Yes, but there is a slight difference here, isn't there? It's perhaps worth saying it, and I'll say it to you because it's also relevant to all the others who seek core participant status. Module 1 was concerned, in short form, with the press and the public, and in particular concerned the way in which the press investigated, collected and reported stories concerning members of the public, whatever their background, and the regulatory framework which dealt with allegations of illegal, unethical or other behaviour breaching acceptable standards.
Module 2, relating to the police, dealt with the interreaction between the press and the police, and was relevant to those for whom you appeared during that module and still do, because we're doing it, because, of course, they had a legitimate complaint that the police had not investigated sufficiently the allegation of mobile phone hacking, of which Module 1 was the central but not the only feature.
So that works in those two, but Module 3 isn't quite the same, because Module 3 is really directed, it seems to me, to the relationship between national newspapers this time -- and the word "national" appears in the terms of reference -- and politicians, along with its impact on media policy, cross-media ownership. So it's the consequences of the relationship on the creation and implementation of policy at the highest level, including obviously the nature and function of the press in a democracy as a vehicle for public debate.
Now, one of the features that concerns me, and which I'd be particularly pleased to hear you deal with and all those others who seek core participant status need to think about, is the extent to which, within that remit, it is truly to be argued that they play not merely a direct but a significant role in relation to those particular issues.
So it strikes me that this module -- and I'm happy to hear argument on it -- is much more policy-focused than individual impact-focused, if I could put it that way.