I say "he", I will mean he or she, it's just easier than saying he or she continuously.
First of all, he says there was tremendous pressure at News of the World and that he was given absolutely impossible tasks and was told that if he couldn't achieve them essentially that he was a failure. He then talks about a number of individuals and we'll just have to skip over that because those names are redacted.
Over the page at 1.5, explains that there was a real military chain of command, that you did what you were told when you were told, and it took a pretty brave person to take a stand. Life was made miserable, and he goes on to say:
"... you'd quickly find yourself out of work ... You grit your teeth and put up with it. If you want a career in the future, you shut up and you keep quiet. There's a lot of that about at the moment."
Paraphrasing, that's his experience at News of the World. At 1.6 he says:
"But the reality is that what happened at the News of the World is not an exception. The culture is macho, it pervades the industry. I worked at [another title] -- it's absolutely petrifying there. They work you like dogs. The expectations for a reporter are ridiculous. There are always unrealistic demands."
Again he makes the same point that if you do not achieve, you are made to feel like a failure and you are given a number of impossible to achieve tasks.
Then goes on to say:
"The culture is competitive, deliberately so. News editors throw reporters onto the same story, everyone's terrified of putting a foot wrong."
He says at the end of that paragraph:
"Even when you think you've done a great job, there's no reward or appreciation."
He talks about the levels of paranoia and pressure and explained that applied not only to casual reporters but to staff reporters as well, but as a freelance, he explains, there's no security at all. Halfway through paragraph 1.8 he says this:
"You worked long hours. You had to deliver, there was no mercy. The money's terrible. Freelancers are expected to use their own laptop, mobile and car. It's impossible to even get your expenses repaid sometimes. You are denied even the most basic tools of the trade. You're expected to pull stories out of the bag just like the staffers. You couldn't say anything in fear of losing your work."
He then goes on to say, still I presume talking about freelancers:
"There's been a creation of a second, third class culture of journalists. People on staff contracts, sometimes doing next to nothing, then there's people working really hard, with no security or contract, getting paid next to nothing."
And explains that he himself is experienced and skilled but still made to feel that he's on a very low level.
At 1.10 onwards he explains why it's impossible for him to speak out. He says:
"Being pragmatic, there is that fear that if you do what Sean (Hoare) did or Paul McMullan, you don't work in the industry again. Their reputations have been trashed. But they were quite brave in doing what they did, in telling the truth.
Can I pause there and ask you a question: was his evidence to you -- obviously him or her -- you heard him or her giving you this evidence, was the evidence there that he believed Sean Hoare and Paul McMullan to have spoken the truth?