You summarise these problems, section 3.5, page 37 and 56. You pick up on the themes we've been discussing: the issue of perception, how damaging it is, the difficulty of proving it, the close relationship that's developed between parts of the MPS and the media has caused harm, lack of hard evidence about improper disclosure but boundaries need to be established and perceptions corrected.
Chapter 4 was your findings and recommendations, page 38 of 56. Your first point, the way the MPS communicated with the public, second paragraph there:
"The way that relationships with the media have developed has resulted in the perception that some have better access to MPS information than others. I am convinced that some information has been given inappropriately."
And you say towards the bottom of the page:
"For these reasons, I consider that more, not less, contact with the media as a whole is essential, providing it is open and recorded. However, it is important that the public are informed through all media outlets, not just the national print press, because different sections of the public use media in different ways."
So in order to address this access problem, there are two sort of competing -- well, not competing but complementary strands. One, more access, but the access -- this is the second point -- should be open and recorded, rather than subterranean.