judge he is not used to being attacked on the public domain for a sample of i would find that offensive and worrying. if you think those articles are going to appear it must influence you to some degree you must realize the with the so-called celebrities realize they don't attack and i cannot believe this is to intimidate. >> let me assure you that although we don't hit the headlines quite so frequently we are used to being criticized and to say nothing about that, and that may require biting one's tongue occasionally, but we recognize that goes to the territory.

>> on the issue of impact touching on paragraph 57 appreciate a personal matter what can you tell us in your own words at least? >> my son was a drug addict and one of these people liked the extreme had the mathematics paper on economics open source limits intelligence but like a lot of the intelligent people he fought in the depression and his way of dealing with this, the only effective way he found was drugs, and he was getting to the age where he knew he made several it had to get off but he didn't get off the drugs probably this would end badly.

he was struggling with it. he had overcome his problem command of the news of the world still the had the most devastating effect on him. he really couldn't bear it. it was just so awful. bad for me but bad for my son to see pictures of your father in that sort of situation all over the newspapers all over the world and he couldn't bear it. he went back on with drugs and it would be wrong to say he didn't from all the circumstances but like other people on hard drugs it is dangerous and you make a small mistake and you die and that is what happened. spec that was in may of 2009. >> it was. >> you deal with some of the other effects of that in

paragraph 58 to sort of his personal effects there was one journalist on the doorstep and then a whole nother. >> this is correct. what to me was so horrifying is that there was no sense of this matters or these are human beings these people actually mind the situation may be we can write a story so let's be there and the head these photographers there and i call my solicitor he arrived on the scene and said they had expected i would have

thought the actions were outrageous and that sort of situation they have no feeling at all. >> we've already touched on some of the office on the internet provocation and the next section deals with that detail in the united kingdom through the news of the world until you win your case and then there are the effects around the world really with the world wide web and you've already told us that you have instructed as you have to have done in the 20 different jurisdictions to find to close this down. >> that is correct. we haven't succeeded. all we can really do is mitigate

pity the >> can you tell us how much that has cost you? >> it is well over half a million pounds and is ongoing. >> i would like to deal with a related issue namely the economics of litigation and the particular case slightly after a sequence of this paragraph 76 of your witness statement. this is something that anyone would understand immediately, but the public at large would be forgiven for not understanding what you could win a case having not left out of pocket but you are left out because you get your 60,000-pound damages coming your legal the obligation to pay

what ever they charge you and that is a matter of contract between you and then and you then get an order of assessment from the judge then another judge 82% of the cost by the losing party international is a summary of what happened. >> that is an exec summary because if the difficulty is this you never accept to get all of your cost that means there's a difference between the cost the court give you and the cost you actually have to pay. they come out of your damages. in this case they exceeded the damages and in the case that would exceed the damages. >> we learned about this

yesterday because mr. lewis is making the point in connection with the settlement of one of his actions he received every single piece of the cost i think was the tayler mitigation. >> that may or may not, but in your case where you had a good result there was the shortfall of 18% and that 30,000 pounds out of pocket. >> i think that mr. lewis and mr. taylor's case was at the level -- >> he made that point. >> i would like to come back to a point you regard it important the argument of the prior notification. and in your own words, give us the notte shell to impress on the sangree please. >> and that shell the point is

that in the privacy matter once the information has been made public it can never be made private again, there for the only effective remedy is to stop it from becoming public and what they needed is a mechanism to get an order to stop it from becoming public. that is completely doable if you know the information is about to be published. the only gap in the law and it is a gap in the law as it dennis tater manages to keep secret in terms to publish the information, then felt it comes and it is too late and there is nothing more to be done and what follows from that is there should be cspan: notification. one quick point on that is that and evidence to the select committee said in the 99 cases out of a hundred the individual

has notice because the newspaper would normally approach somebody and ask for a comment. he may have been slightly exaggerated but i can't believe he would not tell the truth to the select committee so in my knowledge of cases it would serve the very cases where the newspaper knows if you did find out he would get an injunction, so they keep it secret knowing that once the publisher at no one in their right mind and i say that to myself in their right mind because it would cost you money and get information published all over again and you don't solve the problem because the information can't be and private so one is dangerous but without prior notification to induce people to lend if they have information which is outrageous or outrageous pictures they can only publish them before the person finds out there is no remedy unless one

says 30,000-pound repetition but the repetition is like a suing because you have a broken leg who going to court and the break the other leg because it just makes it worse, so sorry, that wasn't much of a nutshell but it is the very cases within egregious breach of privacy. >> the print notification is essential. >> they then lead to a rapid hearing before a judge with a reasonable balance but the second point is you only get the injunction as a claim and the privacy has been violated and

there is a public-interest justification in the practical terms the notification injunctions in the case and the other way around the newspaper will publish with impunity perhaps rightly because they know they are in the right and in the cheaper process. do you agree or disagree with that? >> my information is that to seek an injunction the cost is something less than 5% and the cost of a full trial and that also tries the newspaper and as you say under section 3 of the act you got to show more likely than not to in the case. what could be wrong with that? and independent judge thinks you're more likely not to win you should have the injunction

because if you don't, if it is out you in the case. requiring this extent how the privacy proceedings have a million pounds each side is for the very wealthy even these proceedings the notification doesn't deal with the person of limited means. >> i very much believe that this would be an alternative mechanism and the regulatory body suppose the question but to which you could go into think it is absolutely essentials that such a body should be free of charge because otherwise if you

went to the county courts has some of the academics have suggested and it is beyond the means of a great many people and there is no reason it shouldn't be freed and if i may say that is the invasion of privacy if someone burglar's your house you can replace the things that have been taken, you can repair the damage but if someone reaches your privacy can never repair the damage. you can never put it right again. so it matters. with a burglary if you found a burglar in your house and called the police come they don't say are you rich because if you are not rich they will come and arrest and this should be a similar mechanism to stop people from reaching the privacy of an ordinary person who is not in the position to fund the money on the injunction. >> to say that it should be free of charge dix the question as to who is going to pay for it.

>> indeed. but if you have a body similar to the press complaints commission, which is free, that was independent both of the press and the government and everybody else, and which may be essential which is often not talked about the division between making the rules and enforcing the rules coming into the moment the rules themselves are not that bad. what is missing is the ability to enforce them. if you had a body that could enforce the rules it almost -- you don't necessarily have to have super qualified people. i would prefer to have anybody deciding whether or not the position should be breached or not. islamic the of the argument is that it was the censorship. >> no more than the existing procedure the only difference between that and the existing procedure would be free of

charge. people don't say that i go to -- if i go with the knowledge and ask for an injunction i suppose news of the world censorship but i don't think any reasonable person would. >> would be put another situation to you. forgive me if i take your example because it is actually it was the point to be made she was unsure whether he had been satisfied about the underlining allegation whether that would have been the public interest or not. what concerns me just thinking through the point as i was reading your statement and your judgment was how you were going to resolve that issue you would go along to the judge and for those that don't understand these are comparatively short

hearings and say my privacy has been infringed. this is what we want to say and it is outrageously untrue know it isn't. it is absolutely true. whether there is the injunction may depend upon whether it is whether you think the allegation more accurate which is mor more accurate. >> as far as the number-one prime and number two and the tribunal but on the fundamental issue it will always be difficult and the test which is a balance of convenience that

they deliberately made the standard higher their difficult questions on what they do and what dangerous to allow the editor of tabloid to wait this out when really all he wants to do is sell newspapers and in the particular case you mentioned i think probably what he would have done is say that he could see no public interest in this. he did actually say that in his judgment. >> maybe i should change the facts a little bit but i want to get to a situation where there is a real argument about public interest which requires a popular investigation. >> my submission and if i may put it like that article 123, section 123 because it is a little bit like the situation

where i have a tree in my garden and mr. jay says he has the right to cut it down. you may well desire but once you cut it down you cannot put it up again so we will leave it there pending the file, and i think what the judge would like to do in a difficult case is say this is a difficult case. it means a trial. i'm going to grant the injunction but i'm going to grant an expedited trial. >> there will be submissions of the law but i think it is fair to note that in your case the combined effect of paragraph 21 and 46 of the judgment of the quarter of 2008 is if it were not for this point you would have felt the injunction would be my reading of it in getting you that assurance. but the white point of what happens in the case for the

public interest is more debatable that can be held by the legal submission to it spent on the reason of rejecting the nullification argument it goes straight to the discussion or the conclusion as page 410 on the small number. >> this document of course is in the public domain and i'm not going to ask for it to be put up. for those of you who don't understand, when you engage in the prior notification to the court of the human-rights and went to the grand chamber -- the

degette tried to go to the grand chamber >> thank you. >> i'm going to summarize it succinctly while i can. >> the general rule is the damage after the event would satisfy article 8, and then they considered it 121 weather notwithstanding that there are good reasons for requiring the notification adjunct and they address that on two levels. first of all, paragraph 122 of the traditional margin arguments which means in essence the european core domestic car discretion as to but then there

