But when I say that the inquisitorial system is often seen as a threat to the adversarial system, that the idea of inserting victims as players into the system with rights of standing of their own is seen as a threat, I really think that that seriously underestimates the capacity and the elasticity of the adversarial system because—and here comes the serious nerdism—it has been said over the last 20 years in research on the inquisitorial versus the adversarial system that, actually, they're not opposed. They exist on a continuum. So you often see elements of the inquisitorial system creeping into the adversarial system, but also elements of the adversarial system creep the other way too. I think it's really important to put that frame around it. When we talk about rights for victims, which 10 years ago would have been seen as a slap in the face, an existential threat to our criminal justice system—and I am not putting that too highly because I know criminal defence lawyers—when you come from that perspective, I think it is really important to put that debate into context, and say "This is not only a big step forward for our system but it is not a threat to our system." Our system is endlessly elastic provided we stick to those fundamentals of the protection of the defendant's human rights and dignity and the accurate fact finding. Once we know that we are holding those two intrinsic quests that make up a trial, once we know we have given those due respect, I think the trial is virtually, infinitely malleable, whether it is in terms of the procedures you use, whether you use pre-recording or whatever, or whether you allow a victim to have a place in the trial and to state their truth and to give their voice and to have rights. 