 Craig, you've got anything more to say about how the case is progressing. We're waiting for the decision on whether a cross-appeal can take place. What's happening there? Yeah, I think that's the important thing to remember, that Julian hasn't actually had his appeal against the decision to extradite yet. The only appeal that's been held was the American appeal against the points, the health points essentially, on which it was specifically decided not to extradite. Julian's appeal against extradition is still awaited, and that will shift the courtroom focus back again onto the fundamental questions of human rights and freedom of speech on the abuses of process in the case, the fact that the American government was spying on Julian's legal conferences, that they obtained all of his legal documents from the Ecuadorian authorities after he was removed from the embassy, on the fact that the extradition treaty under which it's being extradited specifically states there should be no political extradition, are numerous other points of appeal which are yet to be heard. I should be very, very surprised that the High Court doesn't agree to hear that appeal, so we have some time to go. But the problem is, of course, that all this time Julian has held in dreadful conditions of the maximum security business, so to some extent the process is for punishment, but the process still has a long way to go. Well, this isn't supposed to be a political case, but how likely is it that the US or the UK wouldn't want some of those matters to be heard in court? I think it's going to be very difficult to prevent the court. It's very, very hard to see an argument that the High Court should not hear the appeal, because, plainly, there are points of appeal on which the legal principles are quite a high magnitude to be discussed, particularly the right to confidentiality of legal consultation. And, of course, the entire principle of the application of the extradition treaty and all its provisions under which the application takes place. The UK government's viewpoint is that there is nothing in general that prevents the UK government from jaking international law, in its domestic law, that an international treaty doesn't bind the UK in what it does internally. And even if you've said that, it's true, and it's a very bad thing, but it is true, but the British courts have always held that the UK government is not bound by external treaties, whether that can be said to apply to a treaty which is the operating instrument under which the extradition is taking place. And it post-dates as well, doesn't it? Wasn't it 2007 the treaty, but the Actors earlier? That's true. It does indeed. And before that, no political extradition was specifically included in the UK's general extradition legislation. But I know all of this is bluntly nuts. Julian has been charged for espionage by a country, and he hasn't been near that country at the time of the offence or since. He's an Australian citizen who's operating outside the United States. So how he can be said to have committed an offence within the United States? Even though, considering the extradition at all, the United Kingdom is admitting an extraordinary United States claim of universal jurisdiction. There's so many legal points which are just completely wrong in this case, that it's very hard to believe that the High Court won't hear them. And I basically believe the High Court will hear them. That doesn't necessarily mean we will win. I don't think anybody who believes that in political cases like this, the courts are genuinely independent. It's extremely naive.