Can I answer you this way? I thinking that Calcutt 2, which the government turned down, was actually the creation of a much better Press Complaints Commission. I would not have been able to do it if it hadn't have been for the threat of Calcutt 2, to which the government said no, and the serious threat that there could be statutory regulation. That is what I used all the time. All my speeches in the early months, I'd say, "Now, look, I hope you people are listening to me, because if you don't listen to me, statutory control will be the end result of it."
And I can remember -- I had forgotten but I was reminded the other day -- at least one meeting I turned to these editors who were being a bit difficult about this or that and the other thing, and I said, "If you lot go on like this, I'm going straight to the Prime Minister and saying these people are impossible, and I cannot deal with them any longer."
It was the threat of statutory intervention, which didn't happen, which made me persuade them to co-operate with me, which they did for the seven years or so I was there. We frequently changed the code in all sorts of different ways, as we found the opportunity to do so, and it was a lot better at the end than the beginning.
So I think that what you say will be very instrumental in getting a higher standard, even if -- whatever you're likely to say is going to be designed to increase and improve the standards, which have slipped, and I think it will be -- it doesn't necessarily mean a legislation at this stage. It does mean that they will say --