Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

State funded porn for Jacqui Smiths fella

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:24 AM
Original message
State funded porn for Jacqui Smiths fella
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/29/jacqui-smith-expenses-film

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, apologised today for an expenses claim which included adult films watched by her husband.

Smith said she mistakenly submitted an expenses claim which included five pay-per-view films, including two adult movies which were viewed at her family home in her Redditch constituency.

The £67 Virgin Media bill was submitted last June as part of Smith's expenses. It included two 18-rated features, each costing £5, which were viewed on 1 April 1 and 6 April last year. The bill also included two viewings of the film Ocean's 13 – at £3.75 each – and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf's Up.

Ms Smith said in a statement: "I am sorry that in claiming for my internet connection, I mistakenly claimed for a television package alongside it. As soon as the matter was brought to my attention, I took immediate steps to contact the relevant parliamentary authorities and rectify the situation. All money claimed for the television package will be paid back in full."

The home secretary was said to be "getting on with her job" today despite her embarrassment. A friend told the Press Association that Smith knew there was "no excuse" for the error but added: "To say she's angry with her husband is an understatement.

"Jacqui was not there when these films were watched. She's furious and mortified."

News of the claim is a new embarrassment to Smith who last month faced criticism for claiming taxpayer-funded allowances for her family home while living with her sister in London. Smith said she had "fully abided" by the rules by designating her sister's house as her "main" residence, allowing her to claim payments on the Redditch constituency home she shares with her husband and children.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, accepted a complaint about Smith's claims and has called on her to explain the £116,000 which she has claimed since becoming an MP.

Today's apology came as Labour leftwinger Harry Cohen, who was said to have claimed more than £300,000 in second home allowances on his house in the capital, insisted that he had done nothing wrong as it was "part of my salary".

Cohen said that MPs had been told "go out boys and spend it" when the present system was introduced under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the MP listed a single-bedroom schoolhouse in Colchester, Essex, and a caravan on nearby Mersea Island as his main home.

The paper said that it meant that over the past five years he was able to claim the maximum allowance of £104,701 on his constituency home 70 miles away in Leyton and Wanstead, east London.

It calculated that since 1990, he had received a total of £310,714 in allowances.

Cohen told the Press Association that the arrangement had been cleared with the House of Commons authorities.

He said that the former Conservative minister John Moore had told MPs "go out boys and spend it" when he introduced a big uprating of the allowance in the 1980s to head off a pay revolt by backbench Tories.

Cohen said that he had taken full advantage of the arrangement ever since.

"That is exactly what John Moore said on behalf of Mrs Thatcher to her Tory MPs. That makes it part of my salary," he said.

"It really is part of my salary in all but name. That is what it exists for."

Cohen said the Colchester property was his "family home".

He said that there was no reason under the Commons rules why London MPs should not live outside the capital and have a second home in their constituency.

"It is the legitimate costs of having a constituency home to do my job. We don't have a system where people are required to live in their constituency," he said.

"I am doing nothing wrong whatsoever. I am using it for parliamentary purposes. It is a legitimate and proper use of it."

Nevertheless the latest disclosure is likely to fuel demands for a complete overhaul of the system of MPs' expenses and allowances.

Gordon Brown last week tried to head off the growing public anger by asking the Committee on Standards in Public Life to carry out a review of the whole system.

It followed the disclosure that another Greater London MP, immigration minister Tony McNulty, was claiming the allowance on the home where his parents live in his Harrow constituency, even though he lived only a few miles away in Hammersmith.

However with the committee not planning to report until after the next general election, the latest row may lead to fresh demands for an immediate crackdown.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Remind me again Bulldog...
...how much does it cost to watch one of these grumble flicks?

Of all the abuses of MP's expenses, this is one of the smallest. I'd be more worried about what they are claiming for property expenses then what they are claiming for watching Frankie Vaughan if I were you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. In the absense of an answer from Bulldog (whoever he is), I can tell you that
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 08:06 AM by Albus
I have absolutely no idea how much it costs to watch dirty movies on Virgin <snort> TV


I download all mine from the web :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yep, Jackie Smith video nasties of New Lab govt screwing over
a gullible electorate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Never mind, old chap. Soon it'll be the Tories who'll be screwing us over ...
... and we'll doubtless have the likes of you and Bulldog explaining to us why this is a much better option ...

