Yes. On occasions -- as a for instance, the example used earlier on by Mr Ash relating to, say, the timely nature of disclosure of certain information. The example that was used there would be relating to information which we felt was late in getting into the public domain, where three prisoners from a secure hospital had escaped custody.
Now, although I'm using this as an example, I'm not suggesting this is the way we did or didn't cover it. What I'm saying is on occasions we may take a view and we may do a robust editorial about: "We should have known sooner."
Now, there have been occasions where I have spoken to a senior officer who has explained to me why that information hasn't come out sooner, and therefore, rather than go off and criticise the police, then that gives us the opportunity to tailor our coverage to something that isn't perhaps sensationalist or something that doesn't criticise too deeply about what they've done or the way they've done it.
Obviously we're not privy to the reasons why things are done in certain ways by Suffolk Constabulary, and on occasions, as I say, we may take a view on certain things, and it's only after a discussion prior to publication that we have a more fuller understanding and can get a more balanced report in order to put the information out, if you like, into the public domain without making undue criticism or unfair criticism.