Apologies to my overseas reader(s), to whom this will be a small earthquake in Chile. Basically, the Sunday Times entrapped four members of the House of Lords into admitting that they would be prepared to accept varying sums of money in return for attempting to alter legislation that was passing before them. (Endearingly, none of these guys accepts that there's anything wrong with this, but they've all apologised anyway, just in case ...)
As I've noted here before, I actually believe the House of Lords is a pretty good thing. So I'd like to know how exactly the ST selected its victims. Was it on the basis of inside info, or was it random? I haven't actually read the article - newspaper not allowed through this door - but this crucial question certainly hasn't been addressed in any of the subsequent journalistic debate. Hopefully, it was targetted, via some kind of tip-offs, in which case we can just put it down to 'a few bad eggs'; but if they were randomly picked, then we have to suspect that the whole bloody lot are corrupt, or corruptible - in which case I'll be forced to reconsider my attitudes.
How is it that journalists never ever investigate each other?