Thank you.

No. I think earlier in my testimony I think I probably covered my thoughts as they are at the moment with regard to regulation moving forward.

If we did have a film column at the time -- and I'm not 100 per cent sure that we did, but I think we did, at most we would only review two films, and I think they would be mainstream films.

Probably not.

Completely, 100 per cent.

Not -- this -- sorry, I'm just trying to familiarise myself and remember again where we are. It certainly hasn't happened while I've been there, and I'm unaware of who Amy is and I'm actually not interested in kiss-and-tell stories particularly anyway, much. It certainly hasn't ...

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, and when I saw it, again, as I say in my statement, I was really rather angry. I immediately called in my department heads. I made them watch it. This was, I think, in October, so the first I knew of it. Sarah Jellema had already left the paper ...

As I say in my statement, I absolutely do not.

I am.

Yes.

Yes.

No, it's not part of the job.

It is not part of the job.

It -- production roles, however senior they are -- I think at the time I was probably about number three or number four on the back bench, as we call it. Before I joined the People, I was head of production at the Daily Mirror and as I tried to explain, but ...

No.

Not sources, no.

I didn't. I've never seen any phone hacking.

Only if I were ever writing headlines or drawing pages involved in show -- very, very rarely. I sat at the other end of the room. I was on the back bench and the showbiz desk was about as far away from that desk as you could possibly get in our ...

That's correct.

Yes.

Yes.

No, that's one of the things I wanted to check to reassure myself.

Yes.

No, because the people involved --

Two.

Insofar as -- this document I have only recently seen as a result of the Inquiry. This is the first time I have seen it. I was asked to look into a couple of things to reassure myself that what he said was not an issue for us, and that was ...

I'm afraid I'm not, no.

No.

Yes, he did. I know it's sounding boring, but before my time.

Yes.

Yes.

As to the wider issue of the Inquiry and clearly the way we operate going forward, it's something we need to think about, and as I said, I don't really have the answer, but it was the palace's particular concern.

Yes.

Yes. I raised it because I think it is a concern. I don't know what the answer is, because obviously we do not have jurisdiction.

I think that -- by raising it, I think I'm trying to say that it's possible to do the right thing, which I believe we did, but that may not stop the action that the palace have raised as a concern.

Individual photographers. I believe it was the same photographer or the same photographer and a relation of his who are responsible for both of the pictures involved in those cases.

Well, they were purchased for quite a considerable sum of money by People -- no relation -- People magazine in the United States, and I believe other publications as well and are on the Internet, which -- I still think it was the right thing not to publish but in terms of how ...

There's a couple of examples recently where I have been offered pictures, one of Kate and one of William and Kate. The William and Kate was Thursday of last week and I was offered exclusively pictures of them walking along the beach in North Wales. I spoke to St ...

Not at all, no.

I was on the Mirror and I became, as I said, acting editor November 2007. I have no idea, I'm afraid.

I've no idea. These numbers relate to prior to 2003? Is that correct?

Hence my confusion, sorry.

I beg your pardon, right. Keep going down, the People.

Yes.

Yes:

"Number of transactions positively identified: 802."

I have a table, but I'm not sure the numbers relate to the numbers that you've just told me.

I'm a page behind, I'm sorry.

Yeah.