Well, I repeat, in our settlement at that time, it is my understanding that Mr Grant's position was that he knew no woman of any kind as described in this piece.
For the life of me, I can't understand the consistency of your argument. Seems to me you're saying that the true woman that eventually he realised we're referring to, even though he hadn't remembered at the time of our settlement, at this Inquiry, hey presto, he conveniently remembers that it could have been, it could have been a plummy-voiced woman in California, a PA of middle age. If we'd been hacking into his phone, why, in this article, even though we've said it wasn't true and it accepted it wasn't true, why was the woman who referred to a Cheltenham Ladies School educated lady who'd been to Cambridge, she was now a senior executive at Warners in London. It doesn't make sense, with all possible respect.