Much of the debate about this cake has centred around "what-ifs". I don't think we can make decisions on that basis. You would thereby be reducing the cake issue to a single incident in the shop and trying to compare that with other simplistically-wrought scenarios. There was quite a lot more to it than that single moment of refusal, as the judgement document demonstrates. Of course precedents were taken into account, though exact precedents are impossible. We largely have to take the case on its merits. I've heard what-ifs of all kinds, including some on Question Time last Thursday. They all annoy me. They all sound like fall-back substitutes for taking on the real question. A UKIP-style ploy. So imagine how the neo-Nazi one went down. I understand that you were not making that equation, Joe, but it was a clumsy choice to make in the already-clumsy flurry of what-ifs.