Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with BB, on 19 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Ms BB
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of private session: Ms BB

The name of this witness has been changed, and her submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Monday, 19 April 2004
11.15 am

Sir William Morris: Good morning, Miss B. Do you mind if we call you B?

Ms B: No, that is fine.

Sir William Morris: Can I say, first of all, thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to give evidence to the Inquiry. Thank you also for letting us have your written submission which we have found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that any process of this nature may seem a very daunting task to some of our witnesses, so I thought it would be helpful if we tried to set out, just briefly, how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

But first of all, just let me introduce myself, and indeed the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who was, until his recent retirement, Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC; Anesta is an eminent barrister, who sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals, and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you are aware, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and workplace matters within the Metropolitan Police Service. Quite deliberately, we see our focus as into the MPS itself as an organisation, and not into the individuals who make up the organisation.

Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how individuals are affected by the practices, the process and the procedures and policies which govern how the Metropolitan Police Service operates.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing, and some others, where we hear from individuals, in private. The reason for this is that we are very keen to hear the experience of individuals like your good self, what problems you may have in responding to the way that the Met operates, but we also understand that some of our witnesses might feel a little bit reluctant to give full answers to questions if they feel that somehow the Met is a fly on the wall, or they are listening in. We therefore hope that you find these arrangements helpful, and we trust that you feel confident enough to speak freely to us this morning.

Although we are meeting in private today, as I have said, we are, nevertheless, a public inquiry, and that means that it may be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about any evidence that we receive or anything that you tell us today.

If we do decide to do that, we will do so in a manner which does not identify your good self, and let me also assure you that we will try and do so in a manner which causes you the least possible inconvenience, and we will not do so without seeking your permission.

The inquiry that we are conducting is self-defined, it is an inquiry, we are enquiring, it is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial, there are no adversaries here. We are seekers of truth and you can help us.

We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice into the Metropolitan Police Service, rather than concentrate on criticising individuals. We have no wish to go back over the details of what might have happened, obviously we have read your written submission carefully, and we have a clear idea of events.

What we want to do is to ask you some questions which will enable us to benefit from your experience to enhance our work. At the end of these introductory comments from myself and the questions from my colleagues, I might ask one or two supplementary questions just to clarify issues that we might not be clear about.

When we finish our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment, if you so wish.

I think it is fair to just say to you that a transcript of our proceedings today is being taken, so that we can have a proper accurate record of the evidence given by all our witnesses, and we are hoping to publish this transcript, together with your written submission, on our website within the next few days. But we will only do that after we have taken out all references to your name and all personal details, so that you can be sure that it contains no information that identifies you or, indeed, other individuals. You have our assurance on that point.

Before I ask my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden, to lead the questions, just for the benefit of the transcript, could I ask you to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry, please?

Ms B: My name is BB, and I am a police constable based at [Redacted] Police Station currently.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I will now pass you straight over to Sir Anthony to lead the questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. B, good morning.

Ms B: Good morning, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: I will just go through the circumstances of the incident in which you became involved, only in relation to the chronology, because I think it is important we understand the timescales involved.

Taking our terms of reference, I would then like to seek your views on certain definite issues; firstly, around delay; secondly, around the proportionality of the investigation which took place into the allegations against you and other officers; impartiality is something which you raise, and I would like to hear more of your views on that, please; and then media coverage. So those are the general areas.

But if I can just go back to the chronology, I think at the time of this incident, you had [Redacted] years' service.

Ms B: That is correct, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And the incident occurred in [Redacted], when two men were arrested and taken to [Redacted] Police Station, where they alleged that they were assaulted by police officers.

Ms B: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted] of that year, you, with [Redacted] other officers, were served with form 163, which is the regulation 9 notice.

Ms B: That is right.

Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted], six months after the allegation was made, you were interviewed concerning allegations made by one of the complainants.

