Anyway, instead of bickering, let me just say that, yes, he came to us for help, and what did we do? We published guidance in 2005 on the Data Protection Act. It took forever to produce because it was lawyered -- I'm sorry I have to say this. It was enormously lawyered by both sides and finally popped out of the works -- I can't remember when -- in 2005. I think it was early 2005. This gave guidance to journalists on Section 55 and particularly 32 and then I started making speech after speech after speech, exhorting journalists to obey the law and the Data Protection Act.
Then we changed the code of practice to meet his demands, although not in the same words as he had wished. Then, when I -- we published the report in 2007, which was principally pointed at phone hacking. We also put in Data Protection Act, although it was separate but linked.
But the problem, all through this process of interaction with Mr Thomas, was he said, "I've got all these cases", I think there were 305, "of newspapers using enquiry agents, and all kinds of filth and horror is going on, procuring --" blagging, effectively, and when we had our meeting in December 2003, following on from this letter in November 2003, he said to us: "There are going to be court cases and there are going to be journalists caught up in it, you see, so please get a grip on this."
So the first thing I remember saying was: "Well, you suggested in the letter of November 2003 that you would let us have some details of these cases." Cases where there was blagging as opposed to use of enquiry agents, which is perfectly legal. All kinds of people use enquiry agents. And he said, "I can't provide that because there's a court case coming up and I can't give you the names."
Unfortunately, when the court case did come up, it didn't involve any journalists, so when we met Mr Thomas again, which was actually before -- I think you've got a record there where you've got Mr Thomas coming to Halton House, to the new PCC headquarters --