I think that's absolutely right, sir. I don't -- and I suspect this is true of my colleagues on other newspapers -- see myself as having an editorial role. It's a very exciting place to be working in. It's very creative, immensely pressured just in that hour or two while the paper is going to bed. There's a huge amount of work to get done. That is very exciting, it's very challenging, but I don't -- I see that but I don't feel I partake in it in the sense of having any creative input.
Very often the editor, or whoever's editing the paper, will ask about a headline or ask about use of a photograph or whatever, but it's not my decision. I don't believe the lawyer -- I try and approach it in the same way as if we instructed counsel and asked counsel to give direct advice on this story or that photograph. I try to give the same. Counsel will give advice and the editor can accept that advice or not accept that advice. That is -- being brutal about it, that's what the editor is there, paid for to do. I'm there, paid for, to get the advice to him clearly, under time pressure, but also, once the editor has made the decision, then to assist in every way I can to get that decision so that -- in accordance with the editor's instructions. If the editor says that he wants to take my advice, then to try and make certain that the final copy meets the instructions that I've got from the editor. So that's when the libel reading comes in, and obviously we're there to discuss any issues of public interest or whatever that arise.