Well, what I was referring to there was that the Calcutt report did not initially recommend any statutory underpinning or basis for the new regulatory recommendations that were made by Calcutt. Calcutt later concluded that was a mistake and said that relying on arrangements which are in the gift of the press themselves, asking the press to be judge and jury of their own affairs, is based on a self-evident flaw. You're asking a vested interest to judge itself when things go wrong, which -- I can't think of any other vested interest in society which is so immune to the normal standards of accountability when things go wrong.
That, then, of course, gets us into the very interesting territory of if pure self-regulation has not worked, and it clearly hasn't -- I mean, the PCC, I have to stress, I think it's populated by some very good people who try and do a very good job and do it very diligently, but it is a relatively toothless operation and, as I said, it's run by the people it's supposed to hold to account.
I'm sure we'll cover this later, I'm very happy to enter into detail on my own thoughts on this, but I think we're moving to a phase where everybody -- we've given enough opportunities to that pure judge and jury self-regulation method to prove itself, and each time it seems to have come a cropper. There's a much more difficult question about what do you replace it with in a way which doesn't fetter or hinder or trample upon the freedom of the press.