Yes. What I think and -- oh, blimey. During the course of this Inquiry, which I've watched very carefully, as you can imagine, you've had some witnesses here from 20-odd years ago, from 15 years ago, et cetera. I believe in my time at the top of national newspapers -- I'm not saying I've done this, but I believe it has evolved enormously, and I believe that the protection of privacy has leapt on in that time.
Now, I can immediately see lawyers saying, "Yeah, well, what about all these privacy cases?" I think if you looked at privacy compared, say, to libel in its heyday, you will see that the balance has enormously shifted.
Do I think that newspapers have recognised people's privacy much more? Yes, I do. Do I think that's right? Yes, I do, and I speak as someone who, as I say, has that level of experience, where I saw the Wild Bill Hickok days, if you see what I mean. It has changed, and it is right that it has changed.
With the greatest of respect -- and I mean that -- I think the challenge that this Inquiry faces is recognising where movement has already happened, rather than dwelling on something that happened 10, 15 years ago, and I think there has been a significant shift. I think that you could throw at me Mosley. So whatever my personal feelings about the Mosley case, we have a clear court decision, there were clear repercussions for the newspaper, and I don't believe that will happen again. And that is the truth of how it has moved.
So the answer to your question is: I think there is much less invasion of privacy than there used to be. I think we have a very, very vocal sort of patch of celebrity and celebrity-linked lawyers whose interest it is to keep this as loud as possible, and they've done so very successfully. But I think there has been a recognition in the press -- I give you one example, one minor example.
Ten years ago, we'd have stuck pictures in the paper of -- let me think of someone famous -- God, I can't think of anybody famous now. The woman with Simon Cowell on her -- she just had a baby. Anyway, it doesn't matter. A famous pop star. Walks down the street with her children, yeah? We'd have taken the picture, we'd have stuck it in the paper and there would have been her children's faces. That won't happen any more. Doesn't happen. The only type of people whose pictures of children you see in the paper are people like the Beckhams, who regularly take their children to the opening of this, that and the other envelope, where they want to use their children to help garner them publicity. But on a routine basis, children's faces are pixelated now.
In fact, it got to be point where there was a debate at the News of the World about how effective the pixelation was. Do you know what I mean by pixelation, yeah? And I suggested that before we pixelated the face, we actually scrubbed it clean with the computer, so there were no features, and we then pixelated that, just to avoid this issue.