This sounds me like an editorial argument. Show me your sources and I'll show you mine.
Anyway, I thought Calcutt on privacy was extremely good, as I thought the 1947 Royal Commission was good. And the reason my information is -- and we may have a superior witness in court with us today -- my information was that Calcutt wanted to act after the excrescences that had occurred after his publication, and he was told or concluded that it would upset some of the political leaders too much, and so the opportunity to follow on Calcutt with a reasonable law of privacy was lost. And then of course since then we've had all the appalling conduct that your Inquiry is focused on.