The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Yes. The original story said that I walked into this house, which in actual fact is our family home now, that I glanced at two rooms, that I then offered a vast amount of money to get the owner out virtually instantly because I wished to host a Christmas party in this house. It's utterly, utterly untrue.

We looked around the house in exactly the way any normal person would look around a house they were intending to live in, we took our children to look around the house. There was no question of throwing money at anyone to make them leave. We had a very amicable relationship with the seller who moved out in the normal time period and actually I never held any kind of Christmas party that year because we'd just moved in. So it was nonsense from beginning to end.

Again, some people might think it's not a big deal. Firstly, it's depicting me as a very arrogant person who is unaware of the value of money, who uses it to bend anyone to her will, which I do not believe to be the case.

But it's also you're putting a version of -- or the newspaper is putting a version of me and my family into the public domain that has an effect on my children, who are then asked about the house that we bought when we'd barely looked at it and the huge party we had and how your mother just throws money at people to move them out of their houses, and this is hurtful stuff.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech