Of course, we do that because we say that there's an overall benefit in having such a regime. We say that the interests of society at large, and the whistleblower in particular, in such cases outweigh the rights of those who might be accused of wrongdoing, and, of course, the reason that we need such laws is because it's not always the case that, when whistleblowing takes place, the wrongdoing is able, actually, to be proved. So other aspects of the legal system, whether it be contractual, perhaps in an employment context particularly; or it might be in relation to individual reputation so that defamation laws, potentially, are engaged; or privacy laws, of course—all these complex issues can interact such that we have need for someone who, in good faith and not using whistleblowing as a means to cast aspersions unfairly or in bad faith, uses these provisions to highlight what they consider to be wrongdoing in the service of preventing serious risk to the health or safety of an individual. 