:evilgrin:

The Skin

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I don't vote Tory. I only ever vote in the USA and always for a
DEMOCRAT.

Got it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Sorry, I didn't hear that ...
Could you say it a little louder?

:evilgrin:

The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. Jacqui should sack her husband
He is employed as part of her constituency staff. He is responsible for watching these films and putting the bill through his wife's expenses. She should sack him and employ someone else instead.

The second homes thing is a separate issue, and it is obvious that the rules need to be tightened.

Putting myself in Gordon Brown's shoes for an uncomfortable moment, I would not want to be going into the next general election with Jacqui Smith or Tony McNulty in my cabinet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Could you imagine the headline?
Jackboots sacks Jackoff
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. The European Parliament has adopted rules that will ban nepotism
The rules were recently adopted and will be phased in over the coming 5 years. MEPs can no longer give jobs to family members. But as a concession to defenders of so-called "husband and wife teams" - those already on the payroll can remain in their jobs until the election of June 2014 at the latest.

The rule change was opposed by certain British MEPs (Labour, Tory and LibDem) who believe that it is normal to employ your spouse (or marry your secretary/researcher). What they don't appreciate is that it looks bad to the voters, and therefore undermines public confidence in their political representatives. MEPs from other European countries were horrified to see how many British MEPs were employing their significant others.

More than 100 MPs employ family (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7365680.stm

MEPs vote not to employ relatives (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7359597.stm

This last one is from the Daily Mail (spit):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020987/British-MEPs-forced-stop-employing-family-members-fraud.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ikri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Jacqui "War on porn" Smith?
Interesting...

I'd love to know the titles of the films involved, tempted to call a few old friends from Virgin Media to ask what he was watching. If there's any hint of anything underage (teens, barely legal, etc.) or anything involving bdsm then I think that she should get a taste of her own medicine. Get her home raided, get those computers seized and examined.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Let's start with you eh Jacqui?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Do virgin media distribute porn films with teenagers in?
Although 18 and 19 year-olds are technically teenagers I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ikri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks to the crap wording of her own bills
There doesn't need to be an underage person in porn, just the implication of it.

If one of the porn actors looked under 18, or there's anything implied to suggest that they're under 18 then that's child porn.

Bit of light spanking? Be careful, that might not be consensual & would therefore imply rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Virgin Media only show porn with all the explicit bits edited out.
Edited on Mon Mar-30-09 04:29 PM by fedsron2us
He really was wasting taxpayers money if he was throwing it away on that rubbish.

Some of the 'teenagers' are probably closer to their pensions than their O levels.

It is so boring it would send you to sleep faster than a cup of horlicks.

I am afraid we are going to have to wait for the Tories to get back in for some truly decent sex scandals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ikri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Only on the premium channels
The pay per view stuff is the same as you'd find on any hard core porno film.

There's a ton of really tasteful stuff available, British Dogging 5, Best of Wet & Wild MILFs, etc. There's a whole category for "Just 18" too (remember, if it's implied that they're under 18, it's child porn).

Tame compared to what you can find in moments online.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It would probably still have me dozing off after 5 minutes
and while it is a shocking waste of taxpayers money it hardly registers on the Richter scale of previous British political sex scandals. The Labour party just struggle to hack it on this matter which is really a Tory speciality. We need more vice girls, some bondage, more kinky habits, a Russian naval attache, a headless man - you know the script.

Still I did check up the most viewed adult items on Virgin TV and was pleased to note a lot had the word British in the title. At least one industry in this country seems to have survived the off shoring craze.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
D-Notice Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. Just noticed...
"Jacqui was not there when these films were watched. She's furious and mortified."

Was it straight or gay pr0n?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Er ... does it matter?
The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
D-Notice Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Not really
it's just the fact that she was "mortified"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
firefox28 Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
19. i can't wait for this week's PMQs
Wonder if Cameron will let is attack dog Hague to deal with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-01-09 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Er, No.
Hague is shadow foreign secretary, not shadow home secretary.

And in any case, how many Tory MP's are abusing the expenses system? It's not a one party problem sadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC