looking back at it and in fact, i accept lord dyson �*s recommendation that of course, in the light of what earl spencer said, we should have gone back to earl spencer, one of us should have done, to pin down exactly these facts about the fake documents. i accept that as a mistake, 25 years on, but, you know, we were trying to do our best and be as rigorous as we could with what we had them but we were confronted with someone who in my 35 years at the bbc, i've not come across, basically you trust your reporters and editors to tell the truth and in his case, that trust was misplaced. but are seekinr that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of— that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story i that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story it i that trust was misplaced. but are i seeking one side of a story it would not have _ seeking one side of a story it would not have been acceptable for a bbc journalist _ not have been acceptable for a bbc journalist so far it was it acceptable for a senior manager at the bbc? — acceptable fora senior manager at the bbc? |— acceptable for a senior manager at the bbc? 4' , ., ., the bbc? i think the focus of our second investigation _ the bbc? i think the focus of our second investigation was - the bbc? i think the focus of our| second investigation was actually quite narrow and it wasn't an