Of course. Sir, that's very helpful. I can be brief now but try to be helpful now, as well as take your guidance about, as it were, supplying you with considered thoughts.
The first is actually an ability to say -- I am very happy, as it were, to give my general response being the position we, as a party, took when we addressed these matters collectively, most recently last year to our conference in the light of the events of last year. We passed a resolution. I can supply a copy to counsel if the Inquiry hasn't had it.
If I can just summarise -- it will take 60 seconds -- what the key points are: to have a more independent press regulator, independent of editors and governments, particularly with four powers; an ethical and editorial code and a kite mark; to require of the media organisation to comply with the code, or their staff obviously to do so; have a procedure for investigating all breaches of the code, and then appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties large enough to act as a deterrent, and the power to ensure that apologies and retractions are given due prominence.
Can I pause there. One of the things I have felt most aggrieved about, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of others, is the mismatch between what turns out to be an untruth propagated on the front page, which could damage a personal life or family life or a career, and the publication of the correction, the admission that it was wrong. You can never go back, you can never undo it, the damage is done, but at the moment we have a wholly inadequate way. And I've had conversations with editors of papers and the rest about that. They will always be nervous about something that would give equal prominence to the "we was wrong" as the other, but the damage by a flagrantly wrong --