Certainly. Sir, I don't want to take unnecessary time when you have a busy agenda, but can I focus on the limb under rule 5(2)(c), the potential for criticism of Surrey Police.
More importantly, may Surrey Police be the subject of explicit or significant criticism during the proceedings or in any of your reports, final or interim?
Sir, I confine my oral representations very shortly just to that one point, without prejudice to what we say are good points made in relation to 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b), you have them in writing, I can't improve upon them.
To some extent, sir, you've already identified in the exchanges we've just had that you will want to know -- you are likely to want to know the answer to the question: what Surrey Police did upon learning of News of the World's intervention. Without going into that detail, for the very good reason it's still being investigated by those who instruct me, it's not difficult to see how the test, may Surrey Police be subject to criticism, is satisfied.
The reason I was citing the Independent, was not to criticise free speech in the press, or indeed that newspaper, but simply to give you an illustration of an agenda that is out there in public debate, which is likely to gain momentum. Indeed, it was heralded a few months earlier by another core participant, as I understand it, Mr Chris Bryant MP is a core participant. If I'm wrong about that, I apologise.