Well, on the latter bit, if you're going to put some inaccuracies right, then why not say so? I could make my own scenarios of where you think, in very extreme cases, you might want to keep that out of the public view, but if your purpose is simply to say, "You've got that wrong, here's what it looks like", then say so. For me, that is more on the record than off the record. I don't mean to be pedantic, but that it is more on the record.
Nor do I wish imply by this that there isn't a major role for investigative journalism because I think it's very healthy in holding the police to account, but there are ways of doing that by asking questions.
Now, it should be in extremis. I know not many people agree with this, by the way, but you've asked me for a view. My view is this should be used in extremis, but when you are using it, there has to be a good deal of clarity of what is meant, otherwise people start making up their own rules of engagement, and what there isn't in the police-media strategies and policies at the moment is anything around relationships other than in one case. So that does, in my view -- and the Association of Chief Police Officers are going to come back to me in the next few weeks with a response to the recommendations on how do you close some of these gaps.