Without knowing all the details, it's difficult, but I think certainly something -- you know, something stronger -- or rather, to me there are two issues. One is there's a real question about clarity with respect to -- clarity with respect to the accountability around news gathering -- so when we look at the public interest arguments and things like that that are often made, I think greater clarity or certainty for people who are making those decisions about the public interest is important. Simply relying on the discretion or -- I shouldn't say "discretion"; it should be stronger than that, but simply relying on the attitude of the Crown Prosecution Service or whatever it is seems to be not firm enough. And I'm not a lawyer and I apologise if I'm not saying the right things, but the -- but I think there's another piece here, and that's really with the question of enforcing the law, because we know things that are illegal happened, and they should have been prosecuted and people should have been brought to account, and for whatever reason at the News of the World, they weren't in 2006 and 2007, and it took all this time, which is a matter of huge, huge regret.
There's those issues and then there's a question of -- and I think the key one here is where the locus of the public interest decision is, and that's very difficult because it's one that editors and editorial independence guards jealously.