Thank God it’s a mother of two. I don’t see how non-parents can have the front to even hold an opinion on this issue. Middle-class mothers have dibs on morality and compassion you know.
I wondered how long it would take for these sanctimonius cunts to switch focus towards the porn rather than the expenses claim. The porn is surely NOT the issue. It would be no less (or more for that matter) an issue if he had used taxpayers money to buy some rosary beads. Their moral high ground really is repugnant.
Anyone read Littlejohn on Porngate? He’s headlined his piece “Not even in the Augean sleaze of the Major years did we have a Home Secretary claiming porn on expenses”. Probably because Major was too busy promoting family values which banging a colleague behind his wife’s back, not to mention all the other scandals – cash for questions anyone?
Anyway, poor Littlejohn was forced to watch some adult entertainment for “research”. HOn Television X, he tells us “suffice it to say, the line-up specialises in what we in the trade call ‘acts too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper’”. Presumably the kind of thing he might include in one of his books then. Any wanking with statuettes of major Communists, or does that cost extra?
The ‘married man probably caught w@nking whilst wife wasn’t around’ (Jebus H, what a stunning shock horror, not) was always going to be the line when all it boils down to is a £10 over-claim now being returned.
The only thing that would top that nonsense for the prurient f*ckers at the likes of the DM/DE would have been if JS herself could be proved to have been there at the time too.
‘Man and wife get horny together, with porno, at taxpayers expense’.
They’d try to have her painted as a moral-free & shameless whore in seconds flat…….whilst a hell of a lot of couples wonder what all the fuss is about.
The editors at the DM/DE etc really are a bunch of sad & nasty c*nts.
The “special knowledge” assumed of parents (and particularly, mothers) when it comes to issues like this, so often used as a trump card to silence the childless, annoys me. Are we to believe they know more about right and wrong than the rest of us because it could potentially affect someone dependent on them? Would this not make them a less, not more, objective commentator? And surely they became parents because of their desire to nurture another being, they didn’t become nurturing and compassionate because they were a parent. So it is in fact their humanity which qualifies them to comment, not their status as a parent, and we all share that attribute.
Constantly linking sex to morality is really behind the times. The Mail seems obsessed with enforcing their moral stance on the rest of us. I couldn’t care less what people get up to as long as no-one is hurt and nothing illegal takes place. Why do the Mail feel that they have the right (or duty) to try and tell us what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour in our private lives?
When you consider the Femail section of the Mail website is almost completely dedicated to semi-naked women snapped by paparazi photographers in gutters, or hidden in bushes it really makes the Mail’s moral stance seem utterly ridiculous.
Everyone gets caught having a wank in one way or another, even if it’s just naughty material found inder the mattress. Hardly a new phenomenon.
And why do they bang on about pay-per-view porn in relation to kids? If they’re old enough to have a debit card they already know the basics of sex and should know that porn is hardly indicative of real life, unless they’re kept so firmly under a rock by their parents that they’re probably in desperate need of a quick, sharp life lesson, however grotty. And if they aren’t old enough for a card, try doing some actual parenting and deal with your darling, innocent angels who are thieving your own cash from you to pay for the damn stuff.
Oh well if she’s a mother then she MUST be able to have the moral highground!! Christ if some other childless wanker had commented on that then I’d be furious!!
Now you might think, and I might agree, that MPs freedom to set their own pay was a touch dodgy, and their use of expense accounts to keep their snouts in the trough was doubly so, but why get caught in a lie.
Antigherkin – I totally agree. Anyone can pop out a sprog, so it really pisses me off when some women seem to believe having a child immediately and magically grants them an otherworldy serenity, morality and wisdom other mere mortals cannot comprehend.
Having a kid to some people is such a culmination of years of obsessive desire that it is immediately followed by almost psychotic vanity and self obsession. It’s usually accompanied by fucking banging on endlessly about the mindless trivia of their newborn’s life to people who anyone who will (and even those that refuse to) listen.
…I realise that sounds sexist, but in my experience it doesn’t seem to be a male trait so much, and probably only a female trait because the media push it so much in advertising. Why isn’t the porn article written by ‘a father of two’? Because in media-land, Confucious levels of perceived wisdom are reserved solely for mothers responsible for the ‘miracle of life’, which is in reality a mundane biological function that 99.9% of people posses and most spend an inordinant amount of their time trying to prevent.
Nick
“MPs freedom to set their own pay was a touch dodgy”
Well I know what you mean but it’s not been like that for some time
(although as you rightly say, you’re never going to get the truth of it in a ludicrously biased rag like the DE or DM).
Some time ago a decision was taken to link MPs pay to that of the ‘1st division’ (ie the top tier) Civil Servants, at various levels.
It was meant to do away with all this cr@p.
The only thing MPs got to then decide was whether or not to accept any rise awarded toi the CS’s.
Any rise would only come about if awarded after a comparability study worked thing out verses the relevant parts of the private sector and those top Civil Servants, this had nothing to do with the MPs as such .
I don’t think paying public representatives in line with our top level Civil Servants is asking too much personally.
I also know that running a constituency office and all that goes with that is not cheap so decent expenses are also not exactly pushing it in my view.
Sadly the DE & DM (and those like them) want to pretend that all of this money is effectively just ‘disposable income’ to whoop it up on at the taxpayers expense.
In effect they are actively working hard undermining our democracy (which in the next breath they’ll claim is the best in the world and that they love so much) just to further they very obvious party political agenda.
In some respects Labour have become victims of their own success here.
We’d never have know half of this stuff under the previous totally & ridiculously opaque rules.
It’s going to be funny watching the rules get tightened still further and more tranperancy be introduced ……and the tory party being strung up by their own hypocrisy when the time comes.
(not sure of the actual date, it’s very soon, but all MPs expenses will shortly be made public…..the tory party sh@t themselves at the thought that this might be retrospective, hmmmm, wonder why?)
Further to my comment on the tendency for female MPs to be judged on shaggability before cometence, I came across this charming article by Quentin Letts today:
I think the biggest scandal is that he spend a tenner on something he could have got free online! Typical Liebore wasting hard working taxpayers money etc.
Thank God it’s a mother of two. I don’t see how non-parents can have the front to even hold an opinion on this issue. Middle-class mothers have dibs on morality and compassion you know.
That headline is a question I ask regularly upon seeing a Daily Mail headline.
Obviously only parents opinions count when it comes to a middle aged man watching porn.
antigherkin, I agree. One person’s opinion does not equal fact. Very narrow minded, even by the Mail’s standards.
Its the system that needs an overhaul, not the users. Wasn’t it reported last week (not in the Mail…) that Hague has claimed more than he should?
I wondered how long it would take for these sanctimonius cunts to switch focus towards the porn rather than the expenses claim. The porn is surely NOT the issue. It would be no less (or more for that matter) an issue if he had used taxpayers money to buy some rosary beads. Their moral high ground really is repugnant.
No place for this filth!!!! Oh wait yes there is….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1165981/OLIVIA-LICHTENSTEIN-Look-away-Jacqui-My-verdict-TV-porn.html
Anyone read Littlejohn on Porngate? He’s headlined his piece “Not even in the Augean sleaze of the Major years did we have a Home Secretary claiming porn on expenses”. Probably because Major was too busy promoting family values which banging a colleague behind his wife’s back, not to mention all the other scandals – cash for questions anyone?
Anyway, poor Littlejohn was forced to watch some adult entertainment for “research”. HOn Television X, he tells us “suffice it to say, the line-up specialises in what we in the trade call ‘acts too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper’”. Presumably the kind of thing he might include in one of his books then. Any wanking with statuettes of major Communists, or does that cost extra?
Part of every journalists creativity is an imaginative approach when it comes to claiming their own expenses.
Too predictable.
The ‘married man probably caught w@nking whilst wife wasn’t around’ (Jebus H, what a stunning shock horror, not) was always going to be the line when all it boils down to is a £10 over-claim now being returned.
The only thing that would top that nonsense for the prurient f*ckers at the likes of the DM/DE would have been if JS herself could be proved to have been there at the time too.
‘Man and wife get horny together, with porno, at taxpayers expense’.
They’d try to have her painted as a moral-free & shameless whore in seconds flat…….whilst a hell of a lot of couples wonder what all the fuss is about.
The editors at the DM/DE etc really are a bunch of sad & nasty c*nts.
I’m reminded of Bill Bailey’s excellent ‘Speaking as a mother…’ bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5dD0DjW0I
Heh, I was thinking of that myself.
The “special knowledge” assumed of parents (and particularly, mothers) when it comes to issues like this, so often used as a trump card to silence the childless, annoys me. Are we to believe they know more about right and wrong than the rest of us because it could potentially affect someone dependent on them? Would this not make them a less, not more, objective commentator? And surely they became parents because of their desire to nurture another being, they didn’t become nurturing and compassionate because they were a parent. So it is in fact their humanity which qualifies them to comment, not their status as a parent, and we all share that attribute.
Constantly linking sex to morality is really behind the times. The Mail seems obsessed with enforcing their moral stance on the rest of us. I couldn’t care less what people get up to as long as no-one is hurt and nothing illegal takes place. Why do the Mail feel that they have the right (or duty) to try and tell us what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour in our private lives?
When you consider the Femail section of the Mail website is almost completely dedicated to semi-naked women snapped by paparazi photographers in gutters, or hidden in bushes it really makes the Mail’s moral stance seem utterly ridiculous.
Everyone gets caught having a wank in one way or another, even if it’s just naughty material found inder the mattress. Hardly a new phenomenon.
And why do they bang on about pay-per-view porn in relation to kids? If they’re old enough to have a debit card they already know the basics of sex and should know that porn is hardly indicative of real life, unless they’re kept so firmly under a rock by their parents that they’re probably in desperate need of a quick, sharp life lesson, however grotty. And if they aren’t old enough for a card, try doing some actual parenting and deal with your darling, innocent angels who are thieving your own cash from you to pay for the damn stuff.
Oh well if she’s a mother then she MUST be able to have the moral highground!! Christ if some other childless wanker had commented on that then I’d be furious!!
I hate headlines based on rhetorical questions.
What do mothers know about porn?
“How very, very sad”
-Father of 0’s damning verdict on the Daily Mail.
Is it £93m each? If so it does seem a little bit excessive.
Please please please let the drunken Journo in the parliment punch-up be from the Mail
And what’s this inflation busting bullshit?
Inflation unexpectedly rose to 3.2% in March: See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7959564.stm
MP’s voted themselves an increase of 2.3%.
Now you might think, and I might agree, that MPs freedom to set their own pay was a touch dodgy, and their use of expense accounts to keep their snouts in the trough was doubly so, but why get caught in a lie.
Oh.
Hang on.
Littlejohn doesn’t have to worry about “misusing” British tax-payers’ money, being a tax-exiled fuckwit as he is.
Antigherkin – I totally agree. Anyone can pop out a sprog, so it really pisses me off when some women seem to believe having a child immediately and magically grants them an otherworldy serenity, morality and wisdom other mere mortals cannot comprehend.
Having a kid to some people is such a culmination of years of obsessive desire that it is immediately followed by almost psychotic vanity and self obsession. It’s usually accompanied by fucking banging on endlessly about the mindless trivia of their newborn’s life to people who anyone who will (and even those that refuse to) listen.
…I realise that sounds sexist, but in my experience it doesn’t seem to be a male trait so much, and probably only a female trait because the media push it so much in advertising. Why isn’t the porn article written by ‘a father of two’? Because in media-land, Confucious levels of perceived wisdom are reserved solely for mothers responsible for the ‘miracle of life’, which is in reality a mundane biological function that 99.9% of people posses and most spend an inordinant amount of their time trying to prevent.
Nick
“MPs freedom to set their own pay was a touch dodgy”
Well I know what you mean but it’s not been like that for some time
(although as you rightly say, you’re never going to get the truth of it in a ludicrously biased rag like the DE or DM).
Some time ago a decision was taken to link MPs pay to that of the ‘1st division’ (ie the top tier) Civil Servants, at various levels.
It was meant to do away with all this cr@p.
The only thing MPs got to then decide was whether or not to accept any rise awarded toi the CS’s.
Any rise would only come about if awarded after a comparability study worked thing out verses the relevant parts of the private sector and those top Civil Servants, this had nothing to do with the MPs as such .
I don’t think paying public representatives in line with our top level Civil Servants is asking too much personally.
I also know that running a constituency office and all that goes with that is not cheap so decent expenses are also not exactly pushing it in my view.
Sadly the DE & DM (and those like them) want to pretend that all of this money is effectively just ‘disposable income’ to whoop it up on at the taxpayers expense.
In effect they are actively working hard undermining our democracy (which in the next breath they’ll claim is the best in the world and that they love so much) just to further they very obvious party political agenda.
In some respects Labour have become victims of their own success here.
We’d never have know half of this stuff under the previous totally & ridiculously opaque rules.
It’s going to be funny watching the rules get tightened still further and more tranperancy be introduced ……and the tory party being strung up by their own hypocrisy when the time comes.
(not sure of the actual date, it’s very soon, but all MPs expenses will shortly be made public…..the tory party sh@t themselves at the thought that this might be retrospective, hmmmm, wonder why?)
Anyone spotted the Mail’s hee-larious April Fool today?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166245/Oh-Jacqui-surely-you.html
Shoddy photoshopping even for them.
That’s very bad. You’d have thought they could find a shop with an open door to walk through.
Also, the perspective shows her to be about 6′8″.
Further to my comment on the tendency for female MPs to be judged on shaggability before cometence, I came across this charming article by Quentin Letts today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1164890/Oh-Yes-Minister-Meet-women-voted-worlds-stunning-politicians-WOULD-Sir-Humphrey-say–.html
I think the biggest scandal is that he spend a tenner on something he could have got free online! Typical Liebore wasting hard working taxpayers money etc.