Hurrah!
The Playmobil of this is eagerly awaited.
She really should have resigned when the house expenses scandal first broke, presumably they wouldn't let her go as so many other MPs are in the same boat, or should I say trough.
Tim#3
Wacky Jacqui spanked by husband
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has admitted getting the taxpayer to pick up the bill for two porn films watched by her husband last June. On Sunday, the Daily Express revealed that amongst the expenses signed off in respect of Jacqui Smith’s (second) constituency home was a bill for £67 in respect of films downloaded from Virgin …
This topic is closed for new posts.
you couldn't make it up!
silly lad, maybe she's far too busy adding up her expenses rather than 'tending' to her husbands needs.....what an embarrassment....
Your being watched !
Nothing to hide and nothing to fear Jacqui ? Porn free, free as the wind blows.
See ya we ain't going to miss you :)
"personal sexual freedom"
Probably was the last one of those for her poor husband. Best neuter them young, so they can't wreck your political career later in life.
porn or not...
why am i paying for her to watch movies anyway?
Fireworks?
It's "hoist with own petard" surely? The bomb doesn't throw you.
Reg. misses the spot just like all the other media
Why are all the media getting sidetracked by the two 18 rated rentals? There are 5 movies on the monthly bill including two showings off "Oceans 13" and one of "Surfs Up". The fact that these were paid for by the tax payer rather than Mrs Smith is just as bad as the cert. 18 ones. Did she watch any of these 3 other movies? This is just one months bill, what about previous months bills?
Any politician that feels the need to qualify the statement "I did nothing wrong" with "according to the rules", is clearly aware that they have indeed done something wrong.
My question is this:
Why are politicians allowed to claim expenses for such things as Virgin Media? Television is a privilege, not a right. There is this wonderful terrestrial television service that we have in this country and that should be more than enough for anyone.
So why are they allowed to claim money back for the extra 1000 channels? How is this necessary for her job? And surely this must be charged *directly* to her expense account. Surely with expenses you're supposed to pay for it yourself and then claim it back?
I'd be very interested to go over the list of things that politicians are allowed to claim for.
Kleenex?
I wonder if she also put in expense claims for tissues (for when her staff have the sniffles)?
People don't like her
People don't like her.... It's a wonder more of her & her families private records haven't been released, telephone calls, emails, medical records.... given how much she's contributed to Stasi Britain.
No politician ever survives for long when the people hate them.
Freedom of Information....
Oh hang on... let me get this right, WE paid for the TV package and the 2 vinegar-stroke inducing fiddle flicks, under the Freedom of Information Act are we legally entitled to find out what the fudge it actually was?
The fact that this kind of expense is allowed, not to mention 2nd homes and everything else in their lives, sickens me. There should be an independant 3rd party to manage and regulate at least the financial side of the government, that or this stuff gets made to be public knowledge by default and NOTHING can be hidden.
Wankers....
Mindbleach alert
The question that needs to be asked as many places as possible is this:
It's all very well that Jaqui Smith wants everyone to be watched all the time, but do we really trust her not to be masturbating while she's watching us?
Make a difference!
Sign the petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Sack-Ms-Smith/
where to start?
"at £5 a throw." wouldn't 'toss' be more appropriate there?
"vanilla" conjured up a different image for me.
"her partner’s solo late night habits" - not necessarily solo - I think we need a full police investigation and a public enquiry.
did anyone say "but what about the indiscriminate, intrusive prying into peoples' private lives under the pretext of national security"? irony, oh the irony.
Jacqui Smith : surely, a MIWFWSEB rather than MILF (those changed letters being Wouldn't ... With Someone Else's Bargepole). Go away, you dishonest, hypocritical, money grubbing hag
Unfit to govern
It is quite clear that this woman, and the rest of Labour, are unfit to govern.
She should resign now and that be taken into account when she is prosecuted for attempted fraud.
Like some on here, I really don't give to damns what she or her husband watch on telly, but I do care when the fraudulently try to claim for it from MY pocket.
She is a prime candidate for the courts and few other serving MPs should be slaughtered on the altar of justice as a lesson to the rest of those corrupt bastards.
Leave Jacqui - you have been caught cooking the books.
Who ordered the films?
