We learn this week that thousands of pounds have been given to members of the Metropolitan Police in return for information. Reports of sums in excess of £100,000 are being mentioned. One can be certain that the sums publicly reported will be only a part of the total. There exists in the Met, therefore, a culture of accepting bribes. This may not be widespread, but neither can it be put in the 'few rogues' category for, if it has been uncovered in the context of the press, it will for sure exist in other contexts. We know from other police forces that where there is a plentiful supply of money, there will be those prepared to accept it in exchange for favours. Drug criminals are renowned for being willing to pay for official myopia. Organised crime will also ensure that it stands the best chance of avoiding detection. Some of this may involve ensuring that some things are overlooked.
Within the Met there will be many devices by which sources can be managed. The use of 'sources' is of necessity an opaque business. It is necessary to protect the source and his organisation and may be necessary to protect the handler. Such opaqueness can be perfect cover for corrupt practice. The challenge for us is that information about handling practices is, by definition, kept on a 'need to know' basis. In some cases the very existence of a source may be kept secret. Investigation from outside is certain to come against strong resistance. Investigations can only be information-led and one is not going to get information from many involved in corruption.
The News of the World has provided plenty of good information, we are led to believe. The most pressing question now is who will investigate where this information leads? Asking the Met to do it is as bizarre as asking Rebekah Brooks to clean up News International. Asking another police force to do it raises significant difficulties. First, they will be unfamiliar with some of the methods used by the Met. They will therefore depend on some from within the Met to guide them. The real danger is that they may be guided away from dangerous ground. This difficulty pertains if a non-police organisation does the investigating. Second, there will be a natural desire to keep things in-house; to avoid more scandal than necessary; to minimise damage to the reputation of the Police service. This risks less thorough probing and calling a halt to the search as soon as an adequate story has been uncovered. None of this is in the public interest. Society needs to know how far the contagion has spread and that all of those involved have been disciplined. It also needs to be reassured that, as far as possible, there is sufficient openness and oversight to prevent recurrence if it is to have confidence in the Police.
Whether it is possible to have confidence in our Police service is uncertain. The actions taken over the coming months and the attitudes revealed will go far towards answering the question.
