Well, I think it's twofold. One is the perception not only of the public but of the more junior officers, who must look at this and wonder whether this is a proper use of public time and public money. And secondly, the very perception that the Inquiry has already said in terms of Lord Leveson and yourself, that it is very difficult not to put these two situations together in terms of the failure to investigate and the levels of contact, and not see a reference between them.
As I have said, I don't believe that John Yates took that decision on that basis, but the difficulty is in terms of public perception that that is an influence that it is possible to draw. As I said, I don't believe it to be true, but I can see no defence against its existence.