If you then look at the other major candidate, it's the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. And I do take the point that this was a good attempt, but it was a good first attempt, because what it did was take the case of the woman or the queer person who dares to consent to a sexual image being taken of themselves. In that case, if you want protection from the law, you have to prove serious harm has been done to you, that the intent was to harm you, that harm would have occurred to a reasonable person in your shoes, and that it did actually occur. And what we have watched time and time again is the courts in this country fail to recognise the effect on, largely, women who came before them seeking help, under this section, as harm—"You weren't damaged enough." And I cannot help thinking that the idea that the woman had consented to that initial image has something to do with it. If you want coverage under that old toxic masculinity we've been carrying around so long, you'd better be really beaten and bloodied if you want protection.