We have a great relationship with the PCC and it works very well for us. One of the reasons is because our own ethics of the magazine sit so far within it we rarely have any problems or complaints.
I think the code is very good, but obviously I've seen areas where it may have failed, you know, areas that the Inquiry has brought up, that it's a complaints mechanism, but I think it works very well in dealing with those complaints.
I think one of the important things is that we're not overregulated, because there is a lot of brilliant, incisive, entertaining quality journalism, that we're not all sort of tarred with the same brush and overregulated in future, but I do think it's important that it is universal, that everybody publication is a part of it. I know there's been lots of debate about how that could be encouraged. I mean hopefully the body, the new body or the reformed PCC will be so good and of such great quality that everybody will want to be involved with it without it having to become a statutory requirement, but maybe that will be the only option, I'm not sure.
I think that, yeah, we need a certain amount of regulation, but not to be overregulated and that it should be impartial. I like the idea of it being made up, perhaps, of ex-editors, lawyers, people with a lot of experience in our areas, in media in this country, but perhaps they're not working on current titles, because that would -- it's hard to be impartial. I think magazines are only represented by Good Housekeeping magazine on the PCC, so it might be nice to have more of a magazine element on the body, but I welcome hearing sort of how things will change in the future. But I think the not overregulating is something that's very key.