Thank you.

If you're going to set up an independent regulatory body or tribunal, please allow the victims of the media to go and give their evidence in person to that tribunal, where they can look it over. It would be nice if the actual offending journalist was there when these ...

That's what I meant to say, if I may say that.

No, just to thank everyone for being so kind and listening to us.

I would like to see the English Parliamentarians getting some backbone and publishing a consultation paper here in England for victims of crime on defamation of homicide victims.

So we're hoping to get the results this year, but we don't know.

They unjustly attack the memory of the deceased, because you've got to remember, that memory's all the living have of them. So please don't besmirch the innocent to make a case for offenders. That's not right and it's not just.

Well, we're pleased to say that the Scottish government, after a lot of years of campaigning, did publish a consultation paper on defamation of the deceased -- it's called "Death of a Good Name -- Defamation and the Deceased" -- which closed in April 9 this year. Obviously, we're still ...

Yes.

Yes.

We actually set up the families of murdered children one.

No.

So they either do one thing or they don't. They're misleading the public and they're misleading this Inquiry.

They accepted it was misleading. And I also found something else out. When I got this letter back, I sent another email, a follow-up email to the Press Complaints once they'd given me their judgment, and asking them why their complaint was not on a website because they seemed ...

Well, our childrens' memory, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Grossly misleading, an insult.

What they were basically saying, although they found the Sunday Mail article misleading, the headlines misleading, they didn't really see any reason to take it further because in the context, they did put on the other side that Barbara Glover had -- the judge had said that Barbara Glover had ...

Yes. 3 November 2003.

Well, if I just say it in general.

Well, basically because -- I mean, I can't remember verbatim. I would need to --

Yes. I emailed them and I hoped they would take this one seriously, but clearly they did not.

Sorry?

No.

No.

Well, obviously, just looking at that at a glance -- you don't have to read the article. Just looking at it at a glance, you think that the reporter's referring to Barbara Glover as being a victim and most certainly does not. It doesn't even mention Barbara Glover.

Yes, apparently, Scottish Office had released some report about children who are violated when they're younger may go on to commit violent crime, and to make this case, the Mail on Sunday in Scotland decided to publish a large spread on child fighters turned into criminals.

I think the headline says it all:

"Child crime fighters turn into criminals."

Then it goes on to describe how when children are young, if they're bullied or abused, they may go on to commit violent crime. Then there's a photograph, a large photograph -- obviously this is a ...

Well, once again we weren't informed this article was going to print. I think it was someone else, I can't remember, came up to the door when the Sunday was released and gave us a copy because they were so upset about it. Do you have the article ...

Yes. There was a -- are you referring to the article that was you're published in the Sunday Mail? It was grossly misleading and an insult, again, to our daughter's memory.

Mm-hm.

As far as we were concerned, yes.

Well, the gentleman I spoke to -- Mr Austin, I believe his name was -- he wasn't the least bit interested in what we had to say. He didn't take -- he couldn't seem to take on board that we had started a complaint, unfortunately we'd lost a son ...

Error, yes. November.

Well, I can understand because he had been trying to get in touch with us, but because we'd lost Alan --

Refresh my memory.

I couldn't believe it because that was the day of Alan's funeral. I thought at least they would leave us alone for Alan's funeral. They took away his respect, they took away his dignity, and the very day that we were laying our son to rest. If ...

He was extremely upset. He said, "Surely there's something can be done?" He says, "Not legally." He says, "All we can do is write to the magazine", and I'm afraid that all just became too much for Alan. And I don't blame him because I can understand ...

Well, Alan couldn't understand particularly -- the Marie Claire one particularly upset Alan because it was a disgrace. That's not journalism. But he wanted to know what we were doing about it, and we told him we'd sought the advice of a solicitor and as things weren't ...

We've actually got the proof now because we managed to get a transcript of the trial, which will prove everything we said is correct.

Without a doubt.

15.

Oh yes, because it was a campaign to get her released.

No, the only reason we got -- we went down to London and demanded to speak to Glenda Bailey, who was then the editor of the Marie Claire. At first she refused to see us, then she finally relented. We showed her the evidence that we had and she said she ...

Oh, that was about a year, wasn't it?

At first, they were not interested. The original answer to our complaint -- I don't know if you have a copy of the small reply we were -- today -- they actually were to write it. They wrote it. It was only about three lines to go in the letters page, but ...

Not just like that.

We sought the advice of a solicitor.

It was actually a friend of my daughter's who'd read it and thought that we should read it because her mother was more than aware it was referring to Diane.