-- depending on whether anybody pays any attention to what I say, and I recognise that I will produce a report which somebody will decide to act upon or not.
In the light of all that, I'd like to know whether you think that that might be helpful, and help you manoeuvre your way, rather than having to reinvent the wheel, through these difficult issues where people with willingness to take on challenges, particularly as you get larger and larger, may be more and more prepared to do so.
So that's the first question. I'll carry on and then you can answer all.
The second would be whether it would be valuable to have somebody, have a body, not just a lawyer, although I don't decry lawyers, perhaps not surprisingly, but somebody with experience in the field of journalism who you can pick up the phone to and ask, "This is a bit of a call, what's your view?" You won't necessarily be bound by that, but just to have that advisory, to be alert when somebody has complained and is concerned about the risk of harassment, so that you know when that's happening, so that you're aware of it, and possibly to have an arbitral system of some sort available to you if somebody wants to make a fuss, which you can resolve without having to go to extremely expensive lawyers and indulge in the sort of litigation that it's clear, from what you've said, you have experience of.
So that's the sort of construct that I'm thinking about. Now, whether it's made to be binding or whether it is in some sense consensual is one of the big issues that -- and you will have read on the website, if you've read any of the evidence or seen it, that editor after editor is very concerned about the principle of self-regulation, and I understand why, although I don't think it means quite how you used it in your statement.