|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|A fact from Andy Hayman appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know||
You said "Hayman appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 12 July 2011 when he confirmed that he had received hospitality from people he was investigating in relation to a criminal offence, although he regarded this as normal and operational matters were not discussed."
This was a) AFTER the investigation, and b) AFTER he had left service: presumably because he had formed his own opinions about whether the then government, or those who exposed their corruption, were more worthy of an honest blokes company and service. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)twl126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
How many Committee rules can Vaz be permitted to pervert when questioning this chap? I don't doubt he will continue to do so when questioning officers from the Metropolitan Police Force.
In July 2007, Vaz was appointed chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Select committee members are usually proposed by the Committee of Selection, but Vaz was the only nomination made by Commons Leader Harriet Harman. The rules were bent even in his appointment.
In September 2008, Vaz came under pressure when it was revealed that he had sought the private views of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in connection with the Committee's independent report into government plans to extend the detention of terror suspects beyond 28 days. The Guardian reported that emails suggested that Vaz had secretly contacted the Prime Minister about the committee's draft report and proposed a meeting because "we need to get his [Brown's] suggestions". An email was sent in November 2007 to Ian Austin, Gordon Brown's parliamentary private secretary, and copied to Fiona Gordon, at the time Brown's political adviser. Another leaked email showed that Vaz had also sent extracts of the committee's draft report to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, for his comments; according to Parliament's standing orders, the chairman of the Select Committee cannot take evidence from a witness without at least two other committee members being present. Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, compared it to a judge deciding a case privately emailing one of the parties to seek their suggestions.Vaz denied that he invited Brown to contribute, except as a witness to the committee. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)HindujaShouldHaveBeenTheEndOfHim184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Guardian live coverage transcript contradicts BBC live coverage transcript
You say: "Hayman appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 12 July 2011 when he confirmed that he had received hospitality from people he was investigating in relation to a criminal offence, although he regarded this as normal and operational matters were not discussed." and cite as reference  Guardian Live Coverage.
However, the BBC Live Coverage <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089> clearly shows him denying this. Their transcript shows that he did not receive hospitality until well AFTER the investigation, which was well after he had left the force.
Your version indicates he admitted receiving hospitality from News International whilst the investigation was ongoing, which would have laid him open to allegations of corruption. He genuinely made no such admission.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)twl18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your link doesn't provide a transcript, and the Guardian source is unambiguous: He confirmed that he continued to meet News International executives during the investigation. These were "businesslike" meetings, he said. He had a media role as a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It would have been odd not to carry on with these contacts, he says. Rd232 talk 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
With respect, an 'executive' is neither an 'editor' nor a 'writer' - and for Hayman to have failed to continue with these contacts would have been a breach of the media duties associated with the job he held at the time - he could have been disciplined for failing to attend. Is it corrupt to do your job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)