Yes. I mean, like a lot of people, I think we've been distressed at some of the evidence we've heard about paparazzi given to this Inquiry. It's the age-old problem, how you define paparazzi. What is the difference between a paparazzi photographer and a genuine freelance photographer, a freelance photographer working for a newspaper? It's a very difficult area to define. The greatest problem, of course, is that the great majority of paparazzi pictures are sold abroad, where there's a vast, vast market for them, I'm afraid. Our streets are free, in theory, therefore, you know, this needs -- it's a very difficult problem and it's now compounded by the fact that everybody with a BlackBerry or a mobile phone becomes a citizen photographer.
I mean, literally, you can take high quality pictures with your mobile phone and there are lots of -- there are several agencies now online advertising for citizen pictures of showbusiness or celebrity or newsworthy events. So, you know, this is a difficult problem.
However, I do think it is beholden to the industry to do something about this. I think the Editors' Code could look at this and the Editors' Code book. My own picture editor, although his evidence wasn't read out, suggested a list of guidelines that I think we can start examining much more carefully. Was the subject in a public place when the photograph was taken? Was the photographer standing in a public place when the pictures were taken? Was the subject visible to the members --