由此 - 34 - A B (e) C 126. A Factor 4: The steps taken to verify the information. No oral evidence having been adduced, it is not possible to say B C what steps (if any) were taken. Whatever those steps may have been, they D E F G do not appear to have been carried out in a responsible or professional manner. 127. D E In Part III.A.1 of this Judgment, I have suggested certain steps which a responsible editor should have taken. That the Article was F G published in the form that it was indicates that those steps were either not H I H taken, or were carried out in an extremely careless manner by ATOL. Further, given that ATOL called no witnesses on this important subject, I I am entitled to presume against ATOL that it did not do a responsible job in J J vetting the Article and ensuring that it was suitable for publication. K K L (f) 128. Factor 5: The status of the information. The information is low grade. L The Article is short on M M particulars. Instead, the text deals with matters in broadbrush, generalised N N terms. O O (g) Factor 6: The urgency of the matter. P P 129. Q There was no urgency. The Article purports to have been occasioned by the LBMA announcement in August 2005. R R (h) S T Q 130. Factor 7: Whether comment was sought from the person who is the subject matter of the allegations being made. S For the reasons I have already given, I do not believe that the T fax attempt was adequate. U U V V