Ms B: That is correct, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted], one year two months after the complaint, you were served with discipline papers, and as I understand it, they centred around the fact that, allegedly, you had neglected to record an account for injuries to persons in custody.

Ms B: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say you were operationally suspended then; can I just clarify, you were not actually suspended from duty, you were taken off frontline duties?

Ms B: Yes, that is correct, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you stayed on duty but not in contact with the public?

Ms B: Well, I did appeal that, because I thought it was too harsh, that they were taking me away from what I enjoyed doing. They actually put me in the station office, so although I was having contact with the public, they would come into the police station, and I was performing the role of a station officer, I remained on my relief. I was not actually going out there and dealing with calls, as such.

Sir Anthony Burden: Then, in [Redacted], two years two months after the complaint, there was a five-day hearing, and the consequence of that hearing was that you were found guilty or that charges were substantiated, and you were required to resign.

Ms B: That is correct, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted], that is three years eight months after the complaint, the Commissioner's appeal that you had lodged was heard, and you were reinstated as a police constable, and a substitute fine imposed. Again, you were not happy with that outcome, and you appealed to the Home Office, and it was five years eight months after the complaint, in [Redacted], that that Home Office appeal was heard, and there was even a subsequent delay to that, it was [Redacted]when the appeal decision was published, and the appeal was allowed.

So every punishment imposed against you and every finding in fact had been quashed, effectively.

Ms B: That is correct, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And that was six years four months after the complaint was heard before the whole thing was finalised?

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just ask you, then, moving on to the issue of delay, did you contribute in any way to the delay?

Ms B: No, not at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: So these were just delays in the investigation going forward?

Ms B: Yes, that is correct. I mean, one of the – I think it was – no, the Home Office appeal had been scheduled, I cannot quite remember the dates, for some months prior to [Redacted], and then that got cancelled, because they had double-booked the tribunal, so that was put back to [Redacted], but none of the delay was anything to do with me.

Sir Anthony Burden: It was not to do with you. Could I ask you, during this very, very long period, I mean, six years, four months, over which this whole thing was taking place, particularly during the investigation stage, were you kept up-to-date with developments and the way the investigation was going?

Ms B: Not at all, no.

Sir Anthony Burden: You had no contact at all?

Ms B: Not from the complaints department. Obviously I had contact with my counsel through that time, through meetings and things, but that was the only way I could find out any information was via him.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you went to the Federation, and obviously they appointed –

Ms B: Yes, they appointed us representation, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Were you advised at all why the delays were occurring?

Ms B: Not that I can remember. I mean, as far as I was aware, it was just how long these things took.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. Could I then ask you, in relation to the delays, some things that have been suggested that may assist in reducing delays in inquiries? One issue that has come up is that there ought to be statutory time limits placed on complaint investigations and various phases of the investigation.

Would that help, do you think?

Ms B: As long as obviously that – in my view, I think it is okay having a statutory time limit, as long as, if it is not adhered to, there is some sort of redress, because what I have found throughout this whole thing is things are laid down and then when they are not adhered to, you have got no recourse to anyone, and it is almost like, "Well, that is the way it is, sorry, you will have to accept it". That is what I have found throughout this, because as you have seen, I have battled to prove my innocence throughout this.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, absolutely.

Ms B: You know, I have been faced with a brick wall at every turning point, but a statutory time limit would be good; obviously, it needs to be enforced.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, absolutely. Would you support a similar time limit process to speed up discipline panels, before they are actually held? Because there was an immense delay again, was there not, before you were actually able to appear before a panel?

Ms B: Yes, obviously, again, as long as it is going to be enforceable, and not just – you know, if, for whatever reason, they say they cannot hold the disciplinary appeal because they cannot get people to sit on it who are impartial or whatever, you know, as long as you have got some way of appealing that decision.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, sure. That example you give there, that administratively they just cannot find three people, that is not acceptable, is it, that you should suffer as a consequence of that?

