She's being asked by the person who is questioning her:
"I will move on to false attribution in paragraph 63. In Hello! magazine an article in 2001, or thereabouts, claiming to be a rare and exclusive interview."
She says "Yes".
"Question: The one which never occurred?"
She says: "Yes. I think people might think that's quite a banal occurrence, but in fact it's not. If you are trying, as I am, to make it quite clear that my person life -- my family life is out of bounds, then the perception that I had granted an interview to a magazine that is primarily notorious for going into people's houses, photographing them with their families, hearing personal details of their private lives, and I censor no one by the way for doing those interviews. I don't think that's an awful thing to do. It simply happens that that's not something I wish to do.
"So the magazine asserting that I had done it, I feared, would then be used as justification for further invasion: 'Well you give an interview to Hello! magazine, you are prepared to sell your private life in this way', and as is clear from my statement, what they had done was taken that article from a different paper and repackaged it. From a different source, and repackaged it."
We'll pause there. She goes on to deal with the apology that resulted. It was before your time. Can you tell us anything at all about this incident? It seems that she was alleging that the cover of Hello! had indicated that there was inside an exclusive interview with JK Rowling but actually the interview in there was an interview that had been cobbled together from various other sources.