It's my first time using the camera and I lost one clip because my eyesight is too poor to read the buttons on the camera clearly. Since I lost the sight of an eye small print instructions also defeat me.

To be honest, I was just glad to have a recording device because he speaks so fast, keeping notes would have been a nightmare, and as he can speak quite colourfully, his direct words are always better than my summary.

I thought he might be inhibited by the camera, but he clearly had some messages he wanted to get across.  His comments on Ganley could land him in the Libel Court - so strict are the laws here - and people with money just use the threat of them to keep people quiet.

I've tried editing the clip to take out the start but even uploading the clips took most of the night so I gave up until I have more time.  Part of me actually likes the obviously amateur set-up because it isn't meant to be a media set piece.

If I was going to do it properly I would need to have someone with me to operate the equipment.  It was simply a case of pointing the camera in the right direction and hoping nothing went wrong after that.

I'm aware of the one camera two takes technique but I actually ended up ad libing most of the questions, so I would have had to be able to edit out the sound in the first take and overlay it with the questions being asked a second time around on camera.  I had recorded the intro at home beforehand but would then have to splice it onto the interview itself - something I know how to do - but again it takes hours!  I couldn't get my laptop sound to work at the interview - so I couldn't play it to him - for his background - so I just ended up repeating most of it as part of my opening question.

All very amateur and unprofessional, but at least one step up from pure text, and an awful lot less writing and note taking on my part - which would also have slowed up the interview process.

So in the end I opted for speed and simplicity and tried to focus on the content.

notes from no w here