On the evening of 10 May, Political Scrapbook revealed the length of David Laws’ suspension from the Commons some twelve hours before the mainstream media.
This evening, two weeks after Laws completed his 7-day enforced holiday, we received a letter from the Committee on Standards and Privileges asking for details of “the background to the reporting of this story”, including information related to the identity of our source(s).
Their letter and our response are reproduced below:
When it comes to dealing with our sources, Political Scrapbook operates under the White (1973) and Astley (1987) principles: we’re never going to give you up.
You can send us leaks and other confidential information using our contact form.
John Ruddy says:
Waste of a stamp!
Jim Hacker says:
But surely, it was just a wild guess? 🙂
Laurence says:
@Jim Hacker: Sticking with the BBC politics references … “You may very well think that. But I couldn’t possibly comment”.
Millsy says:
Could you get any more arrogant in your response?
D Mills says:
Good stuff. Who does Eve Samson think she is?
Laurence says:
@Millsy: What would you have written?
M'learned friend says:
This post appears to put you in contempt of Parliament, arrested and could lead you to be arrested, brought before the bar of the House, and jailed for the remainder of this Parliament.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4310.htm
Laurence says:
@M’learned friend: Areas covered by contempt are so vague that they’re planning a Privileges Bill.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/news/phone-hacking-report/
But in relation to the specific link you provided, did you read this section?
Are you saying that publishing the penalty for Laws “substantially interfere[d] with the work of a House or one of its committees”?
Bloke from Kent says:
‘.. that you feel able to provide…’
‘…it would be helpful to know’
This was nothing more than a courteous going through the form; both the letter and the response were exactly as they should be.
the question of contempt does not arise.
M'learned friend says:
You quote para 266. I would be more concerned about para 267.
James says:
If Laurence is jailed. Shotgun Editor
Gary Paterson says:
Epic! Followed the links, would love to see their expression when that pops up!
craig weatherhill says:
So many people are in complete contempt of parliament that there aren’t enough courthouses to fit ’em all in. Silly threat, but the pompous and self-important do so enjoy to deliver a good threat.
Laurence says:
@M’learned friend: You don’t seem to be very learned, if you don’t mind my saying so. Who said we broke an embargo?
@Craig: Absolutely correct — aren’t our prisons crowded enough as it is?