I fear it is. I will go on to be intellectual in a second, but just to deal with the emotion -- because emotions are powerful, as you will have seen in this court -- the way the press here developed was -- you can see it in novels, in Victorian novels like "The Warden" or "Pendennis". You can see how it developed as a kind of subliterary genre, and that is probably true in other countries as well. Certainly it was true in France. Therefore it grew as something which was organically Bohemian, anti-authoritarian, possibly overly emotional -- indeed, certainly overly emotional -- but nevertheless free.
That, I think, remains an attachment by newspaper people to that kind of system and therefore there is a certain recoil from the kind of much more formal and careful calculations that have to be made and are made by people in the professions.
Intellectually, I think, as I said before, statute in this country, underpinning statutory arrangement, has not, in the case of the BBC, in dealing only with the media, has not meant that it is -- that it has become a government voice -- very far from it -- or, I think, decreased its appetite to do difficult reporting, investigative reporting, reporting which has embarrassed both the government and institutions like the police and so forth.
So I have no particular fears of a statutory underpinning, but I testify that there is this strong underpinning in the newspaper industry of a dislike of being marshalled into the same kind of more, if you will, responsible corrals which -- into which other professions are accustomed to work.