A Slogger writes:

As a constituent of Hunt, I made a submission to the Leveson Inquiry in August 2011 offering details of his deceit and failure to investigate fraudulent claims of viewing figures by SKY TV. I considered this information to be highly relevant, given that Hunt was scheduled to give evidence to the Inquiry relating to his quasi-judicial role in determining the suitability of News International to acquire 100% of BSkyB. Other than standard emailed acknowledgments, despite several reminders of my desire to be called and my repetition of the importance of investigating my claims, I heard nothing from the Inquiry. I was not called to give testimony and my submission was not “read in” to the report. Conversely, Hunt’s evidence appears to have been accepted without question and he was largely exonerated in the Inquiry’s report, other than a mild slap on the wrist for failing to control his special adviser – a failure that was in breach of the Ministerial Code. A choice was made by the Inquiry to ignore my comments, yet Hunt was praised in Lord Leveson’s report for his objectivity. Is that indicative of an unbiased Inquiry? I am not a hacked celebrity, a journalist or politician, merely a member of the public who had been betrayed by his MP, who held the privileged position of being responsible for the media. Surely, in such an important Inquiry, all interested parties should have had a voice and have had an equal right to be heard?The Inquiry team sent me an email stating “The Inquiry has received submissions from a range of individual and groups from the general public since the start of oral hearings on 14 November 2011, but has only been able to hear oral evidence from a small number of the public due to the process of timetabling of oral evidence sessions.” Why? Are members of the public deemed to be less important or less credible than minor ‘celebrities’? Was it more important to speed the hearing process through than to investigate all submissions? From data published on the Inquiry website, 862 submissions of evidence were received, of which more than 50% (441) were from ‘members of the public’. Only a “small number” of these members of the public was called. Amazingly, the Inquiry’s General Enquiries Team has not counted the actual numbers and relies on “anecdotal” data “from one of the solicitors handling the evidence” to justify this statement. Is this scornful attitude not a slight on Joe Public?

I’d say it is my friend, but others might differ. Still, it’s a level playing field and we’re all in this together – so not to worry, eh?