is an interesting section of the judgment to the attention to be concerned and perpetrated we others. paragraph of the boston herald the court has persuaded that concerns regarding the effectiveness of the notification are not unjustified the consideration of a rise and it is generally accepted in the prenotification would require some form of public interest exception the newspaper could asked not to notify the subject if it believes the could subsequently defended the decision on the basis of the public interest the court considers that in order to prevent a serious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, the reasonably leave is that there was the interest at stake which had to be

sufficient to justify dimond notification even if it were subsequently held no such public interest arose. may i respectfully suggest, not to you but to those who read it is arguable at least the members have been completed? first there's the public interest and not notifying you because you might be a criminal or destroy evidence or whatever and then there is a public interest in justifying the publication in the due course and what the court had done here to use the first consideration entered into the same era in which you would say perhaps infantry the reasoning of the select committee when they come to address the same issue. is that a fair summary of your position? >> it is a precise summary. i think that the issue that matters is for the prime

notification argument in relation to the notification itself. when i get to the subject matter >> the their plant i would make come with great respect again is the battle point. if there were not an injunction the newspaper might break it because they would have be willing to break the treatise of asylum. it seems it is a misunderstanding about to rule of law entails. to cope the injunction you'd be in contempt of court and the newspaper would ever take that risk that may be the -- that is very strange reasoning. there might be an argument of saying it's okay to engage someone but if the current

chamber were invited by you to reconsider this and have not granted the privilege to do so that doesn't mean of course you would say that the domestic law could not refer that then to the european law and provide you the protection which you say it should be the prenotification certainly within the gift of the parliament to provide to that sufficed. >> indeed. the only reason that i went to strasbourg was i thought there was no chance of convincing the u.k. government to bring the necessary legislation because to put it bluntly, they were completely in the fall of mr. murdoch and other big newspapers. people who would have objected. that still has now been broken i

think very conclusively and i will see any reason wthink veryi will see any reason why such law we shouldn't be brought in. the case of the notification to my way of thinking is not answerable. i think it is just so absolutely you need it and it is the right way to do it. the only outstanding issue is how you would arrange the tribunal to do this without being ruinous but that is the only issue. you need an independent person to decide in a difficult case whether it is to be published or not seems to be answerable. >> thank you. well, towards the end of your statement you deal with a wide picture and there are views of the regulation and then to come to that there are some specific points i would like to raise with you. the first point in relation you

are well aware he has stated publicly that the decision is incorrect i think he referred in the election of 2008 to the subjective relativistic view the justice and then to the select committee which we have available he expressed a similar view. i don't take your evidence other than he's quite entitled to express that opinion. in a not shall what he may be saying much better than me and i should not be paraphrasing here is to say look, this is moral conduct many people would judge it. surely there for it is part of the newspaper's right of comment

under article 10 or whatever for these matters to come to light because of nature of the subject matter. i would stress that in a way that i'm sure they would not in the general sentiment i sought to get across and me i could you comment on it, please? >> it seems what they said i think in the speech in the editorial he said i was guilty of unimaginable -- it reflects badly on his imagination, but apart from that -- it's not a sensible comment because i wouldn't -- i had no idea what his sex life is. all i know is he has a sort of preoccupation in his website and

showing off the sun tan etc she may have a strange life but the point is it is not up to me to go into his bedroom and film him and then write about it. it is his business and if someone has a slightly unusual sex life the same thing applies. i think the law is very clear and it is quite right it is private, it is adults and as consentual dennett concerns nobody else but no one should go into that area you say i don't really like what that person is doing. it's not up to me to tell them not to. all i can object to is to say please don't do it in front of me please make sure everybody condescends. i think i said this before it's a completely old fashioned idea that dates from the days when for the supply was young it was okay to be gay and all sorts of

sexual looked to be some people would find quite normal i would not put some deutsch or criminal offenses even between a man and woman. and that has been changed to read the world has moved on the only person that hasn't moved on as mr. baker. >> but he said to the select committee and this was in the 23rd of april, 2009, he said with the greatest respect to you by which he means the committee i think a lot of us were very surprised the time and you gave him the and the him in that sentence is you for max mosley to present himself as a knight in shining armor for the sanctimoniousness and self righteousness in the crusade to clean up the press is a real conversion of the moral values of a normal civilized society. mr. max mosley should crusade against the media and campaigning against men and women.

.. you are a little bit later on. my main action was the way he exploded and humiliated and degraded women in this way. >> edges shows again he's completely naïve about sex.

that's not a criticism, but it's a fact. my little party i'd like to call it come that they are total, complete the css for what they do. they've got what they do. they are more into it than i've ever been. just ludicrously naïve. they'll do the sort of things on the private lives, with their partners. that's how they are. the fact is we live in a civilized societies were grownups in private should be allowed to do what they please. it's not up to them to decide who can do what between consenting adults. >> two further points so the position is clear. first of all, the article that the "news of the world" population is not of the daily

mail because of its nature. the reason is that taste. >> i do well. the thing is he is in a position. he's like the crocodile killed the animal and then the hyenas, london advantage and needs a scavenger. >> the second matter which i'm sure you accepted well that the agenda is one of the matters that hidden human rights to pursue and assert my not part of his objective he would say in any way to undermine mr. justice either. what he's doing is exercising his democratic rights. the that that much? >> i can't read except that because what she said was this isn't a moral judgment i think were the words for an amoral man. it isn't. if it does not have recognized this at consenting adults are allowed to do battle of this country what they wish in

private. you may criticize the law. that's absolutely possible. but he should not do is criticize the judge for imposing the rule for applying the rule. and it's deeply hypocritical is that if this were not thought they capito and they didn't appeal. he should recognize the reason these international didn't appeal as they agree to the judgment because they knew they would lose. so what he's doing is attacking the judge. he's playing the man rather than the paul. if it is like a lie he can campaign to change it. but meanwhile, on the judge can do is apply. >> i think i've taken a point as far as they need to, mr. mosley. can i looked out the wider picture for your evidence and this is the witness statements. first of all, you deal with the

ptt. >> what you said -- that's not unfamiliar because it challenges the collar evidence and other opinions with the inquiry's feet. there are various points. the pcc wouldn't post or didn't present in a scandalous story first union name them. he mentioned positive aspects out of 105, 106 reasons of balance. could you tell us a little bit about those matters and perhaps their power on you.

>> absolutely. and in my case it's helpful when it came to trying to stop their harassment when -- after the test of my son. they did cooperate then. and i believe i have personal experience, but they have some success in preventing publication that shouldn't be published. people know the stories coming out and i think -- i believe a lot in that way quite successfully at the same fundamental point that if you don't know the stories coming up, you can't bring the pcc to help. that's why it once again is vital. >> thank you. and then you make a note of the key point come which others of course i've made in the conflict of interest, which again, as it may. i would ask to develop your

point about the suggestion alternative to the pcc. i touched on this a little bit. they hope the inquiry with the consuls of your suggestion. >> it is a subject which i could talk about for hours. but briefly, i think a tribunal of some kind of needed and is the basic principle of the pcc that it is for you think is right, that is paid for by the press they think is right. but i would give the new body is slightly different idea that the first of all divided into two sections, one would enforce the rule and the rulemaking. the rules are not that bad. what is needed is it not be to order a story not to come out if

you are justified under the law as it stands it has the power to complying with the various powers and the power to stop the press as the pcc test, but tell them that those planes will be the and i'll be very, very happy to send it to the inquiry and fundamentally should be able to go very simply and say i think it's in duty. i would add to that even the family tree statements. i think there is a case for transiently eat these things at the beginning. i think if somebody went either to defamation or breach of privacy. and the other side will make to turn up and you've got a

mediator sitting there proportion in most cases are quite simple. you have some mechanism to complicated cases have some mechanisms with various ways that can be approached. the overwhelming majority of cases can be dealt simply with a two-part sitting mayor and the issue explained briefly no big expensive lawyers, pleading. most of these are quite simple. it shows the capacity, the greatest respect to make things complicated of course is great and that's very good. >> thank you, mr. mosley. journalistic practices now of 120 as to some extent, if i can be forgiven for saying so, a comments feed on evidence which the inquiry has received court

when it comes to operation we understand dealing with a lot of detail next week. the inquiry will bill to reach its own conclusions. you can make one point in the context of blackmail on 24 if you'd like to bring us point out that after they delivered chessmen on the 24th of july 2008, the criticisms were you right to mr. murdoch in new york, trying or can learn, did you receive a reply to that letter quite >> no, i didn't. that letter was written on the 10th of march this year. i have evidence from the united states postal service says that it was delivered.

i also sent two e-mails and i was astonished because i'll ask him to do do was to order an inquiry and a whopping 1% and i have to say that i can't imagine writing to a proper international company a letter alleging serious, mature senior employee who got no reply. i'm sorry to say this, but i think i will if i may. that to me is the compact of the mafia. it's what she expected he wrote to the head of a mafia family complaining about one of their soldiers. he would attack a reply. nucleus one of the soldiers went to prison and was promptly reemployed when it came out as a series of runs. again, you would expect that. you would not expect that from a serious company like and news

international. >> remain hindu scorcese a few times to get a reply in which he is seeking because it may be possible to do that. >> thank you. >> i think he won't mind if i leave off, mr. mosley caught operationally mail. >> no, it's just my opinion. >> the internet is a big issue. is there anything else of the concerns of this inquiry? and impractical solutions or ideas you wish to share with us to deal with the proliferation of information that was literally at the speed of light

globally? >> i think this is something that would probably require certainly national laws, but it would probably better required the international convention. but what i think can be done at quite an early stage -- could be 10 would be to reply the service providers and also the search engine not to proliferate information, which is illegal and wrong in some way. the technology for that exists. and again it would be helpful, very happy to put together a detailed proposal to submit to the inquiry.

