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 woman spends two years butchering the idea that this country is "free" while quietly making fraudulent expensives claims. She's ignored multiple court orders relating to everything from Human Rights to Government Transparency and has been caught flat out lying more than once. Through all this her constituants seems to supportive or apathetic.
However everybody has their breaking point. Porn? Something must be done...
I'll bet things are frosty in the Smith house.
Luckily for Jacqui PHORM hasn't been formally rolled out yet. Because if it was...... anybody with money could just purchase their viewing, browsing and ultimately their masturbation habits.
How can they be so sure that Jacqui wasn't watching the film?......
or is her husband just falling on his sword. funar! funar!
I would really like to see the contents or their internet logs. Lets face it if you are sad enough to watch Virgin Porn films. (Funar, Snigger) you will dip your wick (snigger) into the great free pool of Internet Porn. A much more murky place to be.
How do you feel about privacy now Jacqui? Gonna tell us which films it was or would that just be crossing a line into YOUR private life.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
Thank God that Wacky Jacqui has been so insistent that we need to live in an ever increasing 'Big Brother state'. Why without her sterling work things like this would never have been discovered (probably)(well maybe)(oh who gives a toss, she deserves a kicking regardless).
Come on Jacqui, bring on ID cards, national databases and the whole shebang and then we can all live safe in the knowledge that every little aspect our humdrum lives is open to scrutiny and we can't get away with anything. Heaven forfend that, say, fiddling your expenses could cost you your job or something...oh, hang on...
Could it be that your insane quest to be able to pry into people's lives has backfired just ever so slightly? Oh yes, endless sympathy from this corner of pleb-dom [Sarcasm overload]
Mine's NOT the one with the P45 in the pocket (as I don't fiddle my expenses or take the piss by ripping off the people who elected me to work for them on their behalf - tsk, tsk, tsk)
And I imagine I won't be the only person to say this - but if you were married to something that like looks like a cross between a menstruating manitee and Willie Rushton, and that has all the charm, charisma and personality of a Microsoft EULA, wouldn't you be urning your hand (fnah fnah) to "One night in Paris" or "Backdoor Sluts9"?
Paris - obviously!
I read about this on the beeb this morning and it's hilarious. What was even worse though was that Westminster claimed that she was actually doing " a great job" as home secretary...I mean, if she can't even fill in her expenses correctly what hope do the rest of us have against her constant removal of civil liberties.
For a confirmed and documented control freak, that is a very bad state of affairs.
She will keep her job because "a woman scorned..." and all that. As per John Major's dictum "better to have her on the inside p**ng out..."
Anyway, how could she survive on an MPs salary? After the next election it may be either an opposition MPs salary or, indeed, the dole. Who else would employ her and what possible insight could she give to corporations or on the lecture circuit...
Sad, very sad...
Surely all this rant about porn is missing the serious absurdity that our leaders think it perfectly acceptable to get US to pay for their TV, internet, phone, etc, when for those of us who work from home cannot get away with even offsetting these for tax purposes!
Why the F**K should they get anything whatsoever for services that this same government considers essential requirements for everyone in the country?
Hey, el Reg, shame on you inflicting the mental image generated by that headline on folks just having had their breakfast ... I've just finished cleaning up the resulting upchuck! Or worse still, the other way round - JS as "Miss Whiplash". Oh god, I don't feel so well...
Erm, serious question - if JS is at the Home Office, don't they 'own' the Serious Fraud Office etc, in which case if she's being investigated for fiddling the expenses shouldn't she remove her self from a position to influence any investigation. (Yes, I know I'm being naive, but I'm looking for an excuse to get rid of her).
We can't even afford to buy our first house let alone spend £550 on a Habitat sink. How dare these so called trustworthy elected 'members' spend so much on luxuries when the good hard working taxed to death people of Britain are struggling to make ends meet.
They may be within the letter of the law but way outside the spirit.
John, I think you've missed the point - you said in passing that milf was included. C'mon man, it's obvious that this was what Whackoff was watching - she is supposed to be dealing with the terrorist threat. Milf is dangerous - ask any Filipino.
What? You mean Milf is... oh, right. Sorry.
Yes, the dirty raincoat please.
I don't quite understand why the hell she's claiming for a TV service at her "second home". Internet access I can possibly understand but the whole damned package? Some mistake surely?
Also how the fuck do you "accidentally" claim for watching any PTV sort of services, let alone porn, and how many other months has she claimed her TV package for?
I love this story. It is perfect in every way. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a hand-shandy over a drop of hardcore, and huge numbers of people do it every day. But the VM bill makes it very clear which bits are for broadband and which bits are for TV, so whoever did the expense claim was either stupid or trying it on.
Anyway, the thing is, VM's porn channels are shit, and the only possible reason for paying for one would be that you are too lazy to point and click on the internet. That's what I find shameful here - this man has opted for low-quality porn out of laziness, rather than putting the effort in and finding something decent on the net.
Oh, and an IT angle - Jacqui is on VM then? Have they confirmed their stance on Phorm yet? Will she get a special opt-out if they do?
The irony is almost too much to bear........, but I'll try.
Without doubt, the funniest thing to happen this year. The woman who hates anything even vaguely sexy, is hoist on her own petard. Clearly, her husband does not share her victorian attitudes.
Personally, I can't blame him. If given a choice between Victorian Jacqui and a porn movie and kleenex, I think I'd choose the latter as well....................
Although it's very funny to catch the cowbag and/or her husband with smutty TV habbits I think the bigger problem is that they feel it's ok to claim for ANY TV watching habbits.
Ooo I'm feeling a little poor this month, so I can't afford my Sky subscription... where exactly do I go to get it paid for by the rest of the UK taxpayers?
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.
The watching of adult films by Richard Timney is not the issue, though it does bring a bit of humour and ooh-arr to the story.
The real issue is that Wacky Jacqui personally signed off the expense claim and that she was paying for a TV subscription package. I don't think terrestrial TV signals in London are that bad that a cable TV service is required, so she shouldn't have been claiming any TV in the first place. She should have stuck to the basic internet package only.
For any MP to claim a TV subscription under expenses as part of their communications allowance (which is more likely to mean telephone bills) and for it to be used wholly and necessarily for their work they would need a subscription to the news channels, and even that is pushing it as their party should be doing all the work necessary to monitor the news channels for them.
Mines the dirty mac in the bushes! :-)
This is a trivial infringement of the rules, but probably quite easy to spot. Especially under the scrutiny that her expenses must be under. Could this just be another political ruse for the Whacky Jackoff to say "freedom of information is a good thing, so you should all hand over your information (and your freedom) ?
Anyone who has a job in which they need to claim expenses have the opportunity to fiddle them. Taxi drivers are only to happy to write out receipts for a larger amount, etc. In my experience most people don't cheat, they maybe 'adjust' their expenses to cover any other perceived losses- ie. low salary or other inconveniences but it seems Jacqui's been caught completely abusing the system and should definately resign/be sacked
The porn films are a distraction to be honest - yeah I know we all like a bit of a giggle and some inuendo, and it's great to see the holier-than-thou tossers exposed for the hypocrits they are. But the grumble flicks are just two of half-a-dozen movies *none of which* should have been the subject of an expense claim. One wonders what else is being claimed that we haven't heard about yet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
