[Closed] Free pr0n!

heh heh

[i]Ms Smith was not home when the films were viewed, sources told the BBC. She lives with her husband, Richard Timney. [/i]

😆

Busted!

OMG she claimed for something some one else used?

Would that be the ultimate in danger ****s?

Either way it is a serious: Secret Tug FAIL.

It did make me smile - how embarrassing 😀

But it does beg the question, are MPs not allowed any privacy at all ? How the **** was the Sunday Express able to get such detailed information about exactly what was watched, what day, what location, etc. 😯

And I'm sure that if the press/media had unrestricted access to information concerning the expenses and allowances of mere mortals, they would come up with some real little beauties 😉

Well it's these politicians who keep telling us if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from their intrusions and decimation of anything approaching privacy 😀

They are spinning it as a "cock up" and I quote from Sky news right now.

They are spinning it as a "cock up"

Well if there are several hundred MPs who are all able to claim parliamentary allowances for things such as internet connections, then I guess occasionally mistakes will be made.

And undoubtedly if there are legions of journalists from scandal reporting sunday newspapers with nothing to report on their front-pages, pawing through the minute details of their expenses, mistakes will eventually be picked up.

Of course all the countless times when MPs mistakenly didn't claim for things which they were entitled to claim for, has no chance of being reported.

I like the story - but only because of the porn angle, not bothered about the "cock up" though 😯

live by the (privacy raping) sword die by the (pork) sword 😆

One thing I'm not clear about is how MP's can claim for the internet connection at home anyway. Ok in the office, but are they saying 100% use at home is for work? What about 'normal' home internet use? Are they getting that free?

It's crazy, isn't it. Sooner or later they'll be trying to claim for second homes in which their family lives. Oh, hang on.
There'll be lots more of these stories in the months to come as there's a growing public disgust with the gravy train and there's clearly a leak in the expenses department.

she was only spouting 'good honest citizens' speel at my work colleagues scout troop the other week,hippocrit!

well there'll be no comments now about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing! 😯

The only way MPs can really dig themselves out of the hole they are effectively digging for themselves is going to be scrap expenses. Until they do this kind of thing will happen again and again.

Saw a bit on Question Time, some Labour MP stating he needed a second home to make sure he got to work on time and to avoid commuting.... Not as though he had that far to go!

But it does beg the question, are MPs not allowed any privacy at all ?

Not when they are spending my money they can't, I want to know what they are doing with it.

I don't think Wacki Jacqui deserves a shred of privacy, she doesn't seem to think any of the paroles deserve it!

The irony is that this bunch of self righteous b@stards would ban porn if they had their way. Perhaps he's not been whipped into the party line on this one.

Got to laugh really

paroles

villains, that's why 🙂

I assume you mean "proles" 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

Oh you're such a lag

Saw a bit on Question Time, some Labour MP stating he needed a second home to make sure he got to work on time and to avoid commuting.... Not as though he had that far to go!

That was Eric Pickles the [b]Conservative[/b] party chairman. Has a second home in London, 37 miles from his first house as he is very important and doesn't think he should have to travel every day with the hoi polloi.

I know they've all got to put on a professional gloss on it now and do the whole PR exercise to show they are taking it so seriously, blah, blah, blah...but I'd love it and have a bit more respect if she came out, half joked about it and said something along the lines that he is so busted, has been an embarrassing **** and that he is going to get a right kick up the arse when she gets home.

Looking at the picture of her on the BBC I can see why he likes to go it alone..

So none of you have done something silly or something you're not proud of?

Zaskar - absolutely but I am not aware of either telling others how to live their lives while doing the opposite, nor getting taxpayers to pay for my tawdry sad drunken karaoke nights for example

But it does beg the question, are MPs not allowed any privacy at all ? How the **** was the Sunday Express able to get such detailed information about exactly what was watched, what day, what location, etc.

Good question. This info could only have been released by someone working for Virgin Media, and someone with access to confidential files on individual customers.

Just shows how 'confidential' your viewing habits actually are. IE, they're not, at all.

