We have one. We've had one in every newspaper I've edited in the last few years, and we created one. In fact, the readers' editor is the managing editor of Independent News, whose statement you have there, and he has a brief to take all complaints and be honest, he writes a weekly column, he adjudicates on things. In fact, two weeks ago he effectively in his column said that we were wrong to publish a front-page picture of a minister grieving at the funeral of her father. I don't particularly agree with that, but his column said it and I think there's -- it performs a very good role with the readers.
One of the things we need to think about is the relationship we have with the readers. They are the judges in the end, they'll buy us or not. I think it serves a good purpose to show we're thinking, debating the ethics, having discussions.
Paul sat down with me and asked me why I'd done it and I said the reasons why I did in his column, it's not binding, but I think it serves quite an important purpose to show that you're thinking about things and you're not just sort of whizzing through publishing and be damned.
So I've always had one and I think it's a great idea. We publish prominent corrections and clarification columns as well. And I just think as long as you give he or she some independence to make genuine decisions, or certainly come to genuine opinions, it can work. Obviously they're not binding in any sense, we could do the same thing again, but it's hard, it's hard to go against what your readers' editor has said in the columns of the newspaper.