OK, Alan Duncan’s whining about MPs’ expenses doesn’t look or sound good. It’s arrogant, and it shows an almost surreal inability to understand just how we the people feel about them the spivs.

But did Duncan get fair treatment from Heydon Prowse, the journalist (I use the word in its widest sense) who made the film?

In for a pound
Consider the facts: Prowse came to national attention when he dug a pound sign in Duncan’s garden (I’m not sure  we teach that kind of thing in our Journalism Skills module. Minor mod., anyone?) to protest about MP’s expenses.

Dig this
So far, so puerile. Duncan’s reaction? He invited Prowse to the House of Commons for a chat, rather than, say, to make him eat his spade, which is what I’d have been inclined to do.

With my little eye
And Prowse’s reaction to that? He took a secret camera, recorded the chat, and posted it on Youtobe.

That’s not right. Not by any standards. I don’t know if Prowse is in the NUJ, but here’s what the union’s Code of Conduct has to say about spying on people:

Para 5: A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means. The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest. The journalist is entitled to exercise a personal conscientious objection to the use of such means.

Is there an “over-riding considerations of the public interest” here? Hardly.

Prowse said he thought it was important to expose the attitude of politicians towards the expenses scandal.

And to get famous all over again.

See? This sneaky stuff is infectious. Prowse didn’t say that last bit at all. I made it up.

I just thought it was important to expose the attitude of journalists towards the fame thing.