Approval after the birth of the law from 1689 until the law English Civil War era, when the parliament to fight against the right of administration, and the absence of the monarchy. § 9 of the Bill of Rights that "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings of Parliament would be charged or brought before the court or with the outside world into question." The aim is to ensure that parliamentarians can speak freely in Parliament with impunity in the courts and the Crown. Despite this freedom, he has consistently held that the Convention encourages its members, not a statement to the European Parliament is in the public interest.

It is also doubtful whether the good intentions of the founders of the new registration law, to ensure that the parliamentarians may be able to perform their duties effectively and responsibly. So on assume that the fathers would be very sad if he thought the day, the privilege of Parliament who had fought so hard to make your appetite for a stupid rumor statements in Parliament, to promote interest in the tabloid press use to satisfy. It is in fact the last case, to heal in the Liberal-Democratic Studies (John Hemming), presented the Premier League player as a celebrity who had ordered a super-court to protect his extramarital relationship. This type of behavior would seem Mr. Hemming to go over the issue of parliamentary privilege. It seems to me that the privacy of members, the comment is not in the public interest. "I think we must begin by making a distinction between the general interest of the proper definition of what it means, and the stories the media choose may be of interest to the general public. . This is not the same. "(Interview with Alistair Campbell, the BBC)

Sufficient disgrace, but it is accepted that his attitude is wrong, he and his students have continued to sell false argument that society has a right to know, married life with the stars in question. If this is not available to the public?

Now, the hypothetical scenario of a celebrity she spent most of his career to promote celebrities to be a good model for single men, and so could the auspices receive the same sign, in this case, if you after something that, in contrast to the image that the public was informed, is gone, what to speak publicly their deep concern for their loyalty. On the other hand, if all the stars made hypothetical work to be paid instead on a project like this latter case, the public has a right to know about his private life. The same logic applies if the player's personal life should not be a public scrutiny and debate, because he is no evidence indicating that it has done a good husband.

Even before this case was the attempt by some members of the prosecution to avoid using the argument that his criminal acts were the parameters of Article 9 of the Act, this had three representatives who were falsely accused his parliamentary expenses. They said, "a procedure, Parliament can not deprive the court or to the outside world. These rules mean that a member of the House of Commons to carry out Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor and Mr. Devine had for sanctions "(M. Knowles, the members of the legal representative) decides view.

Despite making a cowardly, but to avoid, before the music with the law, the court rejected the assumption of his argument, that "the study claims court had no adverse effects on the" core business, or the Parliament can not discuss or Freedom avoid ..the only thing that prevents fraudulent misrepresentation. "(Lord Phillips) On the other hand, if the court can not determine, as we all know that democracy is never the same. Also caused cracks in a democratic society that our ancestors for us fought to build. Fortunately, The Supreme Court has used common sense, saw the results later in prison for some members.

Although Article 9 of the Charter expressly provides that the members is clear in court what he said in Parliament, the British Constitution, always respecting the responsibility of the members of the shoulder, the decisions and the independence of the judiciary. This is wrong and bad the British government and its allies to go around the world (as is the case now), explains the importance of democracy, rule of law, civil liberties and the rights of a free and fair process in their own countries than their home country to refuse to honor the judgments.

In addition, you may also be the cause of the invasion of civil liberties and the way that newspapers can not work. For many years the British press has enjoyed unprecedented right to self-regulation. This self-regulation, although a good speech, freedom of the press has unlimited potential, to encourage them to tell you that they are harmful to civil liberties, even though they know that these stories can have a negative influence on people and his family to have. In some cases, some newspapers go the extra mile to get to the public phones, a new violation of an individual's right to privacy. I have no right to privacy, are not necessarily forced the freedom to negotiate with a supplier. However, I am sure that they think is morally in the new organization with the phone records of ordinary people plow, is justified for no reason.

I encourage constant encroachment on civil liberties in the press and the courts to give a super-citizens, to protect their right to privacy. As Judge Eady explicó''deber still try to call the applicant, especially protect his family from intrusion and harassment, as long as possible.