The law and the Olympics
It's not often you ask a question which completely silences some of Britain's leading minds on security.
Why, I asked, were there clauses in the Olympic Act which allow the police to raid the homes of people with anti-2012 posters in their front windows?
Chris Allison, the man in charge of the Games at the Met Police, had just told me that the police would not be using the powers in the Act to do this.
Spin doctors were also desperately keen to tell me that the clauses in the Act were aimed at stopping companies from "ambush marketing" - that is sticking advertising near the Olympic Park to associate themselves with the Games when they are not official sponsors.
So why then are there clauses about "non-commercial advertising", which covers political protests, in the Act?
Nobody could answer that.
That's because, human rights lawyers believe, those clauses shouldn't be there.
The Act gives the Government the power to tell the police to remove anti-Olympics posters from both businesses and homes near Olympic venues.
Legal experts say it even gives the police the power to enter the home of somebody who is producing the posters on a photocopier.
Last month, we broke the story about the concerns about freedom of speech expressed by the leading human rights lawyer Aileen McColgan.
We went to Greenwich, where some residents oppose the staging of the equestrian events. There, one leading campaigner was shocked that he could have police on his doorstep demanding to remove a poster from his front window. "Bullying," he called it.
Chris Allison says the police won't follow the letter of the law. Civil rights actitivists will be watching closely to make sure the Met keep to that promise.
But critics believe the Act seems to have been passed to satisfy the International Olympic Committee, without enough proper scrutiny about the freedom of speech issues.