When Sue Akers gave her evidence I wondered whether she was allowed to say what she did. I’m in no doubt she should have been able to say it. What are you supposed to tell Leveson – something like ‘Fuck off Judge, this is on camera and your inquiry isn’t important enough for me to tell the truth’? I take it what’s said there is under oath – which has something about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Any review should be on Clarke, Stephenson and Yates who have clearly been economical with the truth. If everyone was out running after terrorists as claimed, they could have farmed out the necessary enquiry.
Apart from anything else, what Akers said is just the kind of evidence that can be put to cross examination in any later trial and any effect it then had on a jury under direction could be made the right one.
Without people like Sue Akers being able to tell the truth as they are finding it, what is the point of Leveson and should it be adjourned until all future criminal proceedings have passed? What a farce – the AG should be considering whether this is an attempt to suborn witnesses through intimidation of law.
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.