>> that's the second tiny buffers to do something cut yesterday mostly in seeking to mess up it's very tempting to take you out on that offer, but i'm not getting that generally because i think it potentially imposes an undue burden on somebody when at the end of the day at matt roush a conclusion to will work. i might make an exception case for this reason depending on which he set out to us. you have experience of international government in motor racing. so i don't know whether that gives you any additional understanding of the potential pitfalls to be faced to earn trying to do something nationally, let alone internationally. so if you want to submit to the inquiry, then you can rest assured it will be can better

that she was equally understand that i'm making absolutely absolutely no promises. >> it may well turn out to be inadequate for no good for all sorts of reasons. but we have given it a great deal of thought and one can submit battles before the inquiry to decide whether they will adopt any part of it. >> well, as long as the base upon which you are doing this unconsciously takes their time and is an absurd as long as the basis you are doing it is well understood. >> final point, mr. mosley, the whole of your statement authority, mine. and therefore all will be on 131, which touches on the daily mail. you are entitled to your opinion in the context of operation in

the middle of this powers. the other newspapers did not know they are procuring and encouraging criminal acts. they made this clear on behalf of the daily mail. that is strongly denied by that and they will say when they have the opportunity to do that at the information commission is also in september 2001 -- 2011, pardon me, stated there was no evidence that any journalist had asked mr. whitmore to obtain information illegally. and likely the point they are for this reason was once about the daily daily mail's position is clearly set out to remain. but secondly, to make sure that the rights and wrongs of the issue are investigated by the inquiry. so let's wait and see what happens next week. i'm content with that. >> imac, i would just like to

say that of course they would say they hope they want recidivism. the fact that no journalist asks is not the same as saying that no journalist would have realized that the information they were getting would have to be illegal. but that's the inquiry. >> you are reaching your conclusions based upon your study of what price privacy. >> indeed, sir. >> well, i'll be doing that as well. >> on the third day he was going to be investigated. >> we are extremely grateful to you. have we covered all the ground we wish to? >> some of it twice, sir. >> well if that's the case, that would be my fault. thank you very much, mr. mosley. >> thank you.

we'll just have have five minutes for the short end for all of us. but i repeat five minutes actually means five minutes or perhaps in this case seven minute, but not longer. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> next witness is jk rowling. [inaudible]

emacs it down. make yourself comfortable. what i'm going to provide you to do is confirm your witness statement and that's right in front of you. it runs over 33 page is and at the you'll see your name, your signature, a date on the second of november and the usual statements. this is your evidence. thank you. ms. rolling, you might have heard me to say two other witnesses that i am grateful to them for giving up the time and putting efforts into volunteering into the inquiry. i appreciate you talking about things i very clearly understand you wish to remain private.

and by talking about them, you are to some extent blowing on that wish. i understand that, but i hope you do realize what i am trying to do and clearly to because you're here. if you want to break at any stage, you are entitled to say just five minutes, please. i appreciate it's a very mutual environment. >> thank you very much. >> your witness doesn't really need any introduction at all. we know your books published a return here. your seventh and last book in thousand seven. three of your witness statements. you make it clear that you have no personal vendetta at all. what are your views about freedom of the press, please click >> i believe very strongly in freedom of expression.

i would like to make it clear from the start alongside the kind of journalism will talk about today i think there is truly heroic journalism. i suppose maybe he was that we have one end of the spectrum to expose the truth and the revolution and at the other end we have behavior that the league and intrusive. so i wonder why sometimes they can at the same name and call it the same thing. >> in paragraph 4 of your witness statement, you recognize at least at the start of your career, you can interest >> i'd say it's a very interesting question with regard to harry potter in particular

because in 1997, when the first book was published, the traditional media was really the only game in town for creative person was to say they'd written it for film or anything of that sort. during that tenure is that harry potter was published, the internet became a cute game changer. and my fans are primarily young people who are very internet savvy. to the internet became for harry potter arguably as great if not greater. bs in the beginning, certainly. >> so i think that is where the good side of journalism is. paragraph 5 you immediately remove to what you describe is a different kind of journalistic activity as you explain and you're literally being driven out of your first house. can you give us an approximate date for that, please?

>> i was the first house i ever owned. i perceived on the first harry potter book, particularly from america. we moved into that house in 97. we left that house. so during this two years it had really become untenable to remain in the house. >> and there was faster what which made it untenable? >> door stepping, photographs being published that showed not only the numbers, but the name of the street would happen to be on the building where i was living. so i really was a sitting duck for anyone who wanted to find me. journalists would sit outside in cars and sell on. when i bought the house i didn't know what was coming. i didn't know i was going to

make the conceptual thought of money. i really couldn't have chosen a worse property. so some of them are going to receive that kind of press attention. >> you explain quite generally to detail later in paragraph 7 if you have no choice but to take action against the prospects of the pcc come in the press complaints commission on the quarter. and the number of times you try to engage solicitor's than this is the numbers of about 50, is that right click >> probably, yes. >> is that covert pcc and litigation clinic >> it might be more. but as far as i can tell. >> the main concern you wish to express relates to not just the foremost concern is the privacy

of your children in the privacy of your home and the border issue that treatment, is that correct? previously your children first please. you deal with it in paragraph 9. and when your first novel came out and if you don't mind me stealing, you're a single mother. what was your attitude or strategy if you had one in relation to any publicity first as regards to the book and secondly protection of your child. >> well, i took the view then i would like to say that i am not -- certainly would like to be seen standing in judgment because there are people i know and respect have taken a different view on this. but it is my belief that

remained my belief that children do best when they are kept out of the public eye in their home life is secure and it feels that the place of safety and i think that means private. so from the very first to draw a very clear line between what i consider an unwarranted intrusion was largely my tattered. for instance, i visibly remember a woman's magazine he wanted to take a photograph of me was made her up and down typewriter and my daughter on my knee. and when i said that's absolutely not happening, they said were going to do the interview. it was the last to me. i did not want that to happen. one reason i agree and it's something i feel very strongly. when you become well known

canosa shot to me and became so well-known so quickly. and i will give you a guide book. there's nothing handed to you that says a see. you have to make it out to an extent yourself. and i have heard from the press says offered justification for photographs of people families that justification was so frequently where you have solved your family life he's invited them into their home and not photographers to take pictures of your children. you have used your family as a promotional tool. so i inferred that if i do not do those things that the privacy of my children and at that time i only child will be respected. so i was trying hard to abide by what i thought would be unwritten code. and i would say i think the significant section that respect

is my stance on that, but a significant section of the press in my view so that is almost a challenge. so i tried hard to abide by what i thought was the rules and a failed. >> you mention one occasion that is an early occasion, paragraph 10 of your statement where you took your daughter along to an awards ceremony to get photographed and not ever happen again. >> i never took her do anything like that again. i vividly remember that occasion. i was thrilled with the award and i took her. i knew of their children were going to be there. it's not that i don't want my children to share visitations with me, but that experience taught me that can't happen because as i say she was marched into a shot and i physically

said no i don't want that to happen and i took her away. after that i decided clearly the way forward is not to take my children to these kinds of events. >> in paragraph 12, you deal with three causes that you support. would you like to cover those specifically? >> yes. i think it is relevant to say that i have on occasion discussed my own -- not my children's, but my own life and i suppose broadly speaking there are three areas of my life that are quite private that i have discussed. and when i wrote the first book as a single parent and that was common knowledge and i wasn't ashamed of that and i discussed the fact that we lived on benefits for a time and it was difficult to find work can find child care. all the things i did talk about.

