By Brian Paddick, Former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan PoliceMy former colleague, Kevin Hurley, well known amongst his contemporaries for his alternative views and now Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, hit the headlines last week by conflating two very different issues.Speaking in the wake of the arrest of a Met Police Chief Superintendent over allegations he passed information to a journalist, Kevin Hurley said, "We are creating a culture across the whole public sector where people won’t talk to the media about what’s going on...We are a liberal democracy and the press should be able to build relations and people should be able to speak to the press. I’m trying to raise the import of the freedom of the press and freedom of public officials to come forward and expose wrongdoing. I’m concerned that with press regulation that’s not going to happen." His opinion piece in the Mail was headlined "Leveson, the police and a gag on whistleblowers that threatens democracy."Whistle-blowing is a very important vehicle for exposing wrongdoing, especially in the public service. But Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for regulation of the media don't focus much on whistleblowing. They are primarily focused on preventing unfounded and unjustified attacks on individuals and their privacy by the press. They do nothing to curtail the public-spirited actions of people of integrity.In fact, Leveson declared that whistleblowing was ‘justified and legitimate’, although he pointed out that in the case of the police, it might be a good idea if staff felt able to report their concerns inside the force, rather than tell their stories to the press.Whatever the facts behind the latest high-profile case, the Metropolitan Police arrest of one of its most senior officers, a borough commander and therefore a public figure, is not a decision that would have been taken lightly. It is highly embarrassing that someone so high in rank and trusted by the hierarchy to be appointed to such an important position should be arrested. To suggest that this is certain to be a case of whistle-blowing purely on the basis that no money changed hands is rushing to judgement before the facts are known.For police to operate effectively, it is essential that much of what they do and the intelligence that they hold remains confidential. If details of a case against a criminal under investigation, information about plans to carry out raids or arrests were disclosed, there is a clear danger of undermining the case and the pursuit of justice. The fact that there have been cases that could have easily been compromised by the unauthorised release of confidential information to the media (the re-investigation of the Stephen Lawrence case is one example) shows that the balance between whistle-blowing and unjustified disclosure needs to be adjusted in the way that Leveson suggests.The media will support genuine whistle-blowers, as will public opinion and hopefully the jury, if it ever gets that far, even if the current law is arguably inadequate to protect them.What is an even greater risk to democracy is the danger that senior police officers and politicians are diverted from their duty to act in the public interest for fear of how newspapers might react. They may fear the impact of hacks engaged in fishing expeditions to attempt to find some aspect of the public official’s private life that might cause embarrassment.If you think this is a universal search to root-out the malfeasant, such attention tends to be reserved for those people the tabloids take against, whose opinions they disagree with (they decided to ignore the rumours about Jimmy Saville because he was "popular", for example). That is where Leveson clearly sees the danger and where he directs most of his attention as a result.The crystal clear need for independent self-regulation of the press, to prevent the kind of illegal and unjustifiable activity by some newspapers that continues to be uncovered by further police investigations, should not be undermined by suggesting that one arrest, about which we do not know all the facts, is a massive error of judgement or a disproportionate reaction by the police to whistle-blowing.Read more about the Daily Mail and whistleblowers here.