 Kim.com came to New Zealand. The truth of it is that the Americans believe that he has broken the copyright laws. Can you jump to react quickly to them? No, they invoked the extradition treaty in New Zealand. For all of TV3's conspiracies they'll be proved to be wrong. The bottom line is that what happened with Kim.com was that he came to New Zealand, when he was in New Zealand the belief of the American authorities is that he's broken copyright laws. And again, the simple point here is they invoked their extradition treaty. Now, if Kim.com's done absolutely nothing wrong, if that's the proposition, that may well be right. I don't even have a view on that. Will we apologize to him? Well, there's a really simple way of resolving it. Kim.com gets on a plane, he goes to America, he fights his case, he wins it, he restarts his business in New Zealand and he says to the Americans, you were wrong. Pretty simple way of doing it. Well, we say sorry. If he wins this case and he comes back, I won't say sorry for the Americans invoking the extradition treaty. If we want to pull out that treaty we can, but when that little girl pumpkin was abandoned at Melbourne Airport her father went to America and we invoked the extradition treaty and got him out. Pretty different situation, though. No, it's not. It is, really. No, it's not. It's not different in the slightest. No, you see, this is where the theory is wrong from TV3. The theory is that somehow out there, we're out there to get Kim.com. We don't have the extradition treaty. It's a pretty heavy handed technique. No, we didn't. We did what we think is safe. It was a very American way to roll in there. So you think a property that they went into where we now know that there were firearms, you think the police officers just walk in, if that police officer gets shot dead, no, that police officer gets shot dead. Are you telling me, Rachel, that's all okay? I don't have an opinion on it. I don't think it is okay and I think the police absolutely did their job properly. We'll let the court sort it out. Well, that's what we're dealing with. See, in my world, I don't get the luxury of that. In my world, I set rules that I expect the police to follow through the legislation we have. They're independent. They make their own decisions. But I back them when they say that the potential risk to their officers is a risk they have to take. And I think they should have taken those risks seriously.