Since then, social media has been rife with speculation about who the MP may be. But there are a few important reasons why it is best not to fuel the rumour mill.
The Times says whips believe that if they suspended the suspect and removed his whip it would endanger the anonymity of their victim or victims.
And there are legal factors to consider too. In February, the Supreme Court ruled against Bloomberg in a privacy ruling and said that a person under criminal investigation has a right to privacy before they are charged.
The Supreme Court ruling said: “Once it is established that the relevant information was that a person, prior to being charged, was under criminal investigation then the correct approach is for a court to start with the proposition that there will be a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of such information.”
Media law trainer David Banks says:
Just to clear up any confusion re the MP arrest, contempt of court law does not prevent you naming him, so long as you are careful not to imply guilt.\n\nHOWEVER\n\nRecent privacy cases mean most newspapers, broadcasters and mainstream online titles will not name unless he is charged
And he also warns about social media use prejudicing trials:
I see a lot of you not being careful about implying guilt.\n\nTwo points to consider. \n\n1. The Attorney General\u2019s office is getting a bit twitchy about social media prejudicing trials.\n\n2. You\u2019re not helping a complainant if you screw up a trial.
Meanwhile, defaming someone who hasn't been accused of the crimes could land you in legal hot water:
I would urge all to be a little careful until names and details of the arrested MP have been confirmed by double-source mainstream outlets. This is not something on which you want to be on the wrong side of a defamation suit.