Ms B: No, it is not.

Sir Anthony Burden: That they should pull out the stops to make sure, in an organisation of this size, that they can actually find people to sit.

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you think there is a need for some method of monitoring delays, some body, some process, maybe internal or external, that actually holds DPS to the line, if you like, to justify why delays are taking place, and, if those delays are not justifiable, saying, "Come on, that is not justifiable, you move this along, and you have got so long to complete this phase, and we expect you to do it"; it is a linked question, but it is something we are looking at. Would that help?

Ms B: I mean, obviously, I have experienced the discipline process from an inside view, from a police officer's point of view, and it was frustrating enough for me, knowing how it works, but I just imagine that members of the public who make complaints about police officers or whatever, the system, how more frustrating it must be for them if they are constantly fobbed off with, "Well, that is just the way – that is how long it takes".

I do think that if there was somebody actually monitoring this, and somebody who, you know, is looking at it from an objective point of view, they have not got any axe to grind, they have not got any – you know, they are totally independent, and can see it from the point of view of, "Look, this is not acceptable. These people are being made to wait, whether they are police officers, whether they are members of the public", and evidence, people's memories, things like that, the longer these things get left, then the less likely justice really is going to be done, I think.

Sir Anthony Burden: Absolutely. And, of course, for six years, four months, I guess it is fair to say you were not performing at your best, whilst this was hanging over you.

Ms B: No, not at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: So they had lost an officer for that length of time. Can I just ask you, are you aware of the Independent Police Complaints Commission that has just come into being?

Ms B: I have read a little bit about it, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, they have got a much enhanced role over the old Police Complaints Authority, in that they will be able to bring a lot more pressure in relation to complaint inquiries, and the way they are undertaken. Is that something that you welcome, having gone through what you had gone through?

Ms B: I just think that the whole process needs to be, you know, overhauled so that when people, members of the public, make complaints, police officers make complaints, or internal discipline is commenced, that everybody knows that they are going to be treated fairly, that is all anyone can ask for.

You know, it is all right having these statutory implementations, but if nobody implements them, then they are completely worthless, but I just feel – I personally feel that I can understand where the public lose faith in the police force, or the police service, where there is a system there that could be made to address issues.

We are not all perfect, you know, each organisation has got its flaws, it has got its bad apples that need weeding out, but if people cannot be confident that it is going to be dealt with correctly, then the system might as well just not be there.

Sir Anthony Burden: That brings me on to this issue of proportionality, that is the way in which this investigation concerning you was conducted. Do you feel, looking at the initial allegations that were made, that this was an inquiry that was properly managed, and one that was proportionate to the allegation?

Ms B: No, I do not. I mean, the initial allegations obviously were serious allegations, allegations that [Redacted] members of the public had been assaulted in a police station, so yes, obviously those allegations are serious and they have to be investigated.

But my view, as I have indicated in this, is that the investigation team were not impartial. They were officers who were known to some of the officers that were involved in the complaint, along with myself. They had their own personal scores, if you like, and I just think they used the discipline process to do that.

At the end of the day, the discipline process is there to give the public the confidence that, if there are police officers that are going round beating people up or assaulting them, that they are going to be dealt with properly, not as some political pawn, if you like, because all that happened in the end was this long-winded investigation just resulted in all of us, albeit six years and four months later, being in exactly the same position as we were at the start of this.

We all got our jobs back, yet they have destroyed our lives in the process, so, you know, as soon as they realised that there was no – that they could not substantiate the complaints with the assault allegations, fair enough, yes, other discipline matters may have arisen, but the whole thing was sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Sir Anthony Burden: You used the term that they went on a fishing expedition.

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: This goes on, I think, from the point you have just made, that, having reached a point where the original complaint was not substantiated, you say, they then went looking for other issues.

Ms B: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: They just trawled through everything they could possibly find.

