Well, it's not so much long, but without my glasses it's difficult. Yes, in paragraph 6.1 of his report, Mr Bain says that he acknowledges that:

'the determination of complaints of this nature is a matter on which persons may legitimately reach different decisions.'

He then goes on to say:

'I am, of course, aware that the Commissioner for Standards, without the benefit of all the facts now before me, decided that Mrs Watson’s complaint'—  which was the original one—

'about the publication of the video was not admissible.'

So, that leads us to: what had changed between the original complaint and the new complaints? Well, of course at the time that Mr Bain decided to investigate the matter, nothing had changed, because there had been no further investigation. As a result of his investigation, he decided—therefore retrospectively decided—that there was new information that enabled him to consider the complaint that he'd already decided to consider.

This revolved around a phrase that Gareth Bennett used, which was—I don't know whether Members know what the video was, which was basically Joyce Watson's face put onto the body of a barmaid. I'm explaining this for the benefit of those outside who may not understand what this case is about.