Thank you.

It was from information in the public domain.

I don't, really, and it's not -- I don't have specific examples within my own stories of unauthorised disclosures.

Look, you will have to balance these issues. All I'm saying as a reporter is I think it will hamper access to officers.

But if we're to trust the police officers, can't we trust them to understand that it's not appropriate or may not be appropriate to see the same reporter every day for two weeks or to meet the same reporter, you know, seven or eight times over two ...

I can understand what the motivation is. I'm just -- I just -- I'm saying that I think the consequence of it will be less exchanges between journalists and police officers. For the simple reason, if a police officer is to record every exchange he has with a reporter and ...

You say a record. We've already heard that it's often recorded in diaries or recorded in notebooks. I think the mechanism which would evolve would be a central store of some information of the exchanges, so people could check it, otherwise there would be little point in having ...

Because I think as is set out in the HMIC report, some officers are already wary of dealing with journalists, and I think that the key is the training of officers, and they understand the parameters in which they have exchanges with journalists. I think the difficulty is whenever you ...

No.

I understand that, and I don't agree with that.

If what is being suggested is that all exchanges between police officers and journalists should be recorded and then kept somewhere in a document which can be audited, that is not something that I agree with.

I don't --

I don't, no.

Well, there seems to be slight bit of consensus in the evidence that exchanges between journalists and police officers should be recorded, and I think that was one of the recommendations of the HMIC report, and I don't agree with that.

These things have to be balanced, don't they? I agree, you might confuse the reader, but on the other hand you're always going to want to protect the sources and even maybe the nature of the sources.

If you become too specific in narrowing down what a source is, then you can risk the source being identified.

It may cause confusion, and it may be unhelpful, but there's a good reason why there's quite a lot of latitude in the use of the term "source". It's so that you do not identify the source.

That wouldn't happen.

What would you mean? That someone's invented it?

I heard that. I would -- I would tend to just use it for police officers. I can see the issue, if it's a police authority source, you might be a bit reluctant to identify so narrowly the organisation it's coming from, ie by putting "a Metropolitan Police Authority ...

It wouldn't -- that's what it means, generally. It doesn't mean in my -- in the articles that I have published unauthorised disclosures. I know it could mean that in other newspapers and other reporters, but it doesn't --

It may mean people who provided information that's off the record but can be used unattributed.

I do, and I have done, yes.

Of course a head of public affairs and a press office is a gatekeeper. That's what they do. They restrict access to officers. For good reasons. You can't have officers who are on operational duties being phoned up the whole time by journalists who would like to speak ...

No. No, I don't.

Yes, you have to -- it's not too difficult, because you can agree terms and you can always go back and you have that luxury on a Sunday newspaper of phoning them or a press officer and saying, "It's great, this story's gone down very well, I would ...

I would say most. Almost always. Whenever I go for a meeting -- this is with police officers. Because it's a fairly formal setting usually, with a desk and a notebook and a cup of coffee, I'll ask if I could use a tape recorder. Meeting with contacts who ...

I would always record where people give me permission. If possible, I will record, because there's no doubt then about what's being said. It's not that it's an issue, because no one's going to row back from what they've said because the terms of ...

No, I would always ask if I could record an interview. Even if it was -- even if it was actually off the record, I would -- I might ask if I could record it to refer back, and they may say, "Well, no", or -- because often -- I know this term "off ...

Yes, it is different.

A bit of both, but it might be that a contact, for instance an MP says to me, "I've had a dialogue with some constituents or even the police and I know they're looking at this area, it's very interesting, perhaps you should have a look at ...

No, what I will seek is a one-to-one briefing on an area where I might be looking at a story. So, for instance, I give an example of computer crime or child trafficking.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making there.

They -- I expect where it's been arranged through a press office, the press office will have looked at your previous articles. You will have provided a kind of parameter of information that you're after and how you would use that information. It wouldn't be trust based on ...

Well, it obviously varies from officer to officer, but the best possible officer you could find yourself in front of is someone who's got quite significant experience of dealing with the media and feels that they're able to trust you.

I don't have the same day-to-day interaction that Sandra and Paul have spoken about. I will be brought in when there is a very major crime story or where I have an idea or an idea has been suggested to me for an investigation. So I haven't noticed ...

I think that would be unfair. I think it deals with the facts of the issue.

I think Sandra put it well, texture and colour. And information. By the nature of what press officers and press bureaux do, they give quite limited information. It's come through another person. You're not actually speaking directly -- it's second-hand by its nature.

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with the press line and knowing what it is and whether you need more information, but if it's a story that we want to publish, I would rather speak to an officer directly.

That's correct. I mean, typically the type of story I would be working on, if I'd asked for a briefing, I would expect would be inspector rank and above for a specialist area in an area where they would be investigating.

Yes. It's not a conscious decision not to either accept hospitality or provide it to police officers.

I say to the best of my recollection I have never accepted it. No, it's not deliberate. Again, it comes back to the type of stories that I do and the newspaper I work on. Often when I'm seeking a police briefing, it may be a part of ...

As far as I'm concerned, it's never been an issue for me in coverage of crime stories at the Sunday Times.

I understand, but if there is an inner group and you weren't a member of it, I think you might find it would affect you more if you're on a daily newspaper, but a Sunday newspaper is a different thing, where often on a major, major crime story ...

It's never been -- I've never covered a major crime story, for instance in London, we're talking here about the Metropolitan Police, where it's been raised as an issue that we have missed a significant part of the story because we didn't attend a briefing and ...

As I understand it, that's correct, but I don't think necessarily not attending those briefings would preclude you getting information from other sources and from indeed the Press Bureau.

I'm not a specialist crime reporter. I mean, the reporters that we've heard from today are daily newspaper reporters, and they are crime correspondents with a specialised brief. At the Sunday Times, we don't have a specialised crime correspondent.

No, it doesn't, as far as I'm concerned, no.

It doesn't in terms of the nature of the stories and investigations that I work on, no.

No, I'm not.