Yeah, and this is a difficult area. I talked in my first witness statement about the whole business of anonymous quotes and to my mind the fact that a lot of them were invented. How is a regulator ever going to get to the bottom of that? A journalist says somebody said it to me and you can't disprove it, that is true, but most people who's had a very high profile particularly in a political environment know because we've all been on the receiving end of stories we know to be untrue, we've just talked about one of them in relation to Black Rod, where a civil servant was accused of doing something she just never did and then I was accused of having put her up to it and then Tony Blair was accused of putting me up to it to put her up to it, based on anonymous quotes? No. Maybe somebody did say something, but it's very difficult when you know that what they said is untrue. I don't know what a regulator does about that, but I think that having a respected outside body that is able to investigate and look at things thematically, I think, would be a useful addition to this -- to this area.
Now, the other area where, of course, you have a problem is that you're looking at the print industry, which is really challenged at the moment for reasons that are obvious, technological change and advance. That's accelerating, but why I think it's still important to keep the focus on the print industry is because these are the same people who, to be fair to them, are having to and in some cases are successfully adapting to this technological revolution. So actually if you do get the regulatory framework right for print journalism, I think that will have a profound effect on the way the Internet develops.