Ma, where's the black ink?

It's a good thing I didn't pack my trusty All-In-One HP Printer like I wanted to. Granted, a new one here is going to run me at least US$100 from the looks of things, but I would find myself running after another black ink cartridge were I to print off the expense reports formally released Thursday by Parliament.

Instead, I think I found myself a new screen saver. Addresses of MPs' homes, their offices, signatures, descriptions of items purchased, even UPC numbers and addresses of vendors were blacked out from forms released. These were among the redactions I noticed when reviewing this particular set of claims from Folkestone MP Michael Howard. Some of it is understandable: you don't want hackers and other net-savvy miscreants picking up signatures and forging documents or gaining sensitive information. But really, could someone really scam their government and an office supply company just by looking up a UPC number?

Worse, who had the bright idea to block out the product code number for fax toner? (See page 28 of the previously linked report) Waste of time, considering that there was enough information to pull up the item on the Web site of the very company from which this must-have-product-number-classified Samsung SF5100 Fax Toner was acquired.

Of course, where am I suppose to find the well-manicured gardens that Howard reportedly charged the taxpayer £17,000 over four years without resorting to asking around or thumbing through the White Pages? (I'll link those claims, which also blacks out how local taxes are spent by the district council which is also conveniently blacked out—it's Shepway District, by the way.) The meat of the expenses controversy that has sent several MPs to the figurative gallows: swapping the second homes to jump through a tax loophole. With their addresses blocked out, the Average Joe and novice reporter wouldn't have concrete evidence to flat-out call them on it, but their innocence would certainly be in doubt. A sceptical American would assume guilt by their "pleading the Fifth" which is suppose to prevent self-incrimination.

When looking up information on MPs on Parliament's Web site, no addresses to be found. Checking out Michael Howard's profile, the only local contact information made available are a phone number for his office in Westminster and his constituency Web site.

Let's take a look at who isn't concealing their home address, at least as of the time of this post. (I state in advance that this is linked only for example; please don't exploit it as you'll only dis-service the constituents of the linked legislators.) How about the Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives? A quick review of several member biographies finds that at least three more representatives (I'm only linking the general search; happy hunting.) have indeed listed their home address and phone number. Several others have omitted the details, while many others list a district office. Typically, such addresses are included with candidate filings. For example: last year's candidates for governor, which has Jay Nixon listing Jefferson City instead of his hometown of DeSoto. Guess he did live on a dead-end street when he was Attorney General.

Now, this just might be a difference in culture. After all, Jefferson envisioned the typical elected representative, be it U.S. Congress or state assembly, as a humble and conveniently enlightened farmer elected by other humble and conveniently enlightened farmers. Or this may easily be one of the last gasps of a trough-addicted Parliament staving off pitchforks any which way they can, only to cause even more to get pointed in their general direction. (Fortunate for them, using a pitchfork to vote would spoil the ballot paper on account of there being more than one tong.)