You see, Iains, the point is that Pannick established that cheating parliamentarians, apropos of fake expenses claims, should not be able to claim parliamentary privilege to cover their dishonesty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the current context of parliamentary privilege being used to expose nasty people outside parliament who are trying to keep themselves out of the public eye. Your remark that Pannick "could be a useful man" in the current context betrays your confusion. It's perfectly obvious that you didn't really know what you were talking about. Naturally, you being you, you'll try to use bluster and insult to hide your embarrassment. Some of us are a little more mature.