What you chose to view, in the privacy of your own home, should remain private. FFS, I'm sure there are some dirty sods on here, what look at far worse than 'Ocean's 13', or 'Surf's Up'. So, they're 18-rated films; where's the crime here, pray tell? I watch shit loads of 18 rated fillums. And one or two, that are apparently 'outside classification'. So ****ing what? My choice. 'Democracy', innit?

If she's abused the system, fair play; but I fail to see how revealing the titles of what films she or her husbind watch, have any relvance, unless they are illegal.

I guarantee that most of the journalists wetting their pants over this, probbly watch far worse. Like 'Motorway Services Goat and Pheasant Lovers' or whatever. Dirty bastards.

Did you know; every filthy, dirty, smutty, pervy little site you look at, is recorded by your IP.

And this information, as we can clearly see, can be passed on to anyone who pays enough for the info.

Forget Jaqui Smith; you wanna be worried about the dodgy 'schoolgirl doggy style' vids that you lot look at.....

Yes, you. You mucky little bastards...

Rudeboy

I think you make some useful points. It is probably unlikely that Ms Smith will be found to have broken the law, and will simply be found to have "made a mistake". And in fact, maybe she hasn't broken the law.

But the usefulness of the story will be in the fact that this shows just how much MPs are allowed to claim for, and given how this is an embarrasing situation, as opposed to maybe an illegal one, then more and more people will be less inclined to vote for her at the next election.

Also, don't forget that her husband is being paid £40,000 a year as her assistant, so you would think that he would know the rules of what can and cannot be claimed for.

No, but what about her right to privacy? As everyone else?

How the pickled onion, has anyone got hold of what films were watched, via PPV?

If she's a {swear filter avoidance - WARNING!), fair enough. But if her husbind has watched Oceans 13, it's not exactly a hanging offence.

I used to sneak into the ABC in Stepney, when I was a yute dat. Hardly a heinous crime.

If she's claimed it on spenses, then it's a minor matter that should be addressed by the appropriate authorities; not splashed all over the slavering media.

Let's have some stories like 'Meeja bullshitter has £5K a week Coke habit', or 'Meeja whore actually does disgusting things with lizards, and looks at ics of kiddies'. Thattud sell papers, I'm sure.

[i]No, but what about her right to privacy? As everyone else?[/i]

I do agree that she has a right to privacy and this appears to have been breached but that angle is not going to sell papers: that would seem to me to be fairly obvious to most I'd assume. Its the public appetite for stories of schadenfreude. What point are you arguing here?

[i]Did you know; every filthy, dirty, smutty, pervy little site you look at, is recorded by your IP. you wanna be worried about the dodgy 'schoolgirl doggy style' vids that you lot look at.....[/i]

Why? Even if somebody did watch them, who cares as long as there not charged to somebody's employer and illegal.

[i]If she's a ****, fair enough. [/i]

Eh?

Why? Even if somebody did watch them, who cares as long as there not charged to somebody's employer and illegal.

Ha ha! So, nobody on here, at least, does this?????????????

Youse're all dirty, mucky buggers. And you look at all sorts of filth. Thus, You're not fit to comment on anyone else.

I know this, because your IP's have told me this.

Meanwhile, in other news, loads of arms deals have been signed......

[i]Ha ha! So, nobody on here, at least, does this?????????????

Youse're all dirty, mucky buggers. And you look at all sorts of filth.[/i]

Not saying they don't but, as I said, if ain't illegal, whos going to give a shit?

[i]Thus, You're not fit to comment on anyone else.[/i]

...and you are?

[i]I know this, because your IP's have told me this.[/i]

Yeah? Bolloxs 🙂

It's true. And you are going to jail.

I was in the offices of a PPV company the other day and there were forms with peoples details laying around on the desks 🙂

[i]It's true. And you are going to jail. [/i]

Usual commute to here tomorrow morning then?

[img] [/img]

Got to wade through all the CCTV from the G20 march first? 😉

Regardless of what her w4nker husband did, and what she claimed for, i don't think abyone deserves this in the morning..

