'MPs may now face a legal challenge, as Parliament stands accused of subverting a High Court judgment which ordered the full disclosure of the taxpayer-funded expense claims last year.' (Telegraph).
Members of Parliament are arguing that they were discouraged from censoring their own expenses (presumably minimally) because they might breach data protection laws. These laws were passed by a New Labour Parliament, of course. How can laws forbid information freely given - or in conformity with a High Court judgment - pertaining to the individuals publishing the information?
And how can a High Court judgment bind Parliament acting as Parliament - which it clearly is, and not as a set of individual Members of Parliament when censorship is being centrally determined and imposed - when Parliament is in its constitutional and traditional relationship with the judiciary?
Patten, the last life peer to Chair the BBC
4 hours ago