Is it right that West Lancashire MP was taken to task over snacks on expenses because she is a size 16?
Today the papers have been ripping in to West Lancashire MP Rosie Cooper over her expenses for a range of snacks including Kit Kats, Maltesers and crisps.
She says the snacks were claimed for by young, unpaid "interns" who volunteered to assist in her parliamentary office to gain work experience.
But the tone of the coverage suggests that because she is a size 16 she must have gobbled all the stuff herself.
She also gets taken to task for having lent her name to a healthy living campaign.
I'm not sure where any of this gets us really. Is it right to poke fun at someone because they are fat? No.
Let's say that she did eat the snacks herself, is it wrong that an MP who earns ÃÂ£65,000-a-year puts a few packet of crisps on her exes? In a strict sense probably yes.
But, compared to some of the revelations (duck island, moat, ÃÂ£8K home entertainment systems, etc, etc) is putting some chocolate on your expenses really that bad? The answer again seems to be no.
Which again leads me to the conclusion the only reason Rosie Cooper is being taken to task is because she is overweight. If she was a size 10 would would this story have made page five of today's Sun?
Maybe we should also take her at face value when she says she has been scrupulous in requiring interms to prodcue receipts for out-of-pocket and subsitence expenses which they were entitled to claim back.
But then the realistic part of me knows that this story will have caused a good few chuckles and made some people angry - many will think I'm mad sticking up for Rosie Cooper.
As regular readers will know I have taken some Merseyside MPs to task for their expenses. But in this instance I think the press may have slightly overstepped the mark.
HERE is a pro Rosie Cooper piece.