Ms B: Yes, and I think – obviously, the outcome could have been completely different. I could have been, you know – I could have still been guilty of failing to make a record, but the fact of the matter was, without going too much into the background of it, I was on the periphery, I was just somebody who was called up to take these [Redacted] people to another police station, but because I actually made a record of it, as EPIC at the time warranted, I then got dragged into it all, and for what gain?

Sir Anthony Burden: Is this something that you feel is evidenced quite often, that there is this sort of – you say a hammer to crack a nut, that everyone, no matter how close you are to the allegation, or how far removed you are from the allegation, that there is no proportional approach to this, that if one person is suspended, they are all suspended, all dealt with in the same way; is that something you would say happens quite often?

Ms B: Yes, I would. You know, there were [Redacted] of us involved in this, and we were [Redacted] officers, I had always been a [Redacted] officer, and continue to do so after returning to the service. We are on the frontline, we are there day in – earlies, lates and nights, no matter what the weather, so we are more likely than, say, the person who works in an office to get complaints, it is just the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

And as soon as a complaint like this is made, yes, it has got to be investigated, and it has got to be investigated properly, but, you know, to treat us all the same and tar us all with the same brush when they were out – the people that were investigating it were out to get one person. There is no – that is what they were out to do, but they took [Redacted] of us with them, because at the time, one of the officers was facing a charge of assault, we were all facing charges of neglect of duty.

The one person that the investigating officers made it no secret that they wanted to get rid off was the one facing the assault charge, but after the first opening presentation by the first discipline board, they basically threw out the assault charge, so we were then all facing the same charge of neglect of duty, and it was at that point we all said, "We are going to all go", because to get that one person, they are going to have to treat us all the same.

Sir Anthony Burden: You will not be aware of this, I doubt, B, but there is a piece of work called The Taylor Report that looked at large discipline inquiry at another force, not in the Metropolitan Police, but that report is recommending certain procedures and methods that will ensure that inquiries like yours are constantly held under review, so that, if you like, it is not just a train that keeps rolling, but if at any stage they realise, the investigators realise that the evidence is not coming together, that either the inquiry can cease at that stage or a different course of action taken; would that have assisted in your case, do you think?

Ms B: It depends who is reviewing it, I would say.

Sir Anthony Burden: So it has to be reviewed independently, you think?

Ms B: Yes, because if it is all policing itself, then obviously people will not have faith in it.

Sir Anthony Burden: So there is a need for some independence there.

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Moving on, you also mentioned the need for impartiality in the discipline panel. Was that something that caused you concern in your case?

Ms B: It was not personally – it was not me personally, it was one of the other officers that I was – because we were all tied together and we all had to have our discipline together because of the incident. One of the officers had had previous dealings with the DAC that sat on the Commissioner's appeal panel, and it was just one DAC –

Sir Anthony Burden: That was at the Commissioner's appeal panel stage?

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: But when you were initially disciplined, did you have any concerns there that it was not an impartial panel?

Ms B: Yes, I did, because as I think I stated in my evidence, the Commissioner had [Redacted] gone out nationally and said he had 250 corrupt officers in the force, so he has obviously decided he has got – without giving them a fair trial, he has got 250 corrupt officers, and we knew we were going to make those numbers up.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you just felt there was a momentum in sort of what was taking place?

Ms B: It was just a kangaroo court, as I like to call it, I suppose, because I knew they were just going through the process of having us up there, subjecting us to five days of complete torture, you know, thinking our jobs were on the line. We were fighting for our jobs, and then, at the end of it all, just pulling the rug from under our feet.

I mean, I got the impression through the way we were questioned, and the way we were spoken to in the questioning, which was evident in the transcripts also, that we just were not believed, and that they were not really interested, they had made their decision.

Sir Anthony Burden: But it is fair to say, is it not, that at the end of this process, both the findings of guilt and the punishments imposed – everything has been overturned, in respect of every officer?

