OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go? KL. It’s nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags – OF. How did tonight go? KL. … It’s reactionary bigots … OF. I’m a journalist. I’m doing my job … KL. … and who supported fascism. OF. … I’m only asking for a simple comment. I’m only asking for a comment. KL. Well work for a paper that isn’t … OF. I’m only asking for a comment. KL. … that hadn’t a record of supporting fascism. OF. You’ve accused me … There is a five second silence on the tape, following which an unidentified person can be heard to make a sound which might be ‘right’ or humph.” It is clear that Mr Finegold pursued the appellant as he was walking away and should have appreciated that he was not willing to answer any questions. The ESO described what the appellant did as a ‘non-verbal indication that he did not want to be interviewed’, but went on to say that politicians in high profile roles “must expect to be approached by journalists at inopportune or tiresome moments.” In his statement to the Assembly on 14 February 2005, following the passing of a resolution calling on him to apologise for his remarks, the appellant said:“The idea that you can pursue someone along the street, when they clearly do not wish to be interviewed by you, barking the same question in your face again and again, that too disfigures journalism.” The ESO quarrelled with the word ‘barking’, but that is entirely immaterial. comment made by the appellant was in my view entirely appropriate. 7. The It is important to understand the appellant’s frame of mind when confronted by Mr Finegold. He had been the target of the Daily Mail in particular, which was owned by Associated Newspapers who also owned the Evening Standard. In the statement to which I have already referred, he described how he had been persecuted by the Mail Group in particular. Journalists had been despatched to try to obtain comments or information adverse to him from his family and his partner and from neighbours. The conduct he described was disgraceful and has not been disputed by the Mail Group. In addition, he loathed and despised Associated Newspapers because of its past record of pre-war support for anti-Semitism and Nazism and what he regarded as its continuing racist bigotry, hatred and prejudice. Whether or not all would regard that as a reasonable view of the approach of the newspapers owned by Associated Newspapers, it was a view which he honestly held. Part of the bigotry which he believed to exist was an anti-gay attitude. Thus he was suspicious of the motives of the Evening Standard news editor in