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7971221.stm ]Play the first video[/url]

But where's the 'porn' bit? Last I looked, Oceans 13 and Surf's Up were hardly video nasties. This 'adult film' bit implies they were of a more nudie nature. Bad journalism, imo.

Challenge her on her politics. But this is just pathetic.

I like stories like this. Papers try and drum up scandal to sell copies (when things really aren't that scandalous) but perhaps (judging by most people's reaction) they've gone too far and revealed that MPs are just human beings after all, and the papers are a bunch of rabid fiends. Then perhaps we can all (as a nation) grow a bit more common sense?

[i]"Meeja whore actually does disgusting things with lizards"[/i]

Pleeeease Lord, let it be so. 🙂

Just for Fred:-

"The £67 Virgin Media bill was submitted last June as part of Ms Smith's expenses.
[b]It included two 18-rated features, each costing £5, which were viewed on April 1 and April 6 last year.[/b]

The bill [b]also included two viewings of the film Ocean's 13[/b] - at £3.75 each - and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf's Up."

Forgive me, but an 18-rated "adult film" is, if I remember correctly, one in which no up-standing dinkles or prominent flanges are on disply at any point other than for purely artistic reasons, although there may be jiggling and lots of faked moaning. Any serious filth is neither 18-rated nor available on the telly is it?

I am not 100% sure of my facts, but I believe the only film to have been given an 18-certificate by the BBFC despite having a shot (filmed from about 200 yards away) of a gentleman actually emitting a spatter of enthusiasm-syrup is the astonishingly pointless boundary-pushing bore-fest Nine Songs. Which is "art" rather than "adult". 😯

I shall be writing to my MP and asking for part of my tax to be refunded as it was spent incorrectly.

The problem is 4-fold

1/ The issue of MP expenses is currently under scrutiny over 2nd home allowances, etc. Jacqui Smith herself has recently been rushing around to prove she is clean since she claims her London address is her home, and her real home address is her 2nd home based upon nights spent at each.
2/ Jacqui Smith is quite fond of telling us all how to behave, in matters both personal and sexual
3/ In another couple of days, under freedom of information all these expenses / receipts are no longer private, we'll all be able to see them
4/ It doesn't necessarily follow that someone at Virgin Media has leaked it. It may be that she claimed an internet subscription as part of her allowable expenses, submitted a receipt to support it and that receipt didn't have the film subs removed from it. So it could be 'anyone' that leaked it - like a junior in the HO supplementing their income by a quick photocopy and phone call to the newspaper. Possibly.

In the end it's no biggy, even if they were porn, the films aren't illegal but the claiming on expenses is officially. But one suspects that once the system opens up to scrutiny, there'll be plenty of newspaper juniors wading through pages of mindnumbing receipts hoping to find the receipt for subscriptions to gentleman's art pamphlets.

Surf's Up is rated PG.
Ocean's Thirteen is rated PG-13.

Hardly adult movies.

The use of the terminology "Adult movie" is a deliberate attempt to mislead and have people believe that this is porn in order to "sex up" the non-story. Pretty deplorable reporting.

Sad state of affairs.

erm - read the esteemed Andywhit's clarification of the films watched.

There are 5 films in the claimed of which two are artistic, one I've never heard of and the other one (Ocean's 13) - watched twice - is a crime in itself.

LOL at BD's official description of the 18 classification.

>The use of the terminology "Adult movie" is a deliberate attempt to mislead and have people believe that this is porn in order to "sex up" the non-story. Pretty deplorable reporting.

Read my post about 15 mins ago.

Edit: The equally esteemed MrV beat me to it 😉

so what were the adult movies in question??

someone told me it was big boobs 3 but i dont necessarily believe that,
its probably PMs Pumping Time, or Lash of the Party Whip

what worries me is that someone would wanna watch oceans 13 twice, or even once!

Ok so; it seems that fims other than the two mentioned were viewed. But we don't know the nature of their content. And as BigDummy has pointed out, it's unlikely Virgin(!) Media would have hard-core monkey and chicken action on PPV.

Plenty of films are 18-rated. Some bloody good ones, too. does not in any way mean that someone who views an 'adult film' is necessarily looking at something unsavoury.