Ms B: No, [Redacted] of the officers still had neglect of duty, for failing to record – but they were the [Redacted] arresting officers, and they had done a notebook, it was just that they had – as far as the panel took it, they had not gone into enough detail about the injuries about the [Redacted], and they had a financial penalty fine.

Sir Anthony Burden: Could I ask you about the welfare support that you had during the time that you were undergoing this trauma?

Ms B: None whatsoever. I still have not had any at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: You obviously went to the Federation, and –

Ms B: Yes, I had a Federation friend, but a Federation friend has got quite a few other officers he is being a friend to, so I had no support at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: None was provided at all?

Ms B: No, none at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you think it should have been?

Ms B: Yes, I think so, because I have suffered as a result of this. But none was offered. I think we were just very much seen as bad apples and they were not really interested. But it has affected all of us in different ways.

Sir Anthony Burden: Finally, from me, on media – you mentioned the fact that, at the time that you were being dealt with for this, there was a lot of media coverage, I think you were called the [Redacted] –

Ms B: We were called [Redacted].

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, that is right, at one stage. How do you think that press coverage occurred?

Ms B: To suit the political agenda at the time. What actually happened – and the reason I did not really include it in here was because I cannot prove it, because it was on Teletext, but in the [Redacted], which was two years after the initial complaint, and was [Redacted] after the Commissioner had said he had 250 corrupt officers, there was a Teletext news thing that I picked up on that stated that [Redacted] officers from [Redacted] Police Station were facing discipline regarding an incident that had happened in [Redacted]. It did not say [Redacted]; the inference was, "Hey, we are really on top of this, these officers have committed an offence a couple of weeks ago and we are on to it and they are getting disciplined".

Then after we were found guilty, there was a big article in the local [Redacted], saying how officers from [Redacted] Police Station had gone found guilty, and how they had been sacked. Obviously our names were printed in notices within the organisation, but nothing was printed when we were exonerated.

Sir Anthony Burden: Looking at the depth of detail that was published, did that suggest to you that that was the subject of official press releases?

Ms B: I would have said so.

Sir Anthony Burden: Rather than leaks?

Ms B: No, I would have said so. There was too much information there for it to have been leaks, but my view and that of the others involved were that the press – the opportunity was used to manipulate our complaint, you know, [Redacted] – it did not say [Redacted], it was [Redacted], and we are on to them, you know, we are dealing with this discipline process, [Redacted] 3 the Commissioner saying he had – he was going to weed out corruption, and I do think that situation was manipulated. It did not name any of us, but it did not really need to.

Sir Anthony Burden: Because everybody knew?

Ms B: Everybody knew who we were, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: But you say when you were exonerated, nothing appeared anywhere?

Ms B: No, and we actually had to – myself and one of the others that was exonerated had to phone the people that published notices, which is the internal sort of publication, and badger them to put in there that we had been exonerated, and they were like, "Oh yes, we will do it, we will do it", and they did not, and eventually, they did, through persistence, they published, but it was just like a one line thing, hidden in a document.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you had to push even to get that?

Ms B: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. Miss Weekes has a couple of questions for you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Just two. The first relates back to the questions that were put to you by Sir Anthony about how to speed up the process of disciplinary hearings themselves. I would like you to help me just on this: we have to look at other public organisations and if there is best practice elsewhere, we look to see whether or not the Met could adopt it, use it, have a think about how they might improve things.

One of the things that happens in criminal courts, as you will know, is that there are set stages for when a case is reviewed, and you have to go to court and give a reason if you want another delay; if you have not got your witnesses together, you have to give a reason; if you would like disclosure, you have to give a reason; if you are going to be sick and you want another six weeks, you have to give a reason.

Would something like that help if the complainant and the victim – if I can put it that way, you were being complained against, and the department of professional standards, who are investigating your case, had to give reasons for why it has taken a year or 18 months before your case is listed; would that help if somebody actually had the authority to say, "Now tell me why it has taken you a year?"