unless they try to parlay that into doing something meaningful because they behave an ambassador for charity that campaigns are loving parents. i also said in my statement that i for quite a long time as a patient in the ms society on reese urged to raise funds for ms. my mother died of complications or multiple sclerosis. it's not some and i relish talking about, but i talk about it with a purpose and i think that's one of the upside if you you would like the well-known that she can become a spokesperson for those kinds of charities. the last thing an eyewitness statement is i have taught openly about the fact that i suffered from depression. i think originally i discussed this in the context of my work. i made to feel quite strongly interrater for any kind of

creative person, your life becomes such an important fact during your work. so there are things and my work that relate to bereavement or depression are things have also experienced. so in other words i was talking about depression not trained to gain sympathy or pity, that there is a purpose. i'd created certain creatures in the harry potter books have had the effects of depression almost being counted. i don't in any sense regret talking about depression because as i cma statement i've received a number of letters particularly for young people have been depressed to find it helpful that people don't treat that is something to be ashamed of. so yes, i have discussed the matter is, but i would say firstly that i think our cultural life would be greatly diminished if people weren't

allowed to say whether they received inspiration or ideas as they secondly i don't think any reasonable person could decide that because i discussed these things my children. a reasonable person would see a clear division. >> thank you. in paragraph 13 you've are detached on importance of a normal childhood for your children. you mentioned one incident where there was a note from a journalist slipped into your daughter schoolbag. could you give us a little more context? >> yes, this is my oldest daughter. so this would have been when i was really in my first with the teachers surrounding me. she is in her first year of primary school and among the

usual school that every child generates, i found an address to me and a journalist. that is from a journalist. so it's my recollection that the letter said that he intended to ask the mother at the school to put it in my totters back. i don't know what. that happened to go in my daughter schoolbag or not. i can only say this sends that i fell such as sun of invasion that might totters back -- it's very difficult to say how angry and how angry i felt that my 5-year-old daughter's school was no longer a place of complete

security for journalists. >> paragraph 14. your position is very clear. in the second line, my husband and i have taken every step we could take a 2% of children from being photographed by photographers. and then. mnu outlines some of the measures you take in. some are quite general and some are quite specific. would you care to elaborate on any of those pleas for us? >> well, i say in our statement, for example, we didn't take immediately after. we were married because we had previously taken holiday together before we were married and that was the case in which we were having my daughter. the press center since it appears so we decided we took -- he went to great ensure that a wedding was private.

there are many things you can do. and we have tried to do all of them. we have really tried to do offense to prevent the children from being photographed. >> paragraph 15, education slurped paparazzi have been outside your house. outside on occasion used hide your children blanket. >> there were two particular areas where it really was like being under seizure being hostage. for a week it was impossible for me to leave the house without being photographed unless i want to be photographed or lost by one of the children photograph. on both of those occasions they took our permanent residence outside her house and my husband was going to work and he was going in and out being photographed, but i felt completely trapped in the house. and of course i had a massive effect on the children.

>> you have made it clear you clearly state in paragraph 17, press photographers, perhaps more importantly newspaper magazines and media -- have you done this by making statements to them? or how is this being achieved? >> i think i've gone to such lengths to try to prevent and that they can be in no doubt and i've complained to the pcc and is in the state and i've been to court. i would like to say that particularly with regard to photographers outside her house, i think a good example of this is journalist from a scottish tablet took residence outside her house in a car at a time when i was absolutely unaware

that there is particular interest to me. i did not have a book coming out. i hadn't just given birth. they were just sitting there. so yeah someone i worked for for the public relations company to please ask them what they wanted. and the response she received was its a boring day at the office. so my family and i were literally under surveillance for their amusement. there wasn't even a pretense that there is a story. but it's difficult to explain to people who haven't experienced what that feels like because you wonder why to they want? but they think they've caught? it's incredibly fattening. it feels threatening to have people watching you. >> you quite rightly state that

this son -- "the sun" published an article with absolutely no criticism of that, but they rightly said the 38-year-old is fiercely protected in a private life and kept detailed top-secret. you give us some specific examples starting in paragraph 21. the picture in 2018 okay magazine when your child was then eight i think. i'm not a fun -- was that of public meat or private meet? >> this is where it all went wrong because my husband and i were married then. we were wrongly convinced that we run a private beach. we subsequently discovered that no beach is private. they are all public by law.

but the hotel we were staying at had advertised it had its own beach. so we believed ourselves to be in a private situation. my husband who is more observant and i clearly said he was worried about about that was a little way out while we were on the beach. i dismissed this and said i was sure everything was fine and he was being paranoid. he wasn't being paranoid at all. when we arrived home it was to photograph of the two of us, not my daughter on the beach. >> it led to a complaint to the pcc, you have the adjudication under tab to bear, ms. rolling. and the complaint was held as

you know. >> this was a complaint about the photograph of my daughter, including my daughter. and the public private beach point was not one in which as it were to do the case. he won the case because of the particular circumstance. if you look at the adjudication set out in your witness statement that its right to read about because the pcc may well want to do so. but the commission may have regard to its previous decision, circumstances are necessarily vary from case to case. he therefore considered on its merits under the code we all understand that. the code in fact asked everyone of all ages with respect to their private life and his team and accessible long lens photography to take pictures of people and places where they have a reasonable expectation of

privacy in addition gives greater protection does not allow photographs of children under the age of 16 to be taken with a child's where fraud is that requires justification other than to favor the child's parents are publishing material of private life as the child. there may also be a exceptional public for preaching decisions, but none was provided in this case. the commission noted it was not in dispute under considerable length in the past to protect her daughter's privacy. it was not overlooked and the family had gone there for unwanted attention. the commission was not asked to consider the department breached the code, but consider the circumstances and given the high level of protection afforded by the code to children photographed so that should not have been taken or published and

therefore breached wall three. well, you would presumably agree with every word of that decision , ms. rolling? >> i would occur if every word of it, yes. >> do we need to go on to the complaint law six? i will if you like. >> may say one thing? that first craft of my daughter. unlike an intrusiveness in print for which you can at least receive a policy, when an image is disseminated, it can spread around the world like a virus. i'm not photograph of my daughter in her swimming suit was on the internet months after the pcc ruling. of course i accept the pcc could not adjudicate members of the public who had copied the image and put it up on website and

they had no mechanism to prevent that from happening, but i feel given the fact that an image can have a life that cannot be recalled once you see what someone looks like in there somewhere, an apology does not remove that knowledge and everyone else and images have a particular property in that way. so i needed to -- i contacted a lawyer is when i realized the image is still out there and they decorously attend it to remove it wherever they could. i'm sure it is still out there, but that's particular harmful image. >> the analysis of the pcc is to provide your case into different parts of the code. we pemmican it caused three, which is privacy in the age of the charge is a relevant factor. but then they deal separately

with classics, which is a children's issue and on a separate basis they uphold the complaint they are, which is hardly supplied giving their reasoning in relation to cause very. it is noteworthy in relation to cause three that the commissioner weed out the number of fat tears and it may not be clear which fact there is determined, that they consider the law of the circumstances in your case, which some may say demonstrates the issues are not always straightforward one. would you accept that or not? of coolers you clearly won the case. >> well, where children are concerned, it is my personal belief that the issue is not complex at all. a child, no matter who their parents are a think deserves privacy. he had no choice in who their parents are. they have no choice in how their parents behave, so i would respectfully say that i think the children are concerned the issue is certainly black-and-white and i think it

would have to be extraordinary public interest to justify publications of photographs of children, particularly without they are sent. >> the next sequence of evidence you're about to get a slightly more complicated. in a nutshell, tell us what happened on the eighth of november 2004 before we look at the later consequences of it. >> this was an occasion. i was heavily pregnant with my third child. most unusually, my husband had a morning off. this is relevant in that we very rarely when not at this time of day together, so it is our belief that again people were watching the house without any

particular justification. anyway, so happened we took a walk to a local café. and we were photographed covertly trying to the café. didn't realize that it happened subsequently. he must've been happening before we hit the café afterwards because afterwards prevented the demand running down to get in anger of us with my oldest daughter who was in school so this is now my middle child, my son he was being photographed. >> and the photographs were published and as you explain one of the newspapers published a photograph that clearly showed your son's face. and what it happened as this often happens, a picture agency

you taken the photographs in this particular instance have been at a company called good pictures ltd. and they sold it perhaps to the highest bidder. >> yes, that was my understanding of what happened here. >> you then brought proceedings and an injunction as well as damages for breach of confidence in each of privacy. at the first stage before he to judge, your claim was stuck out at that point. >> may i just say before we move on to that point that there is a reason why i didn't go to the pcc. it had been my hope -- my strong hope that the pcc adjudication of the oldest daughter would send notice to the press, that i took it extremely seriously if they invade my children's privacy.

