Technical point:the system seems to be suffereing from something akin to a nervous breakdown. The first word in the title is meant to be "Parliamentary". I wonder if that is the translation of whatever is that language? This is a new post because the system will not allow me to respond with a comment to Michael Meadowcroft's commnent on the last post but one.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. As is aften the case there are several sides to the question. As I've admittted, I am no lawyer, but I understand that Parliamentary Privilege exists to enable parliamentarians to "speak truth to power," originally the Monarch but nowadays surely large corporations (Murdoch?), government departments, the armed forces, and, yes, the judiciary, without fear of litigation or arrest and imprisonment. You claim that John Hemming's purpose was to protect Ryan Giggs. If Giggs is one of his constituents I suppose that is some justification but, overall, interfering in a controversy the main prupose of which is to allow newspapaers to make money by feeding the public with tit-bits about the amorous adventures of a footballer does not seem to me to match the lofty purposes of parliamentary immunity.
The essential point remains that parlialmentarians are bleating about "unelected judges" interpreting the law when that is their job and an essential ingrediant of that pillar of democracy, the separation of powers.