Now I can finish what I was saying when I was interrupted in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon. I was halfway though a sentence about how wrong I felt it was that the authorities had called in the overstretched Metropolitan Police to hide the misdemeanours of some MPs, who have stretched their expenses way beyond anything that could be interpreted as within the spirit of the rules, when for some reason Mr Speaker stopped me in mid-sentence and gave me a severe ticking-off for having said exactly that when I was interviewed on radio and television over the weekend.
Judging by the deluge of support from the public that has overwhelmed my email and phone lines ever since, the House of Commons authorities might learn something from the observation made last week that you can't be seen as being on the wrong side of fair play for too long and expect to maintain public support.
Football fans may have recognised Mr Speaker's reaction to the point I was trying to make: a hectoring response reminiscent of the manager who, out of loyalty to his team, indignantly attacks a referee's decision.
But Speaker Martin isn't meant to be the manager – he's meant to be the referee. His role is to defend the Commons, not blindly defend the actions of MPs on either side of any argument, least of all one where the public's view has been made so very clear.
He does need to show leadership, but the leadership required is to sort out the unprecedented mess over MPs' expenses, not to lead an attack on the press for revealing what has been going on. It is not the press which has brought MPs into disrepute, but their own behaviour.
I can't help but reflect on how differently this would all have been handled by Speaker Martin's predecessor, Betty Boothroyd. She always managed to be firmly in control and in the driving seat. On this issue, the public perception is that if this driver is in control, we are being driven the wrong way up a one-way street.
I received one letter from a constituent who had applied to the social fund for the money to buy a bed and mattress for her one and only home. She had just been told she could have the bed, but not the mattress. It doesn't take much imagination to understand how someone like that – and many, many others like her – feels when they hear about MPs being given thousands for barbecues, chandeliers and other luxuries.
If I want a cleaner, I should have to pay for it like any member of the public. If I fear for my safety, I should go to the police, not get thousands from the taxpayer to have a personal security guard.
The public has every right to feel angry, and the Speaker seemed to be oblivious to that.
The damage has been done to Parliament not by the disclosure of the allowances, but by the abuse of the system that flourished for as long as MPs thought their far-fetched expense claims would all be kept under wraps.
In trying to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information rules – even as recently as January – the Government and the House of Commons authorities have been on the wrong side of public opinion and fair play.
For the Speaker to believe that the damage done to Parliament is due to abuses being revealed, rather than due the abuses having been perpetrated in the first place, shows a lack of respect for the electorate. To close ranks and then use the forces of law and order to obscure the abuses makes people even angrier.
They expect integrity and honesty from their Members of Parliament, and even more from the Speaker. He should examine his conscience.