I don't want to come up with -- I'm not an expert on what mechanism should be in place. I mean, I wish that there was no need for regulation outside the press. I wish the press were able to regulate themselves. I would like that. But they've been given many opportunities and have failed. You know, if the press suddenly had a Damascene conversion and decided to behave themselves, that would be great, but I think that would be me perhaps me being naive again.
I think whatever's in place needs to be wieldy, and people should be able to use it whether they have money or not, because of course, many of the people caught up in these stories don't have the same disposable income that I have to take action. They just have to -- they just get caught up in it and there needs to be something to help those people, some sort of redress for those people, and I think obviously, whatever the solution, it needs to have some industry people in, of course it does, but also I think it needs to have some sort of lay or independent component that can counter that in a meaningful way.
But quite what that is, I don't know. I just -- and as I say, I'm not sort of even -- because what's very important to me is press freedom and I don't think that -- it's often used as a smokescreen to legitimise invasions of privacy. There's some brilliant journalism in this country, and there needs to be a mechanism, really, in the interests of protecting genuine public interest journalism. For that reason, there needs to be a privacy law so that genuine public interest journalism isn't besmirched by this tawdry muck-raking, and so I think that people -- there needs to be a change and it's something that should both simultaneously protect genuine public interest journalism whilst also protecting the worst excesses of the press, and none of these stories about me -- none of them can be described as being in the public interest.