The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

The thrust of it, yes. The detail of it, not entirely.

So, for example, the police already have systems where they deal with very sensitive information. Covert human intelligence sources, for example, where that really would be dangerous for people's identities to be leaked into the public domain. So the police are accustomed to dealing with information and intelligence, and I don't see why -- the fallback for me on this is where do the public sit, including all of those within this? And the feedback has been loud and clear, that whilst their confidence in the police is high, they want it to be a transparent relationship wherever possible, and I think you can do both things. You can, in extremis, have these off-the-record conversations, once you've defined them, and you can have a system which allows governance and oversight. If you can't do the latter, you're left with making your own rules up again.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech