Er... I think by 'politicians should not be involved in future' they mean they shouldn't be breifed about an impending arrest in future - which is right and correct, because that amounts to a tip off. You don't call a drug dealer's mum just before you raid the house, do you?

That said (god I feel dirty, defending MPs. Eugh) - I love the fact that when anti terror laws (or any laws) are applied to MPs, all of a sudden the political classes clamour that Its A Scandal and Something Must Be Done.

When its some poor 80 year old bloke shouting at a Labour conference though... that's just 'unfortunate'.

Pretty much the same as FOI. Its all good as long as its used to humiliate Local Authorities and rival Ministers' civil service departments, but as soon as it applies to MPs directly...? How many times over the last few years has there been an issue with someone's expenses? At first they actually tried to change the law because when they passed the FOI Act in the first place they had for some reason not thought it might apply to them and were very shocked indeed when it turned out it did!

Then we've had another year or so of 'You may not like it, but I haven't broken any rules' for someone to actually say 'er.... well maybe we should change the rules so they weren'aren't so blatantly open to abuse?'. Not that I think it'll happen, but there we go.

While I'm abusing hyprocritical politicians - wacqui jacqui really does get up my nose. When talking about Fred whatsisface's pension/payoff - 'he may not have broken the law but he's been convicted in the court of public opinion'. When questioned about 'her' second home 'I haven't broken any rules'

God I hate that woman.