"Not only did he subvert the law by his premature disclosure but also went against clearly stated procedures and conventions of the house presumably without requesting? the discretion of the speaker.
To name names in the house is one matter, to name names in matters sub judice is surely another."

He did not subvert the law. The law of the land allows parliamentary privilege by parliamentarians. That is resorted to within the law. There is no rule that the Speaker should have discretion over a member who wishes to invoke parliamentary privilege. So you don't agree with what he did. Too bad. He acted fully within the law. You should be far more worried about the fact that your man Green may not have, but that doesn't seem to trouble you. The matter is not sub judice. There is no ongoing process to which sub judice can be applied. It would help if you desisted from repeating these canards. It gets very tiresome. Please stick to the facts.