sending a reporter and a photographer to wait outside the reception, having regard to what it was celebrating, with a view to seeing who had attended it. 8. While he did not give evidence in person to the Tribunal or speak directly to the ESO, his statements made to the Assembly were in evidence. There was in reality no issue of fact which needed to be decided. There was one matter in dispute, but that was not directly material to the issue to be decided. At the end of the recording, there is a 5 second gap where whatever was said appears to have been erased. The appellant asserted that at the end of the incident Mr Finegold swore at him, saying ‘Fuck you’. This was denied and led the ESO to decide to consider whether it was a further breach of the Code inasmuch as the appellant had been responsible for making a false allegation. This was a somewhat extraordinary decision, but he concluded that on the balance of probabilities the appellant ‘did not knowingly fabricate the allegation’. I am bound to say that the gap in the recording is strange and I would have thought was consistent with Mr Finegold wanting to ensure that something was concealed. Thus it helps to support the appellant’s assertion. But, as is I think obvious, it could not affect the decision which had to be made whether what the appellant said amounted to a failure to comply with the Code. 9. I have mentioned the resolution of the Assembly calling upon the appellant to apologise and to withdraw his remarks. The full resolution was in the following terms:“This Assembly deeply regrets the Mayor’s comments made to Evening Standard Journalist Oliver Finegold and the offence those remarks have caused and calls upon the Mayor to apologise and withdraw his remarks immediately. The Assembly urges the Mayor, through his programme of engagement with the Jewish community, to ensure that he communicates continuing commitment to fighting anti-Semitism, and the ongoing commitment of his administration to marking the unique horror of the Holocaust, the greatest racial crime in history. The Assembly notes the commitment of the Mayor’s administration to opposing anti-Semitism and celebrating the contribution of Jewish Londoners, such as the hosting of the Anne Frank Exhibition in City Hall, the annual marking of the Holocaust Memorial, and decisions by the Mayor to ensure that the Eruv in North London could be established. Given the Mayor’s opposition to racism and fascism it would be unfortunate if an incident with a journalist overshadowed the work his administration is doing to oppose anti-Semitism and to engage with the Jewish Community.” Later that day the appellant made his first statement to the Assembly. Having spelt out the campaign waged against him by the Mail Group and his loathing for it and its policies, he concluded by saying:“You know that I wrote to every editor and electronic media editor when my son Thomas was born saying I would not be using my family in the media and I asked them to respect that privacy. Of course, that was not enough for the Daily Mail. They got a photographer, with a telephoto lens lurking around, wanting to see me out with him and I expect that it will carry on indefinitely. Finally I say, if I could in anything I say relieve any pain anyone feels, I