Ms B: Yes, I think it would.

Miss Weekes: If that would, who do you think is best placed to ask those questions? Would it be somebody in the department of professional standards, another police officer, or would it be somebody who is independent of the process?

Ms B: I think somebody who is independent.

Miss Weekes: And why is that?

Ms B: Because I just feel that if they are going to go and ask these questions, ie, you know, if somebody wants another six months to gather more evidence, then I think that somebody who is independent is probably going to have – be asking more questions, and not accepting that as read, whereas I think within any organisation – if it is someone within the organisation and somebody says, "Oh well, we need six more months because we just have not been able to get witness statements", then I think someone within the organisation might just accept that, whereas someone from outside might, you know, look at it and say, "Well, no, that is not acceptable".

Miss Weekes: Because you might have a statute that says you have to ask the question, but, of course, it depends upon who asks the question and who ultimately gives you leave to have another six months.

Ms B: Yes, because I suppose if somebody is just going to go along, just as a token gesture, just to ask the questions and get the answers and then come away and say, "Well, we did ask the questions and they gave the right answers", then it is not going to help anyone. I think somebody has to be far enough removed from it to actually almost take on the fight themselves.

Miss Weekes: Okay. The second question is the impartiality of the disciplinary board, because you mentioned that. What would you say if somebody suggested having a non-police officer on a board, instead of just commanders? Because you had three commanders, did you not?

Ms B: Yes.

Miss Weekes: They were all police officers, were they not?

Ms B: Yes, that is right.

Miss Weekes: Would you have preferred a non-police officer on the board?

Ms B: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Why is that?

Ms B: Because I think they might have used a bit more common sense, whereas – I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. What I mean is that often things were being – our defence were throwing situations or questions to the panel, and they were almost dismissing them as, "Well, we know what it is like, because we were police officers 20 years ago", and I think if somebody there had – somebody who was not a police officer had been there, they probably would be looking at it and thinking, "Well, hang on a minute, these are human beings at the end of the day, how can they be expected to be in two places at once?" So I do strongly believe that if not one, maybe two of the board were not police officers.

Miss Weekes: It may be difficult to decide who these people are, but it is the principle I am getting at; as you have been through it, you think you would have had more confidence, would you?

Ms B: I would have done, and also, in light of what I have said previously regarding the political thing, if somebody above them tells them they have got to do something because he is their boss, are they going to turn round and go against him, if it is not the right thing to do?

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: B, that has taken us to the end of the questions that my colleagues and myself wanted to put to you, but you will recall that when I started my introductory comments, I promised that when we had completed our questions, we would offer you the opportunity to almost have the last word – not quite, but to make a closing statement or comment. If you so wish, if it is your wish to do so, then I would invite you to make that now.

Ms B: Thanks, sir. I think all I would like to say is, I strongly believe that, in order for the Metropolitan Police Service to move forward with the discipline area, they need impartiality. I think they need people from outside the service to – whether it is another force, or, you know, people from other backgrounds, other walks of life, I think they need those people to look at it and to assist in putting forward their ideas, because we are not the only disciplined organisation out there, and I think, you know, they could learn a lot from other people, because I do not want anyone to have to go through what I have been through.

I mean, obviously things like this happen, and sometimes, they cannot necessarily be helped, but I think if there are gaping holes in a system, then they need to be addressed.

I would just like to thank you for inviting me up here. It has helped me get a few things off my chest, if you like. Thanks very much.

Sir William Morris: Well, thank you very much indeed for sparing the time to come along and support your written submission which we had read, and for your responses to our questions this morning.

All that remains for me to do, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, is to thank you once again for being with us, sharing your experience, and for the overall contribution that you are making to the work of this Inquiry. Thank you very much.

Ms B: Thank you. 

12.13 pm

On this website:

• Evidence: BB
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by BB, in her appearance at the Inquiry.