Then the next point is 4.2, "Leadership and trust within the MPS". This is the senior officers not following the rules, a wide variation in how the senior team interpreted policy, et cetera.
Maybe I should pick up a point most of the way down page 40, where you say:
"Many police officers and staff would welcome a less defensive stance and greater willingness to inform the public about the difficulties and challenges faced by those working in policing."
That, again, is a point we've already discussed, and I think your turn of phrase was "a challenging environment" as opposed to a defensive one, and the recommendation you make at page 41 of 56 -- the supporting advice is at page 50:
"The MPS senior team must signal a change in culture and set a consistent example for all staff on the ethical standards they expect."
Then 4.3, corporate management of ethical issues:
"In the past, the MPS did not identify as a risk the close relationship of some senior officers and staff to certain sections of its media. During my inquiry, members of the senior team acknowledged that there were significant differences of opinion about the need to develop close relationships with the media and the appropriateness of receiving extensive hospitality as part of it."
And your recommendation there, page 42 of 56, says:
"The Commissioner delegates responsibility and resources to a member of his senior team to initiate change in the way the MPS approaches integrity and ethics issues at all levels."
And the supporting advice is at page 51.
Transparency. This is the back-door briefings point through informal and unofficial channels, which you've already covered in the body of your report.
What about the strength of the fear you recognise halfway down page 43, that acquiring a greater degree of transparency -- I think this is probably Mr Davies' point -- may stifle good investigative journalism in the public interest? I mean, how much weight do you give to that fear?