Sue Akers is certainly getting some work done. I don’t believe in widespread police corruption, though I do now think our society is shot through with the stuff. Akers’ claims are presumably backed by the initial evidence arising. Evidence clearly available had any enquiry really been done in the past. The big problem doing any enquiry is being able to get access to and investigate what’s been going on. We would, of course, not known about the thieving parliamentarians if money had not been on the table to a whistleblower. Even subsequent to the Telegraph and the intrepid Heather Brookes, material was still issued with material redactions.
Maybe what’s really at issue here is secrecy and the need for information to be much more freely available – with people responsible for its publication also being criminally responsible if they fail? The Met is hardly covered in glory and we have hardly missed Yates and Stephenson – the former presumably making no impact on high salary in Bahrain either. If we are to believe the story that this was not investigated because there were other much more pressing demands like terrorism, should we now conclude we are at more risk because Ms Akers and her team are diverted from such purpose with the Olympics pending? From what I’ve seen she would be better fitted to the complex, multi-sourced enquiries involved in terrorism, than the buffoon men of the past.