I’VE got myself into a bit of trouble down at Westminster.

I’ve been sent to the Privileges Committee for investigation – sent by a phalanx of Tory MPs, 100 Labour MPs and assorted LibDems and Ulster Unionists.

I will be joining Boris Johnson in the dock. I think most people know what he is charged with. So let me tell you why, last Tuesday, a whole afternoon was set aside to debate my case.

I’m a member of the Commons Culture Committee. Nadine Dorries, the ex-Culture Secretary gave evidence to the Committee about a Channel 4 reality series where she lived with ‘real’ people on a Council housing scheme.

She said she’d discovered the folk she lived with were actors.

It wasn’t true. But her claim was serious.

It maligned the people concerned. And since, as Culture Secretary, she was considering privatisation, it seemed she had sought the opportunity to traduce the reputation of Channel 4.

The Committee, unanimously, and cross party wrote an excoriating report about her. I sent it to the Speaker and asked that time be set aside to debate referring this serious issue to the Privileges Committee.

The Speaker replied to me. He didn’t agree to my request.

I reported his response by posting a video on Twitter. It attracted a lot of views.

What I didn’t know was that MPs aren’t allowed to say they’ve received a letter from the Speaker or summarise its contents – even, apparently, if the letter is not marked ‘private’.

Now I’m a journalist by profession. I’d never reveal a source when asked not to.

Nor would I ever reveal something personal if asked to keep it private. But it seems to me there was a gulf of difference when reporting a matter of public interest.

I see the latter as open democracy. The thought never crossed my mind that what I was doing broke parliamentary rules.

Indeed none of the senior MPs I spoke to knew either. And the last MP to be referred to Privileges over this was, apparently, in 1937.

I am truly sorry the Speaker was deluged by a pile on over social media when I revealed his decision.

That was never my intention. I abhor abuse and try always to be courteous when using Twitter and Facebook whether I’m having exchanges with members of the public or political opponents. I did not encourage or want people to be rude to him.

I have apologised for inadvertently breaking the rule.

But it’s important not to be disingenuous when apologising. I believe in open democracy. I don’t believe we should withhold information from constituents about Parliamentary procedures and outcomes.

If I’d wanted to get the letter into the public domain secretly I could (but never would) have leaked it to a journalist. I didn’t. I was quite open.

But, as the The Guardian pointed out, I’m now in the position of finding myself reported to the Privileges Committee for revealing that Nadine Dorries – who misled a Select Committee – is not being reported to the Privileges Committee.

The Committee will decide my fate in the new year.