Forcing MPs to publish their expenses is a 'substantial intrusion' into their private lives, the High Court heard.
Disclosing a detailed breakdown of their claims for running a second home, including addresses, might attract 'the mad and the bad', Nigel Griffin QC said.
'They might simply not want the world to know the details of how they were furnishing their home in some particular respect,' he added.
Well, might I humbly suggest that—if this is the case—that MPs do not use taxpayers' fucking cash to buy their furnishings?
Look, you thieving cunts, if you don't want to reveal details about your second homes and your various other
If, however, you are spending an average of more than twice your salary on expenses then I think that the public has a right to know what the fucking hell you have bought with those expenses.
And here's a cracker of a sentence from the BBC.
The Commons authorities argued in court earlier that MPs had a reasonable expectation that there would not be full disclosure of expenses—only their total expenses.
Well, I'm afraid that, as far as I am concerned, that's tough titties, sunshine. After all, if the promises that you bastards make to us in order to get yourselves elected are "not subject to legitimate expectation" then what makes you think that anything else is? You know what they say: "live by the sword, die by the sword".
Or rather—in the case of you corrupt fuckers—"live by the sword, die by the rope"; traditionally, sword-death is only for the highborn: you bastards should be hanged like the common criminals that you are.