and clearly the message has not been strong enough. sanctions have not been imposed that make anyone think twice about this and they had again but photographs of may child, a different child, but my child. that is why now we went a step further and our intention was to underline our position on this. >> the argument of the defendant newspaper, which at first was expected was that this was a public place. there is no harassment, therefore there was no confidence of privacy, which could be protected. >> i disagree as you would expect on a number of accounts that there is no harassment. >> yes, we were extremely

disappointed that that was the response. >> you had a right to appeal the exercise. on the seventh of may 2008, the court of appeal presided over by then masters found in your favor the judgment is of course publicly available. we provided it to you. if i may say so you have correctly summarized in her witness statement after paragraph 28. he said it is understood given the way this went out procedurally. the court of appeal was deciding an arguable case. they were deciding when you're going to win or lose at the end of the day, although the advance of the court of appeal's judgment is in the end there was a settlement of the case to your

satisfaction. is that right quick >> that is correct. the judgment does bear preteen in full. but they are detailed and legally sophisticated judgments are not going to take time because i couldn't possibly do justice to it by summarizing with it. you in paragraph 38 have identified the key features and of course unsurprisingly a very key feature here is the fact the we are concerned with the rights of the child. in paragraph 29 we decided how you decided to bring this case. you've given us one of the reasons that you've lost confidence in the pcc to the adjudication in 2001 that your

second present. your first reason at 20 9a please, make you elaborate on that. >> there have been another incident shortly after my son was born so i had at this point his 10-year-old daughter and a newborn baby. so we are besieged for a week and then i believe that photographers have disappeared and for the first time in the week i was able to get out of the house with my daughter and the baby. and on this occasion i thought the photographer taking a picture from across the street. i put my totter behind me because i didn't want her photographed and i don't know how i thought i is going to out run a 20 something while pushing a buggy and my daughter was calm

down mom, calm down. don't be silly. it doesn't matter. but it mattered hugely to me that the woman i step foot outside the door i was being photographed again. so the cumulative effect becomes quite training. so yes, i did decide that it is time to take action when we had it another incident. >> the point on page 16 makes it clear that she had consented. of course you had consented to photographs being taken. the long lens camera point and the privacy point. it must be said that the very fact that you need to use a long lens gives light to some sort of presumption that you're invading privacy as a factor which may be

relevant. what about your point at page 17 that you were not contacted by the publication? what difference might that have made, do you think? >> if i'd been told that it's coming i think i could decide, well, i will take steps possibly through the pcc. i don't know what it would have been if i'd been notified to prevent publication. we could've had a conversation. i could've restated my reason for not wishing the children to be photographed. again, the point here is that i like a lot of people who have agreed to give evidence at this inquirer are not looking for special treatment. we are looking for normal treatment. i don't regard myself as entitled to more then. i'm simply asking the same amount and i'm particularly asking for that on behalf of the

children. so yes, if i'd been notified of the intention to print another photograph of my child, which either either they would've given an opportunity to explain my position one would hope that would carry some weight. but again i wasn't notified by couldn't do that. >> your position clearly said before one wonders why there is any need to restate it. >> that's exactly right. short of getting a skywriter, what can you do? >> in paragraph 30, ms. rowland, there are further photographs, long lens photographs, is this right? your holiday in the u.s. in july july 2006, photographs of your family and your three children, is that right?

>> you know, i have to say here that i felt a fool. this is literally the second time -- twice since 1998 i have put on a swimsuit on a public beach, twice. and both times i've been photographed. and as i've explained on the first occasion i believed it was a private beach. on the second occasion i think my card was really down. we've gone on holiday. we hadn't encountered any press. i assumed wrongly that we were -- the result was i was once again. initially there were photographs only of me. why don't you set -- call a spade a spade. i'm a writer, so i really don't think it's of any benevolence or

the public interest in what i look like in a swimsuit. but in a general feeling of people around me believe it and i felt the same way. i thought i was going to be allowed to succeed in preventing publication of that photograph of me. i was very concerned because when i saw the photographs i knew they must have photographed the children because i knew i was in very close proximity to the children all that afternoon. and sure enough the picture agency confirmed they were holding a picture. they took one photograph of the children and is untrue to agree to destroyed it. i believe it was done i never saw that photograph published. >> did not have the pcc complained? >> i think my recollection is we didn't complain to the pcc and i think that was because -- well,

my confidence in the pcc was fairly low at this point, so i decided my embarrassment was out with the stress of going through the complaint. >> there was another incident subparagraph b. of page 19 cents in july 2000 agenda contacted the headmaster of your eldest daughter's school. >> well, this is -- one of the incident about which i feel most outraged -- a generalist contact could not contact me -- i'm highly contactable person. it's a pr firm that recognizes me. i have publishers. there's numerous ways to contact me easily. no one contacted me.

as they say in a witness statement, the claim by the trellis was that my eldest tighter was revealing that harry potter died in the final harry potter. i'm the master had received complaints from students and parents because their children were so upset by this. so my daughter is being characterized as some kind of holy, is using information from me to upset people and there is not one word of truth in it. there have been no complaint. my totter could not possibly have told anyone what happened because that her request she didn't want to know. so, and very wary of speculating, but i have been on the receiving end of stories being put to one that probably

would test the journalists is aware are true, but the strategy seems to be table surprised them into saying something that they can then print. so because they would say why not contact me? that possibly there is a hope that the headmaster might inadvertently reveal that she had said something or inadvertently reveal that is not what i heard. who knows. but again, she approached my daughters told to me was outrageous. >> this is the time of wild speculation as to what happened at the end of the last book. >> that's right, yes. >> and subparagraph c., november 2007, more photographs this time outside a coffee house -- >> this one was just i'd taken my youngest daughter out.

she was quite excited. we became aware that we were being photographed across the street and someone was with me across the street and the photographer said to chat, please stop. the photographer refused. i don't know whether they got a clear shot of my youngest daughter. i have no idea. they claim that they only saw her legs in the photographs. the justifications that i heard on that occasion was they believed i was wearing a fur coat. i was wearing a wolin coat that i've never worn in public again. >> the empath on your children, variable to insist the inquiry with some insight to that? >> a particular impact on a given day. my youngest daughter is. said that we didn't get your

content because the photographer was clearly not going to do this. he refused in so many words. we had nowhere to go. so we got back and went home again. on a general note, the fence has been unable to leave your house or move freely is obviously prejudicial to a normal family life is certainly all three of my children have been aware of being suddenly pulled behind me or i will split from the family group because i'm aware there's the photographer to. you take a picture and we all go this way. so there is a general edginess sometimes when you are aware that there are people in the vicinity. sometimes when the right to become jumpy and start thinking a person behaving in a manner might not be at all.

but it is a very unnerving feeling to know that you're being watched. >> we might move onto the second topic now, which is privacy of home life. and this is related of course to the issue of personal security, which is then an obvious matter of concern to you. can i deal with the matter is in chronological order? ..

enough to identify the tasks we are talking about so say what happens as a result of this? >> we requested we were removed those from the web site and so on and i think they could do that. then in july of 2005i think the

mayors of of the border now published an article print in the street names and photographs into with before harry potter and the public interest in that one in your concern were shows gorton security which you quite rightly have in place. >> yes, for obvious reasons i don't wish to go into detail but i'm happy to provide those details if they are relevant but like in the public eye i have on occasion been the target of

those individuals and i mention my desire to keep the precise address of the property where i live with my family newspaper said not because i'm being story or precious but it is because on a number of locations they've been involved because of incidents and threats and i think it is reasonable of me what to wish what the papers would refrain from making my we're about to the very identifiable. clearly i have to live somewhere and we have taken all precautions in this matter of course locally they may know where my house is that they would know a difference between

house and where my children's friends know where we lived and anyone who reads a national newspaper being able to find us. >> what happened in this particular case and we will deal with the elements in a moment when the position was that the address was in the public and they could be found on the internet. >> we've taken every step one can to make sure that we are not the registers that exist online. if that is the justification of the newspapers to be printed in the national press i think that is the justification we've taken every reasonable precaution to

set our own privacy. >> than you point out the third line of paragraph 43 continue to disregard as leader published a picture. >> what i am about to say does not apply ethel to the british press but my experience certain sectors of the british press if you protest or make a complaint you can expect some form of retribution fairly quickly and i thought the fact that in this case it was a picture of my child so quickly after i asked them to not print my address i thought that was spiteful. >> we need a different title,

the evening standard. in a 2007 published information and photographs about your home including descriptions of the property, details of the history and details of the location and details of security arrangements and pictures. what was the complaint at least at the legal? >> as my witness statement says they said they had no content of the matter and again this doesn't apply to the whole of the press, but the attitude seems to be cavalier indifference one does it matter now? to your famous, you're asking for a.

>> i think that is the final series on this theme for november 2007 the daily record and on sunday published articles identified the location of your home showing the name of your home, the name of the property and the small town in which you lived in. >> when we complained about this this information was in the pocket domain but they put it into the domain. what they were effectively saying is you can't come plan we are printing photographs on the address because we've already printed photographs and the address. >> so that is made clear what come is it being put in the public domain the day before --

>> about which we complained. >> therefore it is disingenuous to say for the scottish meal to rely on that argument so we will be clear part of the statement. >> you're right. >> does that disingenuous argument apply to the equal force in the daily record? >> the daily record they agreed to remove the articles from their archive will and they wouldn't publish the information again. >> when there were who complaints resulting from some of these events, not all of them so we understand the position of going back in july 2005 going

back to 2002. your complaint was not killed in part i think we of the adjudication. but when they disagree they said they haven't given enough information to identify the property, and i strongly disagree and indeed it will people say i know where you live now it was accurate to identify which report so i must disagree with the paper on that matter. >> the reasoning said it was there about the case was upheld

the commissioner was satisfied the photograph and the caption contained sufficient information to identify the location of the privacy said that was objectionable because it was too precise but the argument was in relation to the houses it wasn't sufficiently precise and therefore one would have to carry out the inquiry in order to pinpoint the exact location. >> i feel they aren't seeing through. all they need is the papers to provide parcel information a guided tour to my house, so if each complains he's going to be shut down because the address is not good enough i feel we are all in this position. >> the identification.

