If you think it's illegal you must think he's broken a law. Which law? If you think that the porn was not illegal, you must be agreeing with the policeman. He's the only person who's said that the porn was legal. You are being somewhat selective sbout the information you accept and reject. As for leaks, the release of information not intended for release, isn't that precisely what the policeman has done? Isn't this argument about what's in the public interest? The policeman released his information, nine years kept private, four days after the sex-pest allegations against Green came out. Do you think the copper would have been right not to disclose at that point what he knew (and which we, as yet, don't know the details of)? Questions, questions!