Is her husband being a good parent and protecting the real film-watchers? If so, then kudos to him and a suggestion to them to learn discretion - the trick is not to let your parents find out because it embarrasses them that you've got hormones.
People in glass houses......
I don't think anyone really has the right to condemn the mad witch just because her husband has watched a few grumbleflicks and charged them to expenses ( a victimless crime eh Jacqui?). But on the other hand that is OUR money he spent. But since when is having more front than Southend a crime?
Hmmmm, this really is a tough one. There is only one answer - I think we need to call a session of the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!
Honestly, you could fit the credibility of this governemnt in a thimble and STILL have room to spare.
I do hope this is the straw that breaks the camel's back
I LOLed
... when I saw this in the paper this morning. Hot gossip already found its way to German print. BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!
tshhh
to all the people rambling about expenses - the reason we're so amused by this is the irony that this is the witch who forced through extreme porn and is looking to make drawings illegal.
As to expenses, the government is intending on removing all the rules and creating a set of "principles" ergo the rules are being scrapped, and it'll be left to a chosen few to decide whose been bad and whose been good probably depending on how they voted for the last government bill.
@Unfit to govern
You forget - we held a ceremonial burning of Justice a while ago.
In Soviet Britain..
..people don't screw to adult movies.
Adult movies screw YOU!
(works best with a comedy Brezhnev accent)
Jacqui Does UKHMRC
If she's got nothing to hide, she's got nothing to fear!
Why should the tax payers - her employers - not get to go through her expenses claims with a fine-toothed comb.
This is the government that has imposed more draconian surveillance laws on the people than any other, but they refuse to be held to the same standard, themselves.
- Jack Straw
- David Blunkett
- Charles Clark
- John Reid
- Jacqui Smith
I wonder who's next on that roll call...
Jacqui's Dick
Flash traffic.......
'The nation was shocked last night by further revelations concerning the Home Secretary's domestic arrangements. Jacqui Smith failed to deny rumours that she is in fact married to a real, flesh-and -blood humam being who has been forced to subsist on a diet of knuckle-sandwiches over an extended period of time. The emasculated figure of Richard Timney emerged from one of the couple's residences to issue a statement to the media in which he apologised for any embarrassment he had caused his missus but was insistent that neither of them had done anything wrong. Ever. And anyway, the cost of his porn viewing would be reimbursed to the public purse, so that was all right, then, wasn't it?'
Actually, Dick, most of us don't give a toss (oops) about what you do in the privacy of your own home - even when it's a home that has been provided out of the public purse - what concerns us is your wife's insistence that she is entitled to invade OUR privacy under the fraudulent claim that she is protecting us from terrorists and child molesters.
Knowing your wife's attitude to sexual matters, I don't think many of us would even begrudge paying for a little bit of light porn to allow you relieve the matrimonial hell that you have to endure. What you need, Dick, is for a good woman to take you in hand and re-introduce you to the human race, so ditch the bitch and get a life.
I for one welcome...
...conformation that my digital TV subscription is now a legitimate expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Paris, what else
I declare Wacky Jacqui Open Season now OPEN!!
...join up and and comment / poke fun / start a discussion at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=46271966027
Everyone welcome!!
Re:Fireworks
***"It's "hoist with own petard" surely? The bomb doesn't throw you."***
It does if you're sat on it when it goes off, and Big Sister Wacqui was definitely sat on this one.
Wacqui's hubby watching porn on her parliamentary expenses. You couldn't wish for a better 'petard' for our barmy Home Sec to be hoist by.
ROFLMFAO doesn't even come close.
Porn on expenses?
Brilliant, Im going into politics right now!
Hmm..
I find the headline a bit misleading. Surely it's far more likely wacky Jaqui will have opened an economy sized can of whoop-ass on her husband than vice (sic) versa.
Being caught out by dirty videos? It's got to Paris really hasn't it...
Jon
Re: Just 18
Isn't the whole point of the "Just 18" thing that the girls might be legal but they look younger. In which case if hubby was viewing such content then he should be on the sex offenders register.
Oh no he wasn't
"Wacky Jacqui spanked by husband"
But she was at her 'other' home at the time
(you know; her sisters, aka the one that she's claimed £116K for in the past 6 years)
So whatever he was spanking wasn't her...
