Well, I guess -- I'll give a recent example. In the pursuit of the story about the nature of the former defence secretary's relationship with his friend Adam Werritty, clearly we were seeking to understand how it was that Dr Liam Fox was finding himself in foreign capitals accompanied by this person who had no official role, and there was a line of inquiry which seemed to be pursued which was about the nature of that personal relationship. You could have held off reporting on the grounds that you were concerned about treading on those toes. It seemed clear to us that there was a public interest in understanding the nature of that relationship, and the line that we pursued was to understand how Adam Werritty's travels were financed. We then were -- it then was made available to the paper the bank accounts of Adam Werritty's company, which exposed not only the way in which he spent that money but the people who had funded him and his work.
Clearly, that was an intrusion in terms of his life and in terms of the individuals that had funded him. I took the judgment that this was clearly in the public interest and the nature of external influence on the Secretary of State for defence was something the public should know about.