"next to your passing around an extremist petition demanding that a fascist thug be freed from prison for attempting to influence a lawfully-conducted trial"

You do talk some utter nonsense. And a little aside. All trials are lawfully conducted otherwise they become mistrials.

"It seems the only time the law becomes sacrosanct is when it suits your own politics"

I assume you were looking in a mirror when you said the above.

I am in favour of the rule of law, as I have stated many times. However I can find many examples where you wish to bend it for your own nefarious reasons. Would you like me to find some for you? for example "compulsory requisitioning of property"

I do not think you really understand the arguments. The matter was before the courts for a temporary banning order. This unsurprisingly is a very different beastie to a permanent order. Hain in his supreme arrogance decided the judiciary should not decide the outcome of this temporary order. He preempted this.

As middle England Malvern Gazette states:
" Lord Hain named Sir Philip in the Lords as being the individual behind a legal injunction preventing the Daily Telegraph from publishing “confidential information” from five employees.

Sir Philip said he would complain to the Lords authorities that Lord Hain failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the Telegraph’s lawyers.

He said: “When Lord Hain made allegations about me in the House of Lords … he failed to disclose that he has a financial relationship with the law firm, Gordon Dadds, who represent the Telegraph.

“I have been advised that his actions are likely to have been a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. As many people have said Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgment made by three senior judges is outrageous.

“If he hadn’t read the judgment, on what basis was he apparently talking about it. If he had, Gordon Dadds’ name is on the front page.

“I will be lodging formal complaints with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords.”

The above further complicates the use of Parliamentary priviledge and argues a very good case for the abuse of such priviledge. As a former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC said Lord Hain’s behaviour had been “clearly arrogant” and he had abused parliamentary privilege in deciding he knew better than the courts.

I would posit he knows considerably more about the law and Parliamentary priviledge than Mr Carroll.