Let me tell you that I believe you're very much on the right track, and let me say as well that the longer the time that goes by after their testimony or their information, the less interest the police have in them. We have some cases now where we've sued the police or whatever agency is involved and they come with affidavits saying they don't need protection anymore, but in the same cases those police are calling us and they say they don't know where the protectee is and they believe there's a real threat by bikers against them. These are the same people who say there's a real threat against them, but when you sue them, there's no threat.
So they should be monitoring. Eventually the people should fade into the woodwork and have new lives, but there's a period where they need support from the police, who are their only real link, because the police know their past and they know where they are—or they should know where they are. They should follow them and give them the support they need.
The trouble is that it costs money, and if there's money available, the police want to use it for the current cases, where they need the information to get convictions in the cases that are coming up, rather than the long-term following of these people.
I agree with you, sir, that the police should have some responsibility in trying to follow these people to make sure they have a soft landing and they don't get involved in crime again.