>> precisely the case. i don't think the pcc is not taking a holistic view of the matter what. >> in relation to the 2007 publications under because your complaints are not of held for the same reason the identification is not specific you look at the four corners of the article of self but you say the answer to that is that other information which is what they are available some of it has been disseminated itself and it doesn't take too many steps or filling in the pieces. >> when we bought a new house in it in byrd, one i'm sorry it was

the previous house it was this precise case they've been talking about the pcc said the levels to identify the location of the house, however, someone i believed a broad sold the article and said but i know exactly the new what house it was and they gave the address so they were able on the basis of what they had read one to put everything in the public domain, and again i feel will if any weight is given to that or has been given to that when the pcc looks of these matters. >> they put the entire address down to the post code, and i think actually it was done quite innocently by that person might

think they were excited to realize the house think it was a young person who did it. the whole address was on the internet within two days and my lawyer was able to contact that person and say please could you delete this and they did. in the meantime how many people had seen the whole address. >> let's understand where you say that boundary lines are. what do you see is permissible and what is in permissible on this issue? >> i don't see why if this is in the public interest to know exactly where i live clearly i can't put in in visibility quote over my house and myself as a i

do not wish to it is not normal for any one to be known ha that is where i would draw lines and i would if i could make one further point as i said i know no doubt in the first house we ever owned because the photographs of the house precisely identified its location and the number on the door and the street name was on the building. so, an image can do as much if not much more damage than even a postal address in print. >> thank you. now the ferre area and you wish to address is the issue of fair treatment in the press.

paragraph 51 you are reporting a wallpaper. do you believe you were the target, is that correct? >> yes it's been made available to me so i know i was a target. >> it was 650 pounds in general terms it is the nature of the information he had to get a general idea perhaps of the nature of the information but if there's any concern of what doing so.

>> i'm happy to say what i know and i say that because he appears to have been making investigations with people regarding people whose names i don't recognize so i don't know what he was asking to track down people related to me for what purpose i couldn't tell you, but guess he seemed to be making a serious increase increase. >> thank you. >> the substantive response an interest of your evidence you've now seen some sort of response? >> i may need to ask my lawyers for details on this but i believe there is additional one formation to come.

>> what i've seen so far. >> as i understand from the documentation i understand it equally to come. so extensive it might affect what i'm thinking about them you can provide the information at some stage. i don't want the details of the broad flanks of the information could be valuable, but only if you feel it takes me further. >> you give another example of the characteristics mainly

someone from the war post office telephone you explaining the package -- >> i recalled while preparing the statement of a blocking the final about one. i realized half way through giving details on was being blackmailed. it was after we moved into the first house we owned and i think the journalists didn't know where i moved to. they did not know my exact address so i received a phone call from the post office and he said to me i have a package for you, what is your address. i began to speak and then i said you are from the post office. what does it say on the back?

>> it's a story a think we heard in your answers from another witness this morning as he said well the mobile phone has been left and in that case the information was provided. secure account has resonance with some evidence we actually heard this morning. >> we were not married, we just started a relationship, my husband just removed jobs from one hospital to another and fortunately for the black eye is but finton necessarily from my

husband was expecting a communication from the tax office so he could adjust his taxes. anyway, he is a busy man at the hospital. he gets the call, takes the call they say we are from the tax office and he gives them everything. he confirmed his address and his pay and he confirmed at least his national insurance number and was the next day or the day after he opened his front door and flashes went off in his face and the pauper roxy had found him so the was a very nice introduction i should say there was. >> then you touch on phone

hacking and the position at the moment. on the basis of information evidence there's nothing to connect you with phone hacking, is the right? are you aware of as much commercial confidence as personal privacy, leaked information on? i think when now harry potter five as you say and in june of 2003. most people knew from the printers. can you tell me about what happened there?

>> i believe not employed gentleman found a copy of harry potter i find that story rather difficult to believe. but there you are. to get prepublication, and know the manuscript was sent a position of the tanker. so we took out i'm not an expert on means but we have a john joe injunction against another person because we didn't realize how many at this point had been manuscript to prevent publication of the content. >> clear it's down to them, the

injunction with sources obtained only with relation to the sunday you have a position there? >> i would need to check with my lawyers on the injunction taken out against whoever may have a copy of the information. i think that is -- >> the subsequent position is it was obtained because i think her advisers did not know of a wit was offered it was rejected immediately, and in court the judge accepted if it had been off or completely reject it. the up dated question and

manuscripts. spearman don't worry. we will be careful about that. it continued in paragraph 60. to read a review of the book was published wish it freely way was the wave complementing some of the front and they promised not to reveal anything in the book and the book was photographed. so we had to go back to the court to try to fight for the

cooperation. to me this is a classic example of the day that i said this from being all journalists that sees opportunities in the situation like this and i felt i was being blackmailed with a really wanted was a photograph of me gratefully receive dean baquet pinsky still manuscript so i was proposing for the book. islamic there's a similar run haven't seen the events but no one.

takeoff and made his opinion to read my opinion as if one chose one prepared to take the stand then i suppose i would say the press has been wary and that on certain issues the most important 1i suppose they are worried because they are aware i can afford to pay into that is sad but i want to see the kind of treatment on occasion that is not favorable to the ordinary person. so it was a less serious situation because they have seen -- i guess because the scene we could prepare to prepare the books vigorously in 2003.

>> thank you. >> move to paragraph 53. >> an article in 2001 or there about a k. i think people might think that is a occurrence. if you are trying, as i am, to make it quite clear that my family life is out of bounds, then the perception that i've grown with a magazine that is primarily the story this is going to people's houses, hearing personal stories of their private life and i sense no one to do those interviews. that isn't an awful thing to do. it simply happens that isn't something i wish to do. and so, a magazine is i feared

within the justification. in a different pay, a different source. >> then you add it off the difficulty with the apology. it took time and you feel they reneged on the agreement you had. >> they were very difficult to deal with on that occasion and they didn't want to admit they had done what we needed them to do and the policy was minuscule. >> and 60 a claim in defamation. can you tell a little about that, please?

>> this was quite horrible because it caused real distress to our own child. the daily express opened an article saying that i have faced an uncertain character. this was highly untrue. the justifications for writing and wallace will doing a book reading a figure with children and i remember these events. i am often asked do you base characters on real people. it was really a throwaway comment i said humorously the character of lockhart was based on some one. now that's true. this is a long time ago. so i felt quite clean about

saying that and identified and no one and i didn't feel like i was doing anything touting and again, this is in the context of speaking to children about the creation of her other books. so, i will relax and not expect what we will pay next which is the article they will be depicting the has the kind of things a person would use a best selling books to visit buy any one. i have to sit with my oldest daughter because they are talking about her biological father and saying to her this isn't true i would never do this. there is no point of recession it is between the sun and the old man and why is she -- was a

horrible conversation to have to have, and of course, as what happens outside of the house is what happens to other children many of whom have read harry potter tell my daughter that her father was the basis for this. and that can't be free called even though children don't seem to be put all that so that information cost real emotional hurt which i'm sure is the difference from the person who wrote it. resulted in an apology. can you tell us anything about the policy for example where i was printed and signed and what might have been set. >> i know it was small and it certainly didn't -- the original article did. >> [inaudible] sixty-one now i've got 62.

could you help us with that one, please? from beginning to end there was an obligation for taking legal action against the man who's right in front. it is untrue and in fact i've never heard of them until the accusation was made against me. >> thank you. another published in the matter someday and the scottish son concerning the house in town the basic point there is you pay well over what the alleged in order to force to move out

early. sprigg the original movie said that when i looked into this house which an actor will force is the memory home now, but by of to the rooms and a vast amount of money to get the owner up instantly because i wish to host in this house it is utterly untrue. we looked around the house in the way any normal person would look around the house they were intended to live in. there was no question of putting money on anyone who made them leave and this relationship who moved out in an enormous time period because we just moved in so nonsense beginning to end. again some people might think it's not a big deal. first it is depicting me as a

person who is unaware of the value of money and uses it which i do not believe to be the case but it's also the new speaker is putting me and my family into the public domain that as an effect on my children who are in the huge perdue weaseled and help your money to the commander throws money at people when houses and this is hurtful stuff >> a number of apologies but you point dealt before we play to the scottish times and allegations the should deny -- i think it was just how difficult it is.

