 So I've got two examples. Back in 2017, I think Haringi, Haringi Council, don't even know how to pronounce that. Somewhere in England, I think. So they plan to set what's known as a joint venture vehicle, apparently, which is basically, as I understand it, a business arrangement between a number of parties. And it was with like some Australian multinational property developer. And like the first part of this plan would have included the transfer of North Thumblin Park housing estate, which is I think one of the largest in that council region along with like a bunch of smaller estates and individual housing properties over to this joint venture vehicle. And these would have been demolished and got replaced with like pretty much larger private housing with reduced tenancy protections for any remaining social housing tenants. So there's a broad opposition from like both members of the public and political parties and other local individuals in the community. But what this basically a campaign group formed around this and what they found was like lots of the council's assessment reports weren't publicly shared and only, or the only consultation that was held was like an informal survey at like a fun fair day or something like that, asking people whether they supported better quality housing. I mean, like of course, most people said yes, right? So that was their basis for like actually, making these decisions. So one of the contributions to the campaign was like the assessment of information released through existing FI requests and putting in a few new ones to fill some data gaps. They basically had a little team making these FI requests and keeping track of all the responses and actually like collated and summarized all this information and reports and use that as a basis of a legal challenge. One element that came up repeatedly and helped sway public opinion was the, they got information on the when meetings were held. So they got like diaries, that kind of thing, but there were no minutes, there were no records. So it kind of showed how like not transparent all this process was and led them to believe there was like a huge degree of secrecy at play. So another element revealed through FI in this case study was that the property developers were meeting not only with key council officials but other significant public bodies as well. And the meetings were especially consultative but the minutes showed them actually making important decisions as to how the places should be redeveloped. So no representatives or local residents of small, medium businesses had any equivalent access to the public authorities in this way with all the direct and indirect influence implied. So while councillors were like verbally assuring the community that social housing was being protected the reality of the paperwork showed commitment to like only 30 odd percent of affordable homes which is pretty different to what they were saying in public. I think they had like a 10,000 people waiting list. So this wasn't just like they had a big problem of social housing and were like publicly committing to social housing and yet these records showed otherwise and all that came out through FI. And then yeah, they also found like repeated examples of large amounts of public money being given to these developers. So again, like getting budgets from from FY and like, you know, balance sheet type information like that is all super helpful for building up this picture of like what is actually happening. And then they actually ended up taking this to court. They did lose the legal case but one element that was found in their favor was that the council had failed in their duty to consult and that had all been confirmed by FY request by the fact that they just didn't have any meeting minutes or like any meaningful evidence that they had done this consultation. So the campaign group said they basically never expected to win the whole campaign by the courts and any win would have only meant that they would be required to like amend the process. Like the law wouldn't have actually helped stop the plan but their main aim was to like actually delay the signing of the contact with this, you know, what I can't remember what it was called now, the big group thing anyway, long enough that new council elections would come about because what happened basically was that the new councillors having or the people running for election had heard about all this stuff and were like, no way, like that can't happen. So new councillors got voted in and they were more sympathetic to the cause and actually halted all this development. So, you know, this all took about like two long hard years but it's like a concrete example of how you can build this picture using, you know, transparency laws and data to like actually figure out what's happening on the inside. Final example of some really, really good journalism from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. They ran this sold from under you project which revealed how much publicly owned property had been sold off across England as a response to austerity measures. I think they discovered that like about 12,000 or more buildings and pieces of land had been disposed of across all the councils and bringing in revenue of like nine billion pounds, something like that. So this project basically pieced together like a huge nationwide data set and it ended up generating stories both nationally and, you know, in like local press as well. They actually use what they know, pro to collect all this information from like 700 FI requests to like 350 local councils and they had a group of like more than 150 people across the UK, including local journalists who took part in this collaborative investigation. And obviously this is like a huge scale, like a huge increase in scale and complexity to what you're doing. But the thing they did really, really well in this and I think, you know, a smaller group could replicate on a smaller scale was, they used all this data to like actually map out where all these properties were sold off. So that gives you this, you know, real factual picture of what had happened and the values of all this stuff that has been sold off, you know, to private companies. But they also combined this with stories going back to what I was just saying about, you know, telling stories to your MPs. Like they went and interviewed people in the community who had been affected by these sell-offs. I think one of the examples was a gym being sold, which, you know, it's like made a real impact in one of the more deprived areas. And like this ended up creating loads of different stories. You know, I don't know exactly what changed after this per se, but I'm pretty sure it led to a couple of inquiries in a couple of local councils. But the way you use this transparency data can really add like weight behind individual stories. And I think the mix of the two is like one of the most important things, campaign groups like this should be looking at trying to do. So got a couple of like a bunch more case studies which we can send you around, you know, how people have used FYI. And hopefully that will be like inspiring to you in terms of like how you can figure out how to replicate what groups are doing with a different problem, but how you can use those ideas in the problem domain of temporary spaces. Got another bunch of case studies. So again, another one here is like looking at freedom of information and asbestos in schools, which I remember having like a really good result. And then we've got a couple of how-to guys as well, which we're trying to work more on, like how to just like actually use all this data that comes out of what they know. So I will take a breath and open to any questions that you may have and how I can help. Thank you, Gareth. That was super interesting. That was really good. There are a couple of...