Well, I did respond to their campaign, yes. They are a formidable opponent when suddenly -- again, it was the unexpected -- although the sentence you read to me acknowledges it wasn't so unexpected when you thought about it. Did I expect to be attacked by the organised civil liberties groups with whom I actually tend to agree on nine out of ten subjects? Yes, I thought they'd be highly critical. Very difficult to sell to small "l" liberal opinion in the country and in the House of Lords, as I normally am part of that small "l" opinion, I set about trying to tackle them, and suddenly the Daily Mail is coming out with a blazing campaign on the same subject, and well, it's the political impact, really, it wasn't just because it's the Daily Mail. I don't usually read the Daily Mail, actually. But we're getting into trouble here. I am being fired at from another direction.
I still think that they were attacking me by putting an interpretation on the original proposals which I can see could have been put upon them, although it was never the interpretation that I was proposing to put upon them myself. And as I'd responded to the Daily Mail's arguments as well as the arguments of other people, I put an op-ed in explaining where I now was, because -- and I genuinely think it was quite helpful of the Daily Mail, because it got me and my colleagues to concentrate our minds on exactly what we were going to make the case for and why we were proposing to retreat from the normal principle of open justice in this very limited number of cases.