We don’t know what he watched, but the Mail helpfully suggests some films he might have seen, such as “Sweaty Sex” and “Happy Husbands and Willing Wives”. Dirty Des productions perhaps?
You gotta feel sorry for Jaqui Smith. Ouch. People find out your husband watches Porn and that you bought it for him. I think she wins the award for “shittiest week ever”
Shafiq, it’s because she employs him as an assistant and signed off his expense claim form. The implication being, she should have checked more carefully what she was allowing him to claim for. Still, £10’s worth of claims for movies would hardly be a sackable offence if there wasn’t a porn element.
The thing that bugs me is how MPs are being held to far higher standards than anyone else would hold themselves. Can we look into the expense claims of tabloid journalists, please? He who casts the first stone etc…I bet there were some interesting claims from Express hacks while they were out in Portugal harassing the McCanns.
John D – It amounted to less than £20, pathetic really. Although the story is hilarious, and if my other half was as unfeminine in looks and demeanour as the Home Secretary, I dare say I’d be partial to a bit of filth myself.
Why is it female politicians are so often slammed for being unattractive and “unfeminine” (whatever that means)? I’m pretty sure being fuckable is not in the job description. In the interests of sexual equality, I could point out that the husband in the case is no oil painting either. The idea of him pleasuring himself to whatever was on offer on the Playboy channel is certainly enough to put me off my dinner. I just hope Jackie’s got a copy of Hardcore Hunks tucked away somewhere for when he’s not around.
Hey, I didn’t say it impacted on her job, or that being ‘unfeminine’ (which is of course a societal construct, not a gender one) is necessarily a good or bad thing, just that it isn’t my bag, and if my partner was as brusque or square jawed as she is, I may be forced to find refuge in a bit of muck too!
If John Major’s wife was discovered doing a bit of self-love over a copy of Playgirl, I’d make similar comments about her husband’s astounding lack of masculinity! And yes, her husband is as rough as sandpaper too, and the mental image of him ‘roughing up his suspect’, or them both rutting like wildebeest is quite enough to make a dog sick.
For once I am in agreement with the rest of you. This is a non-story puffed up by the DM for purely political purposes. Personally I find that masturbation is one of the few things that makes life bearable and using adult movies to enhance the experience seems OK to me so long as it’s nothing that would be of interest to the Vice Squad.
Remember the wise words of Woody Allen: ‘Don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with the person you love most.’
She’s not unattractive. Just because the Mail insist on publishing sour-faced photographs of her it doesn’t mean that she looks like that all the time.
KW is right, in general she just looks like a middle-aged woman. Which she is. The Mail seem to specialise in finding the most unflattering photos of Labour politicians.
I was talking more about her mannerisms I found unattractive, which I suppose as a career politician in a notoriously male orientated domain goes with the territory to succeed, although that said, Thatcher managed to stay reasonably feminine in her own weird way.
Stuart – I’m guessing by TV package that means a subscription package, these were pay-per-view, which I’m guessing doesn’t qualify. If that’s the case, then this is even more of a non-story as it’s only a minor infraction of the rules. If he’d used taxpayer money to subscribe to some porn, he’d be well within the rules.
Jacqui Smith’s real crime is that she has been an utter failure as Home secretary. Time and time again, she has been seen abusing her position in her post, and not just in the row over her expenses. The Mail, like most of the national media, tend to focus on her minor misdemeanors than tackle the serious corrosive policies of this government.
I don’t know if she’s been an utter failure, more indifferent, but my real issue with her is she’s obviously a career politician, not a conviction one. The abuse of expenses to give herself near £120,000 towards her main home by claiming she lived at her sister’s and that was her main homes shows this. She’s only interested in power, influence and money, not making a difference.
As much as people hated Blair (I’m not, and never have been one of them) you can’t deny he did what he genuinely thought was best for the country, not what would play well. The issue with Labour now is that the top hierarchy are all Brown’s acolytes, meaning they’re all the bunch who tried to undermine Blair solely to gain power themselves, and as a result the majority of the cabinet is a bunch of odious back stabbing sycophants with no interest other than advancing their own positions.
There’s not much that would make me vote against Labour (and nothing at all short of world war that would make me consider voting Tory) but if Milliband became leader, i’d have to abstain or go Lib Dem.
The fact that the movies were porn shouldn’t make it any different to claiming expenses for any other kind of film (it’s not something I think is right, but the issue of it being porn should be irrelevant).
But given Jacqui Smith’s own anti-porn and anti-sex agenda in Parliament (e.g., the criminalisation of “extreme porn”, not to mention wanting to crackdown on prostitution and even lap-dancing clubs), I have to raise a smile. I was amused to see that the Consenting Adult Action Network (who oppose these laws, along with other intrusions into the private sex lives of consenting adults – http://www.caan.org.uk/ ) has asked if she would like to sign up to their campaign… ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/jacqui_expenses_entertainment/ )
They’ve got a scan of the expenses form in the Mail story on their website. The porn shows up as “additional” twice, at £5 each. It looks as though Smith’s husband just copied out the TV bill without thinking it through, and then she signed it off. Then some eagle-eyed journo spotted what it really meant, of course, and outrage ensued.
