I completely endorse that point.
More broadly, we see a strong independent framework of self-regulation where the regulator does the complaint mediation work that it does now, that it strongly facilitates ADR in -- alternative dispute resolution in its many manifestations -- and I think that's a very important carrot to membership, that where you are a member, you will have the facilities and the means -- it's not the only means, but very good means -- to seek resolution where resolution is required.
The regulator should have a very strong standards arm to it, where it should be seen to be at one arm removed but at the same time consistently to be looking at the standards of newspaper behaviour, twice yearly meetings with editors and others important in that media organisation.
So we see a strong regulator -- the code needs some tweaking, but it's fundamentally a good code. We think there should be far stronger lines between the funding arm of the regulator and its operations. We -- it's my view that serving editors -- even if they recuse themselves from individual decisions, I just think it diminishes from the sense of transparency and of disinterest in outcomes, and so serving editors should not be part of that, but --