Can I give examples without going into details that identify the private information? On one client, a story was laundered. It went -- it was planted in America. The newspaper, having been granted -- having offered undertakings with a public domain proviso, exported the story to America and then reported it a week later, saying, "Aha, the US press have reported this, we can now report it". That's what I call story laundering. "We can't do it, but let's get the Americans to do it".
Then there are other examples where an anonymisation order is granted, so the judge makes a decision to give the reasons for his judgment so there can be debate about why the injunction was granted, but he'll anonymise the person, so that the information is given as to the reasoning but not the person. So then the newspaper will have an article about the decision saying it's a scandal, and they will put a picture of the footballer next door, talking about something, and it will be nudge nudge, wink wink, this is the person who's doing it.
Sometimes they might use social media. This is inference -- when we're talking about concrete evidence in these cases, it's always inference based on facts, so there are examples where Twitter has been used to identify the names of anonymised claimants and then other people have suddenly jumped up and said, "Look, it's on Twitter", and I think there has been in some cases evidence brought before the court that this is the sort of campaign of identification by jigsaw. So I have concrete examples, but I can't give you the details. I know of other examples from other lawyers, and they have put evidence before the court, but it's not --