Why do they get to claim their TV package though? If that’s a professional expense, I want every channel blocked but BBC News 24 and the Politics Channel.
The only outrage is the ridiculous censorship employed by the broadcasting authorities. If you haven’t seen a ‘pay-per-view’ adult movie then you’ve missed nothing…. literally. The dranconian regulations still don’t allow anything beyond tits, arses and inuendo.
Apparently, no one at the BBFC has used the internet.
The only outrage should be the husband’s – at being ripped off like every other punter.
Surely they need the Sports channels so they can show mock outrage when Sentanta won’t sell the highlights to anyone, ignoring totally that Sky haven’t supplied highlights of foriegn tours of cricket to any channel for now about 10 years.
A bit hypocritical really of the Mail to get outraged about expenses considering I know from a very reliable source (a colleague used to work for Daily Mail) that a lot of their staff in the 90’s and early noughties used to claim for their drug habits on expenses!!
In the UK the authorities only allow that weird ’soft porn’ nonsense (as you say all the silly pouting & groans but nothing beyond boobs and bums).
No, we’re not having any of that business of real people seen to be enjoying actual sex, how dirty, filthy, corrupting blah blah blah.
If that’s the freaky attitudes of those supposedly educated and in charge it’s little wonder we have a problem with some of the less well adjusted members of our society.
S’funny how not one of our anti-sex crusading DM types can ever square the fact that the repressed UK has bigger sex crime numbers than the much more open EU states.
No?
The Mail have been after Smith for years. Does anybody know what films he watched?
Bloody hell, Su Pollard. I haven’t thought about her since she signed my program after seeing her in panto at the Bradford Alhambra, circa 1987.
We don’t know what he watched, but the Mail helpfully suggests some films he might have seen, such as “Sweaty Sex” and “Happy Husbands and Willing Wives”. Dirty Des productions perhaps?
Is her husband turning into Noel Edmonds?
You gotta feel sorry for Jaqui Smith. Ouch. People find out your husband watches Porn and that you bought it for him. I think she wins the award for “shittiest week ever”
The thing I don’t get is why people are telling Jacqui Smith to resign for her husband’s f***up?
Personally, I don’t like Ms Smith, but it’s quite obvious this is unfair.
Shafiq, it’s because she employs him as an assistant and signed off his expense claim form. The implication being, she should have checked more carefully what she was allowing him to claim for. Still, £10’s worth of claims for movies would hardly be a sackable offence if there wasn’t a porn element.
The thing that bugs me is how MPs are being held to far higher standards than anyone else would hold themselves. Can we look into the expense claims of tabloid journalists, please? He who casts the first stone etc…I bet there were some interesting claims from Express hacks while they were out in Portugal harassing the McCanns.
Mastergate
Isn’t the bigger embarassment using ‘Virgin media’?
If the DM think Su Pollard is the wackiest dresser in Britain, they’ve obviously not met my Uncle Colin.
If I was married to Jacqui Smith, I’d be buying some of the old Johnny Vaughan too!!
The Mail would be utterly lost if Jaqui Smith’s husband was claiming expenses for watching anything other than a blue movie.
The question journalists should be asking is: how much money was claimed? Is the amount mentioned in The Mail’s report?
John D – It amounted to less than £20, pathetic really. Although the story is hilarious, and if my other half was as unfeminine in looks and demeanour as the Home Secretary, I dare say I’d be partial to a bit of filth myself.
Jacquie Smith’s husband (quite a good lookalike!) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THBe0DoHLUQ
Why is it female politicians are so often slammed for being unattractive and “unfeminine” (whatever that means)? I’m pretty sure being fuckable is not in the job description. In the interests of sexual equality, I could point out that the husband in the case is no oil painting either. The idea of him pleasuring himself to whatever was on offer on the Playboy channel is certainly enough to put me off my dinner. I just hope Jackie’s got a copy of Hardcore Hunks tucked away somewhere for when he’s not around.
Hey, I didn’t say it impacted on her job, or that being ‘unfeminine’ (which is of course a societal construct, not a gender one) is necessarily a good or bad thing, just that it isn’t my bag, and if my partner was as brusque or square jawed as she is, I may be forced to find refuge in a bit of muck too!
If John Major’s wife was discovered doing a bit of self-love over a copy of Playgirl, I’d make similar comments about her husband’s astounding lack of masculinity! And yes, her husband is as rough as sandpaper too, and the mental image of him ‘roughing up his suspect’, or them both rutting like wildebeest is quite enough to make a dog sick.
For once I am in agreement with the rest of you. This is a non-story puffed up by the DM for purely political purposes. Personally I find that masturbation is one of the few things that makes life bearable and using adult movies to enhance the experience seems OK to me so long as it’s nothing that would be of interest to the Vice Squad.
