To answer your Article 10 question, I think I would take a more emphatic position. We, as an organisation representing freedom of expression in the UK and around the world, do regard Article 10 rights as fundamental to democracy.
Where they are impinged upon, where they are restricted as necessarily they may be, whether it is shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, whether it is specific areas of official secrets or operations where there -- we would like there to be public interest defences in some the laws where there are none, where there are competing rights and Article 8 rights as determined by judges -- and we think they should be determined by judges and judges alone -- then they will come up against those competing rights, but we do start from a straightforward Article 10 position.
Jonathan has spoken about JK Rowling. I'd also mention one of the other witnesses who gave you very telling and vivid testimony. When Sienna Miller -- and correct me if I have my facts wrong -- was talking about how the paparazzi were hammering on her windscreen trying to evoke any kind of reaction so they could then snap that less than flattering picture, it's our contention -- not only is that reprehensible behaviour -- and I'd like to come, at the appropriate time, to issues around the progeny of stories, editorial processes and editorial management, and that includes freelancers as well -- but that is covered in the existing law. Were it to be properly enforced, laws on harassment, that kind of behaviour, it may not be preventable in the first instinct, but it sure as anything is, if this is the right term, dealable with regards.