THE EXPENSIVE FOUR

POLITICAL SCANDAL LOVERS will be extremely happy this week over the news that there is a slim chance that three Members of Parliament in Britain may soon be on their way to prison. Those of us who enjoy seeing robbers punished, of course, will already be sated in our knowledge that there is little or no chance that they will be able to continue their careers in parliament after having been outed as no more than penny-pinching, underhanded, devious little fichers who should never have been allowed into positions of authority in the first place; indeed, were it not for their allegiance to the Labour and Socialist Party all three of them would no doubt never have managed to rise above their god-given natural statuses as chimney sweeps, supermarket shelf stackers and secondary school teachers.

MY PICTURE ABOVE SHOWS these crooks in the company of another crook, a lawyer, on the occasion of their attempt to have the charges against them thrown out of court under the guise of “parliamentary privilege”. Everything indicates, of course, that when having been brought “up before”, as I believe the expression to be, none of them will be “sent down”, and much less “banged up”.

WHETHER OR NOT any of these phrasal verbs will be brought about over the Right Honourable Gentlemen in question, the matters unfolding are the most important constitutional events since good Queen Victoria refused to believe that lesbians existed. And not since the famous case of “The Five Members”, in 1642, when good King Charles I arrested some “peskie and troublesome” members of parliament for causing trouble, encouraging pro-Scottish behavior and “getting on the queen’s nerves” has the British parliament had its collar so felt.

THE GENTLEMEN CLAIM defence under the laws of privilege as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights, suggesting that Members of Parliament should not have to obey the law like “normal” citizens, which is indeed what happens in Europe in general, and in the feudal European Parliament in particular, but the smart money on this case suggests that parliamentary privilege, as it is known today – freedom of speech in parliament and in parliamentary papers, freedom from public arrest (not prosecution) over civil matters, and freedom to request the authority of the Speaker over civil authorities whenever on issues relating to parliamentary duties – will be the ultimate loser in this affair. The end result will be that parliamentary privilege will be downgraded to the sort of professional privilege enjoyed by doctors, lawyers and university professors as they go about their daily activities: i.e., a bit of sex on the side with secretaries, nurses, patients, students and (for the very desperate) colleagues.

IN THE MEANTIME, my reading on the subject in most of the national papers has left me with a linguistic doubt: having seen so many variations, I am confused as to the correct way to write “scum-bags”.