"Refrain from publishing unsubstantiated rumour and stick to known facts."
That is, I think, more relevant when interviewing neighbours or trying to get stories from people who really didn't know the person who has gone, but there have always been sort of rumours and gossipmongers, but there's no impetus to check the facts of that, and that is extremely distressing. One of our families, her father was a recovering alcoholic and it was reported in the press that he was a down and out drunk, his home was a drinking den. That's unacceptable as well as inappropriate. It wasn't fact. It was somebody surmising. That's what it was.
Also, within the criminal trials, allegations can be made that are not substantiated by the defence. In my own personal case, which was very stressing, my father was a healer and the defence suggested he was involved in witchcraft. And you can guess the headlines, huge letters: "Witchcraft clergyman". My children never knew about that. My son is sitting beside me and he did not know all of this.
Keeping to the facts within newspapers is vital, because young people go to school, other people -- other family members in the neighbourhood can be talking about it. Those children are then saying to my children what they had heard. I hadn't told them because I hadn't known. And this is one of the major, major problems of distressing unsolicited rumours and (inaudible) which causes so much hurt to us.