Remember the wise words of Woody Allen: ‘Don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with the person you love most.’
‘Married bloke probably caught masturbating’.
How stunningly embarrassing for his wife. Not.
She’s not unattractive. Just because the Mail insist on publishing sour-faced photographs of her it doesn’t mean that she looks like that all the time.
KW is right, in general she just looks like a middle-aged woman. Which she is. The Mail seem to specialise in finding the most unflattering photos of Labour politicians.
I was talking more about her mannerisms I found unattractive, which I suppose as a career politician in a notoriously male orientated domain goes with the territory to succeed, although that said, Thatcher managed to stay reasonably feminine in her own weird way.
The funny thing is that MPs are allowed to claim their television package as part of their expenses, I think. Has he actually done anything wrong?
Stuart – I’m guessing by TV package that means a subscription package, these were pay-per-view, which I’m guessing doesn’t qualify. If that’s the case, then this is even more of a non-story as it’s only a minor infraction of the rules. If he’d used taxpayer money to subscribe to some porn, he’d be well within the rules.
Jacqui Smith’s real crime is that she has been an utter failure as Home secretary. Time and time again, she has been seen abusing her position in her post, and not just in the row over her expenses. The Mail, like most of the national media, tend to focus on her minor misdemeanors than tackle the serious corrosive policies of this government.
I don’t know if she’s been an utter failure, more indifferent, but my real issue with her is she’s obviously a career politician, not a conviction one. The abuse of expenses to give herself near £120,000 towards her main home by claiming she lived at her sister’s and that was her main homes shows this. She’s only interested in power, influence and money, not making a difference.
As much as people hated Blair (I’m not, and never have been one of them) you can’t deny he did what he genuinely thought was best for the country, not what would play well. The issue with Labour now is that the top hierarchy are all Brown’s acolytes, meaning they’re all the bunch who tried to undermine Blair solely to gain power themselves, and as a result the majority of the cabinet is a bunch of odious back stabbing sycophants with no interest other than advancing their own positions.
There’s not much that would make me vote against Labour (and nothing at all short of world war that would make me consider voting Tory) but if Milliband became leader, i’d have to abstain or go Lib Dem.
Surpised the DM headline wasn’t “Labour wanks on taxpayer”
The husband looks like Noel Edmunds.
‘Mp’s husband watches porn and guess who pays!?’
Bloke looks at Porn….
REALLY
The fact that the movies were porn shouldn’t make it any different to claiming expenses for any other kind of film (it’s not something I think is right, but the issue of it being porn should be irrelevant).
But given Jacqui Smith’s own anti-porn and anti-sex agenda in Parliament (e.g., the criminalisation of “extreme porn”, not to mention wanting to crackdown on prostitution and even lap-dancing clubs), I have to raise a smile. I was amused to see that the Consenting Adult Action Network (who oppose these laws, along with other intrusions into the private sex lives of consenting adults – http://www.caan.org.uk/ ) has asked if she would like to sign up to their campaign… ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/jacqui_expenses_entertainment/ )
They’ve got a scan of the expenses form in the Mail story on their website. The porn shows up as “additional” twice, at £5 each. It looks as though Smith’s husband just copied out the TV bill without thinking it through, and then she signed it off. Then some eagle-eyed journo spotted what it really meant, of course, and outrage ensued.
Why do they get to claim their TV package though? If that’s a professional expense, I want every channel blocked but BBC News 24 and the Politics Channel.
You have to laugh. OUTRAGE at porn films.
The only outrage is the ridiculous censorship employed by the broadcasting authorities. If you haven’t seen a ‘pay-per-view’ adult movie then you’ve missed nothing…. literally. The dranconian regulations still don’t allow anything beyond tits, arses and inuendo.
Apparently, no one at the BBFC has used the internet.
The only outrage should be the husband’s – at being ripped off like every other punter.
Surely they need the Sports channels so they can show mock outrage when Sentanta won’t sell the highlights to anyone, ignoring totally that Sky haven’t supplied highlights of foriegn tours of cricket to any channel for now about 10 years.
A bit hypocritical really of the Mail to get outraged about expenses considering I know from a very reliable source (a colleague used to work for Daily Mail) that a lot of their staff in the 90’s and early noughties used to claim for their drug habits on expenses!!
Quite right Chris.
There is no ‘porn’ broadcast in the UK.
Not by any sane definition of the term.
In the UK the authorities only allow that weird ’soft porn’ nonsense (as you say all the silly pouting & groans but nothing beyond boobs and bums).
No, we’re not having any of that business of real people seen to be enjoying actual sex, how dirty, filthy, corrupting blah blah blah.
If that’s the freaky attitudes of those supposedly educated and in charge it’s little wonder we have a problem with some of the less well adjusted members of our society.
S’funny how not one of our anti-sex crusading DM types can ever square the fact that the repressed UK has bigger sex crime numbers than the much more open EU states.
No?