to stop their articles of any nature because no opportunity to correct but also it spreads wild fire your one person already accepted that and that will put you under. that is not true. >> the last matter you cover, paragraph 64 with your agents for the trees you were going to use can you give a little bit about that matter please? >> this is quite a disaster really. we did receive notice on this

occasion that they wish to run an article about what we were talking about and i said i couldn't understand why it was part of interest at all. then they were told they were running an article on the speech she said effective in there and from entel in pass and we've been using it for 5,000 years and i cannot understand why when we said we are not mind it to come let you look at our tree the journalist said honor will see for myself then. i will come to your property. and the effect was quite aggressive. >> we scooted over an article and finding it hard to difficult to beat to practice. my husband is something there.

do you see him. >> what we will do is find that, come back to bit allowing you to deal with that in your own way. what what to do is put your point that news international to the non-name in its pcs hartel and then come back to the summit have you been shown a copy of the thesis and the times? >> i wasn't aware of anything. >> yeah.

will miss you, too. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible conversations] >> this is a general peace apparently indeed as we can see in the sunday times on the 14th of august this year. garden experts and three disconnect this and i see myself in this article. the general theme is apparently deval of the garden is to investigate the behavior of every plant and its collection and at bat concern more than 100

species and they are in non-native species and then on the right-hand side, you'll see among those were the fondness that nominee to the plants is to enter several varieties of the homeland listed to include bouck come evergreen native to the mediterranean and southeast england. it's listed as a plant to avoid. so just in there they would create yet there but we are planning to introduce them and i think that's got what's going on use of a comment. >> it's just ludicrous. i find it ludicrous.

i don't recognize this and if i've been involved in the garden clearly i might have overlooked something or they are mistaken. >> i appreciate this is rather difficult. the spokesman for patience and i am not going to ask whether you recognize the name the architecture of them helped in its design rather than scotland said they're happy with the design and selection of species. >> news international's position is that the information was with what many people say in the final parallel and second that you were not going company and the comments came from the

architect three the to the extent i wasn't aware this had appeared in fact i thought they weren't going to run of the optical. i don't really know what to say. >> have you seen this? article until very recent closely. we've now put it together. rights. as to make the point we get back to, we were covering the ground. there is an article asked your

attention and maybe it simply hasn't been barberton the if you got it to consider this and therefore it is not -- >> this came to me very late in the daily mail. it's paabo we something to explore you shouldn't have the opportunity to look at. i skimmed through it just before by sat down to see if i am happy to talk about it. >> [inaudible]

thank you. hang on. in article 12 and a half years ago. in the way that others would wish week to put it. my understanding is they will be studying the first harry, dern book which is 1987 but you are interest by daily mail than the matters are dealt with not necessarily going to them at all but the article was not published at that time as we can see. are you with me so far.

this was published. that would be around the time the picture here is the data is 1999 so that would have been the first published, not the second. >> i shall notice -- you've got harry potter and the -- >> i'm initially told there was a second invest it was a third eye mask to put your publisher then mailed the daily monona and for that is that right? >> no to the newspaper i was

angry. you told me i would be asked this question just shortly before we came, and i have no memory ever of complaining to my publisher news paper. that is not the way that i could conceive. i was good. there are the more spirited can't see if anyone was. but i would agree about the harm being factual. it's all the information that i would discuss in the early parts of the while racking my brains

is personally. in 1999 when this i did tell my publishers i did not wish to do press and the reason for that was have really taken off. the books were selling very, very fast. i don't absolutely love giving interviews. obviously it depends on the saddam stances. and i just felt giving more press felt like overkill so i sent them clean up to say not to race all marketing campaign and they were free excite of that in the fact i found one interview which. - what seems to happen is that they have published this article when i haven't given the interview of that time.

however, i make no complaints about that it may be that they, i never gave instructions for the. you are content to recognize in the public domain that it means your daughter. [inaudible] [laughter] >> thir beginning to understand where we are toward peace. >> and as to why it was felt appropriate to put it forward to the there was another article.

>> i'm having difficulty for is something evidence and -- >> but i know that it's in here. and marched 2003 in the mirror. in the previous draft which is why the australians are referring to. it said he is there at every beckham call and i will support the sunday published. i can't say it worked for me. you wanted to mention. senator?

i had married a doctor and and that most of the surprising partly because. he was someone who was doing a job and my president has now given up his. it hadn't been made to the representatives or czechoslovakia to there has never been a period he hasn't been or something similar. and this. i felt extremely strongly about this. i should mention this because my husband clearly is not a celebrity and he has no wish to

be a celebrity. and again, this story was damaging misinformation. because they thought we would have the marines that from the one hospital he must've to support entirely to be at my back and call come in by mcginn -- one of the reasons to give evidence here today is are there people that have their dubious pleasure of being married to, someone of interest to the press

it. i asked that made me suspicious. it was sending a horrible message out to my cousin's colleague, some of which he might wish to hard. yes, we did receive an apology, but it is the lowercase source of a. my husband decided to give up his work to become house husband to his. >> and your conclusion, you sum up your position. can i ask a more general

question perhaps borne out of your experiences as you have explained. the total is being increased this afternoon. this is not a compositor question. it's an opportunity, that's all. >> i do not have any various ideas. i can only say that i would. on the way of sanctions to newspapers to -- i think everyone -- i do feel we need a body that has teeth, that can

be. when they say prime is the notification which would prevent a significant amount of damage particularly when it is on the tree for people to be fitted to the co become. apart from that, i can't pretend i have a magical. there is the intent if you had one. thank you very much.

to read to you believe the future can be different than the present, and do you believe you

can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it and some they don't. the u.s. we have it set to read it sense of how much control we have but it's good for us to have that. [applause] a roundtable discussion of infrastructure with five former treasury secretaries. it's part of the university of virginia national transportation policy summit being held in washington. the panelists served on the cabinet of the freed delete the previous administrations. it's an hour and a half.

>> i can't believe we have this kind of warm weather in the end of november and we are experiencing right now. but we have a great panel. these are great colleagues we have had a chance to work with over the years with the earliest of the secretaries appear and jim was deputy secretary under elizabeth dole and then secretary on his own right, but has had a great influence of the transportation coming before as well as in his post department activities, and he's always

maintained that contact with transportation activities. so, if i could ask you to start off. >> thank you very much. it's a great privilege to be here with colleagues and people i have great admiration for. as understand the purpose of the conference, it is to address, among other issues, but fundamentally the question of how we convince the american people of that this should be a priority and something must be done. we have done i think an outstanding job of convincing each other. therein lies a part of the problem. we are talking to each other. we have had any number of

distinguished panels with welcome reports including the excellent report the center issued under the leadership earlier this year. and yet i believe that we've got a fundamental disconnect between what we receive to be the needs and the resources of you will be devoted to those and what the american people do come in and i want to give you two quick samples to perhaps frame that point a little more sharply. on november 26, just last week, the "washington post" ran a fleet editorial about the transportation crisis in virginia and focused particularly on northern virginia. and talked about during the alternatives and toward the end of the editorial this would not

mean to levy new taxes itself but without putting the question on the ballot in a referendum which would politicize the critical issue. in other words, if we let the people of northern virginia have a direct say in whether we want to spend more money on transportation, one of the injustices in america what. that politicizes. we know that means. it's likely to lose. that's what that means. that insight is sadly i found dead on. ..

>> the survey also indicated the following with remarkable similarity.

roughly 75% is thumbs down to pay additional taxes. three out of four. i don't think any more records or slick packaging matters. we have a fundamental grace is the highway trust fund has collapsed almost $35 million and it is about to collapse again. and there is a fundamental difference from what the american people perceive. at least not one they want to spend money on a war may get a trade offs. so let me state prickly the challenges these are the issues that have to be addressed. it will take time. it will not have been quickly. it has happened because the

american people have been so very cynical about how taxes are spent for every time there is a state budget crisis, and they see a thames to raid transportation trust funds and use those for their needs. on the federal level they see that congress is beginning to focus on that but if you are doing that instead of repairing bridges you should not be surprised people become cynical over time then there is the earmarks. year marks has stopped as of last january in both houses of congress. but the american people i would suggest you ask the survey, 75% or more would say yes.

that is a well-kept secret and will take time and continuing efforts to educate people. most of bernie, it has to stay stock. if we go back to earmarking and what we have come to know with the bridge to nowhere, then it is not simply reinforced with the fundamental disconnect. finally come on my list of things to stop doing, is treating transportation infrastructure jobs programs. they did not work by any conventional definition. we knew because of the expertise because of the short-term stimulus because it takes time. it takes years for the money. we need to convince the american people we need to

invest in transportation infrastructure. if we sell that idea, not to the jobs program but because of the ability of the economy to grow and all of the other things, then we have a fighting shot to convince the american people the resources they need to be devoted to transportation. and i will stop there and let my colleagues have at it but that is our challenge going forward. >> next is sam skinner i have a great privilege to work with him with the public works and transportation and the relationship of sam and secretary and the committee

on public works and the transfer station. again, the governor was talking about the bipartisan nature of transportation as a subject matter. not only in terms of our relationship, but within the committee. public works and transportation was because of the big four relationship chairman of the subcommittee. this would change whether it was highway transit aviation or maritime bet to it was exciting what bills do consider even two amendments. when the whole idea was coming along their routes the wonderful highway administrator with the name of tom larsen and we just had a great team effort

going on at that time i always be grateful to sam for his counsel and advice during the whole process for the white house as well. >> i am glad you mentioned dr. larson who is no longer with us. the 1% if he was in this room would be really contributing when i did not know him until he was identified for me by others and it took several phone calls almost as many as eight paulson and did a phenomenal job and we should take a moment to recognize his efforts of transportation generally and had a tragic accident on his farm in pennsylvania and a few years ago. >> first of all.

