Sorry, Mr Jay, I'm just looking to see the paragraph on the screen. I will -- ah, thank you. Well, I joined after this, but obviously on joining I was brought in with a particular remit, which was to be responsible for part of London, southwest London, to be responsible for community relations in general in London, and in particular, to come forward with a programme for development, because the Lawrence Inquiry was in the offing and then began running.
In that context, I progressively had a great deal of business with the media. I took care to examine what the direction of the organisation was -- that's why I referred to the 2006 note by the Commissioner -- and I have characterised it in this paragraph, which was open and responsive to what came forward, in broad terms. It was designed to illustrate what was being done, to try and correct inaccuracies and, as I say there, there was a hope that some of the negative perceptions and some of the good work and some the intentions would help mitigate some of the failures and flaws of the police. That was the objective of it.
It was -- there were briefings with -- I became familiar with the Crime Reporters Association and Sir Paul, as he then was, told me that he occasionally met editors from the various newspapers. I was obviously not operating at that level. However, as I began to develop a new strategy for the Met on things like stop and search, ethnic recruitment, the way we would investigate crimes in the future, so we would be more convincing, I became exposed to the media in all forms: broadcast media and the conventional press.
And in that role I would say that the broad objective was -- we were reactive. I was accompanied, as it were, invariably. It was a relatively austere affair, from my point of view, in terms of how we did business, and I think that broadly I've summarised it in subparagraph 2.
There were occasional meals, but they were very rare, really, in the great scheme of things. It was an extremely busy time and I frankly didn't have time for meals.