The first comment on the Independent piece I quoted from above, from the pseudonymous bustop (it’s amazing from where one can comment on the net these days!), also I think deserves repetition:

I do not believe it is within Leveson’s remit to come to any conclusion about the propriety of a specific interaction between the Met and News International. He did not carry out any specific investigation of these interactions beyond the extent to which they impacted his wider report. Similarly with Jeremy Hunt. He is not in any position to exonerate, or otherwise, people like Hunt and Yates because he did not hear all of the evidence. Indeed he refused to call certain people who would be regarded as key witnesses. Neither did he seek wider evidence, other than that provided to him.

These matters should remain the subject of a police investigation and Leveson’s opinions are frankly irrelevant.

A classic technique of the UK cover-up there, er, I mean official inquiry. The worst recent case being Lord Hutton proclaiming that David Kelly has committed suicide and bypassing the inquest that would have looked in detail at the evidence or otherwise for that. We have similar issues with the much-cited ‘findings’ of the Climategate inquiries, reported or otherwise.

Police blunders meant that the inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World was not reopened for years, the Leveson Inquiry found.

Between 2006 and 2010 Scotland Yard adopted a “defensive mindset” when it should have been taking accusations of criminal wrongdoing seriously, it said.

In particular Lord Leveson found that Assistant Commissioner John Yates should have stood aside and asked another officer to review the original inquiry because of his friendship with the News of the World’s deputy editor, Neil Wallis.

I can’t help looking forward to how David Dimbleby handles that. But it will be outrageous if Wallis is the only person to represent the case against statutory regulation, rather than Fraser Nelson of The Spectator or other senior editors untainted by the scandals that led to Leveson in the first place.

Thank you, I hadn’t realised that the BBC had asked Wallis to appear on 8th Nov.’s Daily Politics show to argue against state regulation of the press. I agree, he was a curiously poor and compromised choice to represent the free press in the debate.

I agree it’s a long shot for this Thursday but I think someone should have a go. Though I’m not planning to take the train to south Wales myself.

Wallis isn’t listed as a panel member on the BBC’s website, but he was announced as such by David Dimbleby at the end of last week’s show.