Inquiries call people based on evidence and claims made by people of impropriety.

Is there any evidence, or direct claims against Boris Johnson himself?

Now, if Kit Malthouse names Boris, then yes, by all means, he needs to answer questions then raised – but so far I am struggling to find any one claiming that Boris was personally involved in the actions.

Even you steer clear of a direct allegation.

So, what is there to answer for?

What did Boris do, and when?

(Funny how he’s referred to as Boris and Malthouse as Malthouse.)

Even a casual reader of posts to this site would quickly realise that the political left is largely unmoved by arguments made by the right – and vice versa.
Perhaps, we could put politics to one side and agree that the individual who serves as the deputy to Boris Johnson has a duty to explain why the Metropolitan Police might be persuaded that their time be better spent ignoring the hacking inquiry.
It does however, clearly display the danger of giving sole scrutiny of a police force to a single politician.
It’s not like the Met’ enjoys huge public confidence and who knows but in the past individuals could have had more success than Kit Malthouse.
There is little doubt that neither of the main Parties welcomed this inquiry and it’s difficult to believe that Levenson isn’t under pressure to make as little of it as possible.
We’ve already seen senior officers walk away from this – pensions secure
Once more it’s the taxpayer who is least well served and our confidence in the police, the press and the political class drops even further

“It does however, clearly display the danger of giving sole scrutiny of a police force to a single politician.”

Indeed it does. There are too many opportunities for inappropriate pressure to be applied in private and not enough opportunities for transparency.

“There is little doubt that neither of the main Parties welcomed this inquiry and it’s difficult to believe that Levenson isn’t under pressure to make as little of it as possible.”

Yes, though oddly the Conservatives seem more nervous about the Inquiry than Labour (even though most of the events took place under a Labour government).

And Johnson? He said originally that he was going to take responsibility for the Met, then appeared to lose interest and he handed it over to Malthouse. There isn’t much point in having a directly-elected Mayor if he hands over that responsibility to someone else. My perception is that Johnson is still accountable to Londoners for the Met as they elected him to do that job. And he should not be making comments about “knocking the Inquiry on the head” when part of it is about corruption in a police force that he is supposed to control.

Even a casual reader of posts to this site would quickly realise that the political left is largely unmoved by arguments made by the right – and vice versa.

I really wish more people understood this.

According to this article by Nick Davies

http://www.nickdavies.net/2011/07/08/the-nows-merchant-of-secrets/

Operation Weeting requires 45 police officers to deal with a sub-sub-set of possible offences. Operation Weeting may be costly, but that’s because it’s looking at a vast network of corruption.

(Read the whole thing of you think this is a non-story.)

In the case where someone in a powerful position such as mayor makes a statement ridiculing an accusation that a crimes had been committed it is only fit and proper that he appears at an inquiry into those crimes. That person should be required to explain his reasons why he made that statement. These reasons should be checked to ensure that the person was not an accessory after the fact.