The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Well, we held them off for a surprisingly long time. After this article, they followed her around. She was a single pregnant woman, she was being tailed by paparazzi, one in particular who frightened her a lot, over the months of her pregnancy, but they didn't have anything to print that could link her to me until I visited the hospital after the birth when, again, there seems to have been a leak from the hospital. At that point, the dam was breached and we were bombarded with calls saying, "We know that this happened, that Tinglan had a baby in the hospital and Hugh visited", and they even knew the fake name she checked into the hospital under. So clearly there had been a leak.

Then, again, my attitude was to say nothing, which we did for a long time, and a lot of pressure was put on, the typical pressure of the tabloids. In this case, it was the Daily Mail who seemed to have all the information, the details of the hospital and the fake name, et cetera. They kept saying, "We're going to print this story anyway; what's your comment?" And because I've got wise to this technique over the years, it seemed to me that was a fishing technique and that they didn't want to print the story based solely on their hospital source because that might have been unethical or possibly illegal, so they needed a comment from my side and that is why I said nothing and I asked all my various -- like my assistant in London and my PR people in America, who didn't even know about this baby, to say nothing as well.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech