No, I understand, sorry.
Could I say, I used the phrase "much to the delight of News Group". That may have been unfair. I think the fairer phrase might be "much to the relief of News Group, things were not pursued further". It became -- the whole public presentation of 2006 was that it was a rogue reporter -- that was the phrase that people remember most -- and somebody who was employed as an agent. This was not the story of a rogue reporter and somebody who was employed as an agent, and the relevance of the police engagement is that it was a wholly different issue in the public interest if it was a systemic, generic, frequent activity, and the police should have seen that and dealt with that in the public interest, and that's much more serious than rogue reporters or freelance one-off agents.