The first time -- I told you I get on quite well with Paul Dacre, although the two of us would fence to say the least on many political issues, so I'd given an interview about a week ago paying credit to the Daily Mail for highlighting the rather broad interpretation that can be put on things and getting me to go back and address some of this and narrow it, and they wrote an editorial ticking me off for trying to butter them up, which plainly was what I was trying to do and they were very alert to that, and they still had big reservations about the policy.
So, I mean this is -- the Daily Mail does -- it gets very strong campaigns. I mean, I don't agree with the Daily Mail on very many issues, but it isn't as predictable as the other right wing popular press.
The last time I found myself firmly and surprisingly in alliance with the Daily Mail on a major political issue was on the Iraq war. It may normally be regarded as a far right wing middle of the market newspaper -- not far right wing, but right wing middle of the way newspaper, but it was as opposed to the Iraq war as I was, and occasionally I found myself a bed fellow with the political writers of the Daily Mail, and they do have a slightly maverick and radical view on things sometimes, and they got very excited about secret courts and I still think they're wrong about -- well, I tried to persuade them, and they accepted it to an extent, that in the case of spies, national security, damaging evidence and so on, you cannot just have open justice. Tried to respond to their claims that the way we were setting about it was going to lead to the exclusion of the press and the public from all sorts of things which ministers found embarrassing. Well, I'm not in favour of that, so I've tried to respond to that and make it clear I'm not.
Where we are now is very close to where I would have liked to have been when we started the whole consultation process, so the Mail and myself are getting closer.