I imagine several people in what used to be called Fleet Street are aware of the identity of the party responsible for conveying the Fees Office MPs’ expenses data, via the unsavoury John Wick, to the Daily Telegraph.

I know who it is, but I don’t yet have documentary back-up and I am debating with myself whether or not it is in the public interest to reveal his identity. (Yes, he is a male). He is not a civil servant, he is not unknown to the public; he is not a politician, although he is close to the Labour Party and to a cabinet member, and in touch with a European Prime Minister.

If his motives were essentially political, and he felt that the revelations would favour Labour, he would have to be deemed dangerously naive. If, more likely, he just wanted to walk away with a sackful of cash, then he has surely had a result, for whatever the Telegraph may have admitted to paying, it is likely it was a lot more than that.

Is it in the public interest?

I could only justify my exposure of this exposeur of parliamentary truths (although truths that should not have come as a surprise to any sophisticated observer) if I was convinced that the public had a right to know his identity. They have been delivered the full panoply of tacky, underhand activities that was the semi-official remuneration system for a parliament without the courage to put openly to the electorate the case for salaries in line with those in commerce and the professions.

Do the public need to know…. will it help them to know who was responsible for bringing it to their attention?

It seems to me that if the motive was pure – the desire to inform, then they do not.

But if the motive was merely to line pockets, already pretty well lined, then they do have a right to know.

This tussle with the truth, and my conscience continues.

Popularity: 1% [?]