Thank you very much.

-- which spring to mind, as you've just mentioned, but I can see the arguments for doing it.

Yes. No, there is very good reason to do it. I'm just highlighting concerns --

It --

I'm sure they wouldn't do that, but there's a risk, sir, that that could happen.

Yes, which is --

Well, not -- well, actually, the way I've seen, you know, most counsel use material, they would -- in fact -- you'd risk that they'd infer a meaning that actually they were really alive to the fact that they shouldn't have done it in the first place, and so ...

No, it wouldn't be and my only concern would be: would that be legally disclosable?

Yes.

Only because most of the main planks of stories do have elements of risk somewhere where you might not even know it's going to come. So to have to write an ongoing sort of audit of the dialogue between people on those stories, I just don't think we ...

Subterfuge, yes.

It happens very frequently, actually, weighing up the balance on the public interest, I'd say.

Yes.

Exactly. No, it wouldn't be different. I'm wary of a constant log that people have to fill in, because I think it restricts just free flow of information, because people are wary -- just wary of things being written down about them, and the other more practical reason that ...

I'm not sure, because obviously here, for all the right reasons, we're hearing all the negatives about the paper, but I actually think that my staff are sort of very businesslike, professional and ethical in their conduct. Of course over a period of time there will be -- you ...

I do. I do, and that shouldn't have happened. But in the heat of -- you know, newspapers work under enormous pressure and have to make very quick decisions a lot of the time when things get put through and he might have answered some -- I don't know. I ...

It shouldn't have been. It really shouldn't have been. It's just one of those things. It shouldn't have been.

No, he wasn't. He was literally a reporter who had -- or who had helped support the news desk on that particular day.

If he was on -- if he was in the role of news editor, but he wasn't. He was merely helping move copy through. He didn't write and story and he wasn't involved in it --

He didn't write that story. His name shouldn't be on it. Because we were on a bank holiday weekend, he sat on the desk and he put the story through to the back bench, and he's rather upset his name is on it. He's obviously heard ...

Mr Jefferies, yes. I'm afraid --

Yes.

Yes, of that significance.

Also, I think the problem is when you're meeting people -- and of course, we do have a lot of call-ins -- you don't know if they're hoaxers, liars or genuine people. So you go along and you assess and you evaluate and part of that process is engaging ...

I'm not sure that is what he means. You would probably have to clarify that with Mr Owens.

Yes. As I said, we would never have published this story.

It does appear to be.

Got it, thank you.

Sorry, I'm working off my bundle, not the one today. There are no numbers on my pages.

Sorry, I'm in the wrong place.

Yes. I mean, we try to reflect a national conversation and most of our readers are interested in celebrity but actually it's not the prime reason for buying the paper. All our surveys say that big news stories is a first reason, sport the second and celebrity comes in ...

We have one page of -- we're a weekly paper, we have one page of film reviews a week and to be honest, I don't think our readers would be that interested. I think it was a Channel 4 film, wasn't it? We tend to cover the big ...

I think they realised, and I think Mr Owens did -- and I know he's not here but I would like to say: apart from this incident, he's a very, very good and professional reporter.

I didn't actually feel it was necessary because I think at the time there was sort of -- not disruption in the official but concern, and so we discussed it among ourselves but there was no formal email. But I did speak to the desk and individual reporters who I ...

Yes, I did.

Yes. He'd already realised -- obviously, you'll go into more detail when Mr Owens gives evidence but he realised that it wasn't in the public interest at some stage and he didn't even report his meeting to the news desk, and -- so the news desk were also ...

I can't recall which specific comments. I think there are a number, but I only became aware of this story when the Guardian contacted us and I spoke to Mr Owens at the time and he apologised and explained he had said some unhelpful things. But of course he ...

Oh --

Sorry, I have -- I don't understand the question. What realise -- at what point --

Sorry, I was looking at clause 5.

No, I can't.

I don't know. I don't believe so, but I believe they'll probably approach HR. No one's come back to me.

Yes, a whistle-blower's charter, yes.

I'm sorry because I wasn't in the office. It was new year's eve, I think two nights before -- I was off that week. I wasn't, on this particular occasion, involved in the editorial decision-making so I don't quite know why that happened but I think ...

Sorry if I'm mistaken. I understood that the complaint was about the small story on the right. Obviously it doesn't diminish the impact it had on Mr Jefferies.

With the details. We apologised and we did get it wrong, obviously. It was a bad decision.

We said his favourite poem was Oscar Wilde's "Ballad of Reading Gaol" and there's obviously an issue with that and we apologised.

Yes, it was. It doesn't diminish the crime, if you like, but we did a very small five-sentence story, and -- I know you've heard from other editors, sir, but I'm afraid I was off at the time. It was new year and I wasn't in the ...

Yes, that would be a good idea. It would be very helpful.

Yes, yes.