Yes, but I think what he's talking about in a range of definitions -- what he means is that it shouldn't be so narrow that it's impossible to justify things in grey areas. The classic case, the grey area that keeps coming up is the Sir Fred Goodwin injunction. He was having an affair with someone who was on the board of RBS. Is that his private life or is it permissible to write about that on the grounds that perhaps when you're taking major decisions involving risky financial manoeuvres, someone you're sleeping with doesn't say harshly: "You're mad" at set times. You can see I believe that there is a defence there. Other people would not. But if what he says is the range, it means that would be acceptable. It would be reasonable to make that case; it's not completely wrong. That's what I'm arguing for.