I think the word "investigating" there is probably quite strong. I think Simon -- I mean, I can't speak for Simon. Maybe you want to ask Simon to speak for himself. But I think that the -- as I stressed, the paper was in deep shock. The paper hadn't -- I'm surprised you say that there was cover-up in the sense that we'd had inklings before, because that is genuinely news to me. We had no inklings of the plagiarism at all. Indeed, one of the problems with the Johann affair was that nobody had ever complained. No journalist that he'd plagiarised, no person that he'd interviewed, no member of the public, no reader, no colleague, nobody had alerted us to the fact that he had drawn his information from somewhere else. If they had, it might have been nipped in the bud at a much earlier stage. The fact was it continued.
What happened was that interview, 29 June -- and I took over literally -- that's the Wednesday. I took over on the Monday. One of my first acts was to ask Andreas Whittam Smith to investigate the allegations against Johann so -- and at that stage it was just the plagiarism. We did not know about the Wikipedia. That happened later when Nick Cohen wrote his article in the Spectator. Again, we had absolutely no knowledge. I certainly didn't. I don't believe any of my colleagues did. They had absolutely not knowledge that Johann Hari was messing about on the Internet under a false name amending people's Wikipedia entries. I mean, we just had no knowledge.