Yeah, I do. I think that what we've done rather better recently is -- I actually think that it's the duty of the PCC to engage with groups like that.
If you look at the parallel case of, say, mental health reporting. That's where we've worked very closely with various mental health charities who do raise complaints about terminology or points of issue. Even though there's no first party to the complaint, we take those complaints. We have done something similar with the Islamic community, although as the evidence suggests, not sufficiently.
So I think there's work that has been done and can be done to have these people complain to us about general issues of fact, particularly, where you don't require a first party, and I think the work we've done with mental health is a good model for that. We have quite close links with Broadmoor hospital, but more generally with Shift and with mental health charities, where they come to us and say, "Here's a problem in terminology", for example, "How do we stop this happening?" and then we host seminars with them and bring in the newspaper industry to lead to a change in the manner of reporting.
In science reporting, we do take complaints from members of the public. We also then contact the scientists themselves and even if they don't want to complain, ask them to just give us an overview of their own position.
So I think we have to do more to reassure these people and actually have to do more directly to help them, but I think there is provision there for that work to be done, and I took their evidence as a concern that they didn't feel that we were offering that and actually as a legitimate challenge to find a ways to do it.