Yes. If I can just make this point on immigration, because it's something I've been looking at recently. Everybody, quotes, wants to control immigration and I understand that and interestingly that's the view of my Asian heritage constituents in my constituency as much as the white constituents. But the same newspapers which are calling for restrictions in general, when they're faced with a particular case, will then say, "Oh no, we should make an exception there".
Exactly that happened with me when I was Home Secretary, where there was a man who had no case whatever for staying in the country, except that he'd been here evading the law for 12 years, was turned into a hero by the Daily Mail, as it happened, and if you are the person who has to make a decision, it's really really tricky and it also means that public opinion becomes quixotic.
Or, for example, you're invited to take a firm position over those who breach the law, and that people ought to be serving the sentences laid down, and then when you get a man who's sentenced to 30 years in jail, escapes from jail after 19 months, spent 36 years on the run, Mr Ronnie Biggs, he is then regarded as some kind of hero and you are accused of being unfair to him when you decide he ought to stay in jail for a bit longer.
These things are -- you have to cope with them, but I wish sometimes that the newspapers would hold the mirror up to themselves and compare and contrast positions they're taking in general with those they're taking in particular.
On the issue of Thompson and Venables, what happened was towards the end of my period as Justice Secretary, one or other of them, and I'm afraid I can't remember which one, had committed an offence of Internet porn and that meant that they had to be recalled to prison and all the rest of it, but there were demands from the papers for the injunctions, which were lifetime ones to prevent their new identity being released, those to be withdrawn, and for further details to be given. The press were desperate to find these people.
Again, I understand that, but if the identities of these people had been disclosed, they would have been at very serious risk of physical danger, injury, certainly, worse possibly, and yet the papers -- some of the papers simply weren't willing to think about that. But anyway, I mean I stuck to my guns on that.