Prepare to be properly disgusted folks. The slithering, slimey slugs in Parliament have lost their High Court battle to keep their trough-snouting out of the public eye!
It's a great day for justice, and an even better one for democracy. We finally get to see exactly what the term "One rule for us, and another for everyone else" means, plus "they shall eat cake".
Beeb
Yet another bill for us tax-payers:
Of course, as we all now know, the oiks have got around this sticky problem by giving themselves a second pay rise in 6 months, I think, totalling another 15% for the second rise, which more than covers what they would like to hide from the 'expenses' gravy train.
Does anyone know the total percentage of pay increases they've awarded themselves this year, and what this comes to in figures?
It's a great day for justice, and an even better one for democracy. We finally get to see exactly what the term "One rule for us, and another for everyone else" means, plus "they shall eat cake".
Beeb
The House of Commons has lost its High Court battle against a decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses.
The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.
It also failed to overturn the decision that MPs' addresses could be published.
The Commons must release the details by next Friday. Gordon Brown's spokesman said the PM was "relaxed" about his expenses being published.
But he added that there were security "issues" about giving out MPs' addresses.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who is not one of the 14 MPs covered by the original Freedom of Information request, said MPs had to be "open and accountable" with public money.
"I am very happy for people to see how I have spent the allowances," he told BBC News.
The Commons has until 1200 BST on Tuesday to appeal.
The Members' Estimates Committee, the body which deals with MPs' pay and allowances, is due to meet beforehand to decide whether to take the case any further.
The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.
It also failed to overturn the decision that MPs' addresses could be published.
The Commons must release the details by next Friday. Gordon Brown's spokesman said the PM was "relaxed" about his expenses being published.
But he added that there were security "issues" about giving out MPs' addresses.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who is not one of the 14 MPs covered by the original Freedom of Information request, said MPs had to be "open and accountable" with public money.
"I am very happy for people to see how I have spent the allowances," he told BBC News.
The Commons has until 1200 BST on Tuesday to appeal.
The Members' Estimates Committee, the body which deals with MPs' pay and allowances, is due to meet beforehand to decide whether to take the case any further.
The Commons authorities have also been ordered to pay at least £33,500 in costs.
Does anyone know the total percentage of pay increases they've awarded themselves this year, and what this comes to in figures?