I’m going to borrow your analogy because I think it’s a good one. Let us presume that a roof is leaking because of a few shingles. The shingles in question need to be changed - how do you propose the other shingles assist with this? You’re able to see the leaky shingles and that’s fine - but non-leaky shingles don’t want to get thrown off the roof.

And they do, from time to time. This is a big concern for an individual shingle. It’s why they argue.

So, although it’s arduous for you to climb up there and throw the offending Weinstein shingle off the roof - it is currently the best solution we have. We call it ‘the law’ and for the most part, it doesn’t work very well and it needs changing. The mechanisms are broken, the wait times are too long and the evidence gathering for these things is arduous.

There are things which could be done. You could phone round and borrow a ladder, you could even ask the shingles to move around a bit and see which ones are leaking. That, with respect, isn’t what is happening. Instead of a grand strategy on how to fix the roof, there is simply a series of phone calls which aren’t about borrowing the ladder, which aren’t about waterproofing the loft, but reiterate the the roof is leaking. The rain is pouring. The shingles are useless. And doesn’t it feel great to have these conversations?

As a result the shingles are constantly being told it’s raining, told to sort themselves out - but given no strategy by which this can be achieved - and then are berated for enquiring about whether there’s a ladder or not. Something has to change in the discourse and that isn’t happening yet.