MILF?
Could it mean
MP's I'd Like to Fire
MP's I Loathe to ******
Must Investigate Legal Finances
The list goes on, (just like Nulabours indiscresions)
Re: Fireworks?
"The bomb doesn't throw you." - I think you'll find it does, when it detonates nearby :-)
@mycho
" but do we really trust her not to be masturbating while she's watching us?"
The thought of that makes me feel quite ill...
TWO showings of Oceans 13!?
Why did we pay for Oceans 13 to be watched *twice*? At a fiver a pop? It's only 4.98 to buy the DVD!
Insert party of choice.
Just another pair of political chavs living on enhanced state benefits while lecturing the rest of us on our moral standards. Even as we speak Jacqui's "paid researcher" is probably scrambling through the dustbins trying to recover those carelessly discarded doodles and scribbles that may bring down more ignominy on the head of his stupid "employer".
On the couch
According the the BBC, hubby will be 'on the couch for some time'. He's probably stuck to it.
Ho ho ho.
I say it's the best 10$ of tax patyers money spent
I think the main course here is the double standards. Like a pri*st doing it with a n*n after a sermon. And to top it, it was done with tax payer's money! That's really the spicey side-dish; not the main course in this article though.
So the spice that we get from the collectively pooled in £10 is really worth it. ;)
Paris, coz it possible that one of the flicks features our collective favorite pr0n*.
"Ear-Bashing"? Domestic Abuse?
Wasn't there also something about "ear-bashing"? Yesterday, on telly, there were mentions of Jacqui giving her husband an "ear-bashing". It would seem to be an unfortunate way to put it, given the recent stuff about ending domestic violence.
HAHAHAHAHA
But there's another angle here that no-one seems to have picked up on.
Given the UK's new draconian porn laws - you know the ones: watch something "distasteful" or containing sexual acts between minors or even people who appear to be minors is a serious criminal offence and places you firmly on the UK's DNA and Paedofile databases.
Now, were the people in those particular films engaged in sexual acts who APPEARED to but under-age?
Who watched the films?
Who paid for the the films?
Shouldn't Mr and Mrs Smith now be arrested for potential charges under the various pornography laws we have in the country and charged just as any other member of the public be?
The irony in this case is wonderful and long may it continue
Benefit fraud comment unfair
Benefit fraud comment unfair
"Simon Carr, writing in the Independent this weekend. He compared the present culture of political expense claiming as little different in principle to benefit fraud:"
Organised benefit fraud takes *work*.
Setting up paper trails, false addresses, bank accounts. Keeping your story (stories) straight, travel between offices, and possibly even sourcing a few extra kids for Family Credit.
Claiming for telecoms expenses seems to need an actual bill, which I guess makes it the hardest MP expense to fiddle.
IIRC the main MPs expense system requires *no* receipts or other evidence other than the MPs word. And let's not forget Mr Timney's not a house husband as he has a proper job. He is Mrs Timney's researcher. £40k/pa I think was the figure mentioned. I'd love to know what the going rate for MP's researchers is who aren't close family members.
A system which requires the intelligence of a moron to bypass and the virtue of a Saint not to would seem well overdue for tightening up.
Mine's the one with a snorkel in the side pocket. I'm partial to all things aquatic and a bit of MILF diving can be very relaxing.
This was for legitimate research
He was researching new ways to fuck the electorate.
Mines the long, slightly dirty mac
It proves..
Jacqui and her ilk are a bunch of wankers.
Well her hubby is but given the choice between impaling whacky with my mutton dagger or a god thrap... I know which one I'd choose and it isn't anything resembling a corrupt, lying, cheating politician.
To finish with another joke, What's got four legs and grunts?... The Home sec!!!
Was he whacking off to gay porn???
Apparrently, the films were viewed at 11.18pm on April 1 and 11.19pm on April 6, while Miss Smith was staying in London. On the evenings in question, Television X, one of nine adult channels available under the terms of their Virgin Media cable television contract, was screening features called "Raw Meat 3" and "By Special Request".
Hmmm...
"livid and shocked"
From the Beeb:
'BBC political correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue, said a source told him Ms Smith was "livid and shocked" when she found out about the films.
Mr O'Donoghue said he was told Ms Smith had given her husband a "real ear-bashing".'
