And the essence of the issue -- you really strike at the heart of the matter here five lines down:
"A conflict of interest arises where police officers or staff give or appear to give preferential treatment to one interest over others. At best, this behaviour may be regarded as inappropriate; at worst, as corrupt. Potential conflict of interest include the access and influence accorded to individuals and organisations; inappropriate disclosure of information to the media and others, whether for financial gain or otherwise; excessive or inappropriate hospitality, especially when offered to senior officers and other decision-makers; question marks over contractual arrangements and police/supplier relationships; and secondary business interests which may conflict or be perceived to conflict with the integrity of the police force."
The review methodology -- you've covered this quite generally in answer to earlier questions, but here we have the detail -- around 500 interviews with stakeholders within the Police Service, as well as approximately 100 focus groups. Did you conduct any interviews with stakeholders on the basis that what they said wouldn't be attributed to them in your report?