The U.K. Supreme Court ruling 1 December 2010 distinguishes between the non-liability – from the "freedom of speech" stated in the Bill of Rights of 1689 – and the power of Parliament to protect its components in their right to discuss in complete autonomy and freedom, without any interference from anyone (exclusive cognisance): Buonomo, « Per una nuova ipotesi di ricostruzione dell'effetto inibente », Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali, (lire en ligne [archive du ], consulté le )
scotsman.com
news.scotsman.com
« Four in court over expenses », The Scotsman, (lire en ligne)
telegraph.co.uk
Victoria Ward, « David Chaytor, the former lecturer who fell foul of the expenses system », The Daily Telegraph, (lire en ligne, consulté le )
The U.K. Supreme Court ruling 1 December 2010 distinguishes between the non-liability – from the "freedom of speech" stated in the Bill of Rights of 1689 – and the power of Parliament to protect its components in their right to discuss in complete autonomy and freedom, without any interference from anyone (exclusive cognisance): Buonomo, « Per una nuova ipotesi di ricostruzione dell'effetto inibente », Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali, (lire en ligne [archive du ], consulté le )