When I heard about this in the pub yesterday, I laughed so hard I spilt my beer. But I've been thinking... Is a real ear-bashing a balanced, reasonable reaction to discovering that your husband has watched a couple of movies in his own home? Does livid and shocked sound a bit like an over-reaction to this news? Livid and shocked is maybe what you'd be if you asked your spouse to mow the lawn whilst you went shopping and came home to find out that he'd taken a dump in the pond, gone down the pub by himself and left the children alone with your wardrobe, a can of spray paint and a tube of superglue. It's no great newsflash that men watch pr0n every so often, so this righteous indignation of Smith's is just a bit too over the top to be believable.
Besides, the actual content of these films is totally irrelevant. Her husband holds no public office and has every right to watch whatever the hell he pleases, whenever he should so choose. The real issue (Smith is a lying, hypocritical thief) is being veiled by the more 'shocking', media-friendly sound bite: New Labour ministers won't tolerate their spouses watching pr0nography and they will get very, very angry if they ever pertain to any expression of sexuality, even in the privacy of their own home.
What kind of message does that send to the balanced, tolerant society that our government claim to be building? Should all the wives of this country follow Jacqui's lead and expose their husbands in public for watching the odd adult film? Or is the message that one shouldn't enjoy sex any more? Or maybe that one shouldn't watch movies when the Home Secretary isn't also in the room? Or is the message that, wherever possible, you should lie through your back teeth so the tax payers will be stump up for your cable TV? (presumably, the answer is 'yes', as long as they don't find out)
Jacqui's been caught thieving and is doing the cowardly thing of trying to make it somebody else's fault. It beggars belief that we continue to tolerate a Home Secretary whose moral standards are so deeply corrupt that she will even attempt to ruin her husband's reputation in order to save her own, miserably blighted career.
The sound bites don't add up, and the foetid reek of spin clouds this whole affair. I feel nothing but pity for the poor git that married this bilious wretch. We should all dump her.
BLOODY WOMAN!!!!
On the BBC: 'Gordon Brown has said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's use of Commons expenses for two adult films watched by her husband should be a "personal matter".'
WTF!?!?!?!!!!!!
Oh yeah, it's personal now it's you and your info, but when it's my liberties and my kids and my emails, that should be public knowledge to every fucker on the fucking planet!!!!
Jesus wept I hate that bloody woman, she'd better resign this time or there will be anarchy in the UK!!!
Yet Blunkett can bed-hop and the boys go "yeah, respect!"
Hmm, double standard I think? (or a lot of trust in that dog - "one bark for hot, 2 barks for a munter - got it?")
I'm not saying I think it's right...
but surely the people complaining about the use of expenses this way don't think this is isolated? I would of thought that it was obvious that if paying for your cable on expenses is legal, then surely there's a lot of politicians from every party doing exactly the same. Strikes me as just plain naive to assume that this is a Labour only problem, or that the Tories would do anything to change it.
However it's more than welcome to see Wacki getting done (maybe that should be Whacki from now on).
Also, the potential next Home Secretary for the list somewhere above this, I'd suggest that Ian Blair was originally in the running for it, not sure if that's changed now..
A Distraction?
A quote by Noam Chomsky springs to mind:
"When the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians, reach for your pocket, and see who’s pulling out your wallet."
I for one am searching the papers today to try and identify which (probably more important) story is being buried by this one.
Great in bed... NOT
I guess hubby prefers to spank the monkey than pork the ol' slapper!
Hubby needs to go
Apparently he's employed at £40k to "manage her office", which he's clearly not capable of... it might be a bit much to ask for her to go for this (there are plenty better reasons) but he definitely should resign if she wants to save any face.
Bloody hypocrites!
This topic is closed for new posts.
Popular Whitepapers
- The BI Inflexion Point
Information is a right, not a privilege - VPN security - if you want it, come and get it
Attention WiFi hotspotters: You want it - The Register Guide to iSCSI
A primer on Internet SCSI, a protocol to transport SCSI commands over IP - Secure Mobile Working
Beyond the Technology - The Impact of IT Security Attitudes
Putting the pieces in place for effective security delivery - The Register guide to unified communications
A primer on the implications of unified communications for enterprise IT
