Thank you.

If I may briefly respond to that, because our expertise is how the system works in detail, and at the moment I would say what we've heard from Lord Hunt isn't structurally flawed, but I think at the moment there's a greater chance that the details get ...

No. I met Stig Abell and heard about the proposals earlier last month, but I haven't met Lord Hunt, although I know one of my trustees has talked to him.

We haven't met him.

I endorse what Dr Moore has said. I'd also point out, as I just did, that the damage that newspapers and anyone who commands mass attention can do isn't limited to the people who read them.

Thank you.

Yes.

I mention that for a specific reason, which is that we will always prioritise freedom of speech over a rigorous commitment to accuracy, of course we will. We're an organisation that exists to take part in the severe contest of ideas and to, if you like, be the free ...

I feel we should emphasise that real harm is done by points of general inaccuracy, and I know the Inquiry has largely focused on individual named and nameable victims, but we see not just the harmful effects on policy and government making decisions which perhaps it might otherwise not make ...

I'm sorry to intrude on your time.

Can I just make one last point?

So is the industry. I think that's now uncontroversial.

A letter isn't a correction. It's just a letter.

I didn't say it wasn't. We're suggesting this as a power they should have, not something they should do with a swinging axe. What we have in mind is cases we've been through where the first offer you get is, "We'll amend the headline online ...

Yes.

Absolutely vital. I can't stress this enough. If a newspaper has been told that there's a serious problem with a headline and a regulator is aware of this, the fact that the complainant then goes away doesn't mean that the problem has gone away, it doesn't ...

Yeah, I'm with Martin on that.

Sorry, I should qualify that, I noticed a raised eyebrow, quite rightly: which just isn't there in some cases. You can't rely on it being there.

What's known as the paragraph 19 problem, common enough to have its own name. But what that highlights is the lack of a positive duty in clause 1 of the code.

What we don't have in the code is an expectation that the role of journalism is to ...

Yes.

No, absolutely, but equally a document that specifies neither the burden nor the standard of proof is pretty hard to work with in practice.

The what, sorry?

54643 is the beginning of that answer. Obviously our expertise in the code of practice is specific to clause 1. On the other hand, that's the vast majority of what the PCC does. You've heard, I think, on several occasions about the code of practice is a strong ...

Which is our answer to your 12 questions.

I think you'll find a much more helpful guide to our view on the Editors' Code in our submission at tab 16.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm sure. But their point being that they have accepted it, at least in what they have said to us. It seems a slightly strange worry to put people off statutory regulation, if that was indeed Lord Grade's principal objection.

Nonetheless, it would be much preferable to see ...

Yes. I think sort of the logic of that to some extent perhaps speaks for itself. The main thing we'd say about statutory regulation at the moment is, to coin a phrase, we agree with Lord Justice Leveson that it's been a bit dismal watching a sort of ...

We'll be submitting further evidence for modules three and four.

Yes.

May I ask, if it's not impertinent, whether the Inquiry will be publishing that advice?

I think just picking up on the freedom of speech point, I don't see effective regulation as opposed to freedom of speech and I think that terror sounds far larger in theory than it is when it's practised by people with goodwill and sensible intentions and when you ...

Yes.

Yes.

But we have to include in our sense of what accuracy means making corrections when necessary, and in fact that's exactly what clause 1 of the code does, and that's the right answer to what happens as a natural part of the pressures of being busy journalists dealing ...

Well, indeed, yes, and the Supreme Court, of course.

Okay. Can I jump in with just a small point, which is I think then you have to start making distinctions in our field of accuracy between, if you like, different types of inaccuracy. Mistakes happen. That's a normal part of journalism. That's I'm sure a normal ...

Okay, fair enough. In which case I suppose what you're drawing out there is the point that unregulated journalism isn't actually unfettered journalism. It's not just journalism where the journalist gets to do the best job they can possibly do. It's journalism where the journalist has ...

Right.

I find that a slightly surprising question. It's part of the definition of a journalist, it's part of most journalists' essential self-respect, that they uphold to high standards. I mean, especially in relation to accuracy. If you can find a journalist who is willing to proudly say that ...

Yes. As I think I said in my seminar talk, the user experience of the PCC is basically defined by the newspapers. The PCC to some extent acts as a postbox between the complainant and the newspaper. If the newspaper drags its feet, the PCC doesn't have the power ...

The dependence on co-operation?

Yeah.

Yes, that has changed. This was written before the seminars, so probably in September, so we're slightly further down that road.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's something we regard as absolutely vital, having been led down the merry dance far too many times.

I think my view is slightly different. I don't much care -- I think it's accepted that the PCC needs to be replaced, so raking over the pathology of exactly how it was failing isn't that interesting. What I think is essential is that any successor to the ...

Indeed. This is a classic case where the average isn't very useful, probably, unless there's a good reason to believe it's representative. What would be very interesting to see is how many cases take less than a week, less than two weeks, less than three weeks for ...