THE EDITOR: In the malpractice insurance business, there’s a principle called “subrogation”, which provides that, for a premium, professionals could hide behind the insurer whenever a claim against them arises.
In the media business, originators of information can legitimately remain incognito, whether they’re paid suppliers or not. However, in the business of parliamentary debates it is forbidden to avoid culpability or accept praise by stifling one’s sources of inspiration.
That’s partly because of anti-plagiarism laws and partly because there’s an inviolable tenet in lawful societies giving persons against whom allegations have been made the right to challenge whomever is accusing them.
Fundamental to such tenet is that the allegers must be identifiable and identified. In the event where they aren’t, the one who first publicly disclosed the allegation must take all the brunt.
Dr Rowley is duty bound to name his source or else be dubbed a joker. This is serious business here!