i will say something that what we have is interesting. i am one of the people who are outside the beltway such to give prospective outside the beltway and number of you can see that as well. jim got into it. the american people have lost confidence in the ability of government to bid to break things. and two manages spending in a sensible way. in order for us to sell our program the way we effectively do projects on budget and on time, and the american people have to have confidence restored and government the way it is allocated and spent. until we do that, it will be

very difficult. we have two missions. one is to make the transportation spending to make sure that to the state and local and federal spend money correctly. but it is the uphill project. health care cost don't affect us at all as far as transportation got about 7%. the states are killed with medicaid expenses and they have no ability the public does not perceive those programs are being managed correctly. and state and local pensions does not affect us. the problem is the program 10 chin and salaries day salaries delivered at the state's and local level is unsustainable and people are beginning to recognize that.

in illinois a lot of states have this problem, all of the increases in revenue over the next two years of the state budget all of that is required just to fund the unfunded pensions and these budgets and obligations incurred are anchored at the state level and the local has nothing to say about it. it is that the independent control mayors, city councilmen to cover the outlook at a way to fund these but it has a ripple effect. there still is a feeling the defense department with the huge budget that they have is not really effectively spending money. you can justify for a short period of time $200 a gallon

but that is not what we talk about. there is a sense we're not coming to reality of what we can expect and can we do with that. we're dealing with the residue of a couple of projects that got out of control and working together we got them back in control but before we start off as a $3 billion project. there is still the residue fortunately there have not been too many but we have projects right now. people will allocate $15 billion for high-speed rail. with the believe and high-speed rail, let's just put this aside. let's talk about the project was estimated to be

20 billion, it is already up at 90. the shovel has not been placed in the ground and nobody knows what the project is like. the people of california voted for it and the point* is you cannot have high-profile projects with runaway cost without undercutting the confidence of building the american people to do it. that is unfortunate because the projects we talk about, the state of illinois delivers good projects on time and on budget. we will do the project of the multibillion-dollar said it is a multibillion-dollar project and i bet you money they are on time and on budget but we don't get credit for that. number one, we have to continue to sell when it comes to choose irritation, unlike other areas come if you don't have

confidence in the others you should have confidence in the transportation projects with the billions of dollars that are being spent every year effectively. is happening in arizona, arkansas, virginia, all over. they're building projects on time and on budget that are effective that are exciting and with no attention whatsoever. the time has come for all of us to two to the horn of the good projects to make sure people understand when it comes time to go through this difficult time of allocating funds, the toughest we have ever seen, that transportation can deliver on time come on budget with productivity increases. that is where i see the next hurdle will be. with that, rodney? he is the man for all

seasons. he sits in the middle which is appropriate. he works with everybody. his beloved by a everybody not that norman and i are not. [laughter] but not like rodney. he is beloved by everybody to come in in has done a great job under president clinton and continues to do great things for this administration behind the scenes. and i will see -- to say where everybody likes him. my son ally is the commissioner of the nfl not such a good job a few months ago. it just so happens rodney new one of the parties on the other side and said i know your son in law is the commissioner in so in so is a friend of mine. if there is anything i can do to help just call. that is why he is so

effective and i did have to take you up they got it done on theron. otherwise we would be alone during the super bowl and he has a view that i think very few people have. >> thank you secretary skinner and secretary mineta and mr. burnley and it all who have gathered. it is a pleasure to be here as a part of this gathering. let me note the presence of another individual who just walked into the room and was not so much a part of my work of the merger partners in every sense of the word. that is the case with more taste secretary pena and secretary just before the clinton administration and i

just want to acknowledge his presence. and actually what i want to say speaks to the points that have been made but they relate to the good work that's mort did as the deputy secretary and the ceo of department of transportation and. let me start by when we came into office, we felt we had a good piece of legislation. i underscore the fact it is important to have good legislation in. important to have the money. we had considerable dollars but wonderful legislation. that was crafted in many respects by norm who was identified as having it on the house side and with the secretary's post and the people with whom they worked. clearly the president and

other members of congress. but what we sought to do, maybe this was because early on, you recognize you are not that is the point* i am making. we hit the road with the legislation to basically tell people what we have the power to do on their behalf and in partnership. >> yunus para putting people first it was demonstrate -- to demonstrate the private sector can deliver and it is the true engine of growth and jobs but to me also have to have occurred partner in the public sector can be wonderful.

let's face it. we came in when people were as skeptical as they are now. but to cut regulation the? to bring balance and to take of middle of the road approach? and to really reach out across the aisle for pro that is the way we played it from day one until the end. during that period, that is why no it is possible not only did we you raise the gasoline tax, but we also built on i see. teetwenty one. we do have an enhancement project the did you go to

see those projects dedicated to the crowd that is their that is as supportive of the major multibillion-dollar project come of those crowds are the same and it takes both of those crowds to help us get the message out i think. there are clearly place is to complain the role of government and how the government makes a misstep here or there but they are dedicated people and we need to help the public understand that. they are ready to work with the private and the work that has to be done to move the country for word. >> i have never really talked about transportation as concrete and asphalt and steel. i think when we have a

dedicated source of funding and nobody could get to the funding and with every experience a driver had when he or she started a vehicle and used gasoline they added to the fund and the resources were there for us. that fund cannot do what we need it to do. we have to have a relationship with the public that goes beyond us getting together here in washington d.c. deciding how to use the money that just appears in the trust fund. we have the hard job but when you had to deal with the needs? and make case for the test -- test fund? but i don't you do that with

the one message share want to leave in that the way we hit the road to talk about a good policy can mob traveled from buffalo newark to laredo tex. come of 14 days, 14 states. every step of the way we were dealing with projects and the local locales with those who were excited and we were telling them how we could help them deliver on those projects. we were telling them about the policy that was available and you know, when t 21 came round there is a desire to go back before us. but because google was demonstrated we could hold the line. i think if you look at the

legislation that is formulated outcome you have good policy. we have been able to hold the line. maybe over the last 15 years has been about. of the new view of transportation is more than grant -- concrete and asphalt and steel. education, health care, all the issues, transportation helps to make our enjoyment of those things possible. we are just going to the school next door or to the health care facility around the clock. usually it is across town. and transportation makes it possible to enjoy the goods. we have to talk about transportation in that way. i just think let's applaud the senate for giving us

what we have always come to expect. which just this time with this committee coming at it the end vantage come we never had to work in the environment where that is not the case. i just had a wonderful time working with republicans and democrats. i cannot think of a bad experience that i had as secretary during fad period. not because we got everything that we wanted but we always had the and

the administration effort to working with the private sector can get things done. that is a legitimate question out there. i think maybe it is for us to look beyond the road or the bridge. what ever. to help make that a reality. if we do that and not to be in a position to be taking care of as well. thank you. >> i am pleased to introduce mary. she was the federal highway

the minister when i was secretary and did a great job in that time she was there. and then personal circumstances required she returned to arizona. in the meantime, 2006, i decided i would be leaving and so i called mary, i know you were just in arizona not that long, but i will suggest your name for secretary would you consider coming back? she said i will have to talk to terrie about this. couple-- later she said i think i would like to do that.

she goes through the confirmation process, gets cleared, voted on. the day of the swearing-in, terry said i don't know if i should think you or punch you out. [laughter] but she did a great job as federal highway administrator and secretary of transportation. i have always been very indebted in the grateful to her from her ability to get things done. it is great to have this opportunity to will come very peter sen. >> now the night before the president made the announcement i said now i know how ginger rogers felt. i do not even measure up to

you at all even rarely high heels but. >> and those who have the privilege of levying and he was clearly among the top. your experience on the hill played very well to help us to understand how to deal with these problems. but talking about the problem, how we manage the message? doing as a great job of convince amy e. to other but have the retail about to the middle people? >> gingrich during so they saw no problem and they increase to fund the highway system and even though that

money does not come from one and become a people in this. but even if there were not generating that much money. >> they move us away from that time which is lack of investor confidence. and then to deliver the program. parts of it is the evolution that several fuss have talked about. not bad themselves with the remarks come as special programs, a bicycle trails or historic covered three -- bridges, but those totality deviation from that national purpose is contributed to the problem of lack of investor confidence. the other is what you talked about. scarcely talk to a person in today who doesn't know what the bridge to nowhere is.