to staff. with hindsight, do you acce -t to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that _ to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr _ to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should - to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should have i to staff. with hindsight, do you. accept that mr should have been dealt _ accept that mr should have been dealt with as a whistle—blower? shouldn't— dealt with as a whistle—blower? shouldn't he have been treated more elaborate _ shouldn't he have been treated more elaborate by the bbc and they should have been_ elaborate by the bbc and they should have been grateful for him coming forward _ have been grateful for him coming forward with his concerns about those _ forward with his concerns about those documents and how they might have been? i those documents and how they might have been? .. those documents and how they might have been? ,, ., �*, have been? i think that's right. i think some _ have been? i think that's right. i think some context, _ have been? i think that's right. i think some context, there i have been? i think that's right. i think some context, there had l have been? i think that's right. i- think some context, there had been two investigations when everybody had been spoken to, first of all, there was a difficult programme culture that steve hewlett was dealing with. but i expect, and i accept the point that matt should have been spoken to and listened to as we now see as a whistle—blower. but he must listen to, that is the point, in both investigations. the treatment of, i regret the language