It's not really the porn angle that's important
Although this is the one that is being leapt on by the schoolboy-esque media, and is certainly very important to those in the porn / freedom to view porn arena.
The really important point I think, is that Jacquie Smith, Home Secretary signed an expenses claim that stated the expenses generated in watching 2 pornos plus 3 other non-porn films were wholely and solely expenses arising as a necessity for her to perform her ministerial duties.
This is obviously untrue, and blatantly so, yet she signed the expense claim herself.
So, what I would like to know is; was she trying to game the system by knowingly claiming for something she knew she couldn't, is she so out of touch she thinks it is necessary to watch Ocean's Thirteen in order to perform her duties as Home Secretary (the mind boggles), or does she just sign important legal documents without reading them (would explain a lot about things like extraordinary rendition, Gitmo etc)?
It is also good to know that the Sir Humphrey 's in charge of paying expenses are doing such a sterling job (on taxpayer's money) in actually doing their job of vetting expenses by, well, not vetting expenses.