The real story is; MP's husbind claims for a internet bill, which is a bit naughty, at worst.

Oh, and Nine Songs is shite. Might as well have just called it a 'porn movie with some music in it', 'cos that's all it is. Art? Arse, more like...

As a Virgin Media subscriber, I can say it will have been in no doubt on the bill whether the films were adult-18 or Adult-arty. Before the internet I sometimes had to make use of the thick black marker before handing the bill to MrsV for scrutiny.

And you're right, they would have been very disappointing, probably.

PS: the internet allowance is fine actually, if it allows her to collect email and conduct official business while in her second residence. All he needed to do was get the marker pen out before submitting the bill and take the films off, whereas it's been overlooked and claimed.

Like I said earlier - big wow apart from the person, timing and nature of the mistake makes it newsworthy.

What day is Home Secretary's questions in the commons?

seriously i wanna know what these titles were??

im off to virgin media website see if i can find whats on offer

But it does beg the question, are MPs not allowed any privacy at all ? How the **** was the Sunday Express able to get such detailed information about exactly what was watched, what day, what location, etc.

no, it doesn't. claimed as expenses from a public body, so receipts must be shown and those receipts go straight into the public domain. I have my expenses queried on a regular basis and have no problem with it. then again, i don't expect the taxpayer to pay for my amusement. neither does the taxpayer pay for my main place of residence because i'm claiming to live somewhere else.

nice to see gordon sticking by her. apparently, she's doing a "great job". does anyone know when the nu labour dictionary gets released? the one where "not rewarding failure" translates into £750k pension for one of the biggest fkups in uk corporate history, "doing everything possible" equates to doing absolutely heehaw about it, and "doing a great job" means watching pron at the taxpayers expense

My mate is a councillor and is provided with a separate pre-paid internet connection for his council work to avoid this sort of expenses nonsense. It's possible that "hubby" got confused about what connection was being used to download the films.

As long as he pays us the money back, I don't care. He and his wife can watch as much pr0n in their free time as they like.

I'm more concern about the loss of civil liberties!

Kimbers

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5072701/Jacqui-Smith-under-pressure-over-husbands-adult-film-expense-claims.html ]This[/url] seems to suggest that the 2 'other' titles were "Raw Meat 3" and "By Special Request". Google at your peril!

As long as he pays us the money back,

i think the issue here might be that, had they not been caught they wouldn't be paying anything back. ok, mistake, it happens. but then, she claims that the "main home" is a single room rented from her sister and the "main home" is the nice house she lives in with her husband to whom she pays around £40k a year - add these together and you have a picture of someone whose snout is fairly deeply ensconsed in the trough

after some slightly dodgy googling it seems that Raw Meat 3 is part of the popular men only series of films

i wonder if he has seen them all it seems that they go up to at least volume 10

has he just been forced out of the closet to his wife or is ms smith aware that her husband plays for both teams

she seems the sort that would own a strap-on 😉

oh and she only pays him 20k a year apparently

oh, thats OK then, as long as she isn't taking the piss.

I heard a certain MP is a fan of the 'An@l Black Hammer' series of films, with 'An@l Black Hammer 5' being her favourite. It must be true as Big John down The Winchester told me.

[i]oh, thats OK then, as long as she isn't taking the piss.[/i]

trouble is these are the rules
MEPs for all their bloated expenses arent allowed to employ family members and i think it should be the same here

whats really annoying is that NO PARTY is planning to overhaul the rules on this

what a bunch of scumbags the lot of em!

[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/30/jacqui_smiths_husband_was_definitely_not_watching_gay_porn ]Having trawled extensively through the internet's adult sites - as you do on a quiet Monday - I am unable to find any information about the precise contents of By Special Request. I did find a film called Raw Meat 3, though. But oddly it appears to be aimed mainly at viewers with an interest in handsome young men.

Starring the well-greased bodies of "Duncan", "Valentino" and the gloriously named "Tigers Wood", Raw Meat 3 wittily tags itself "It's the end of the world - and we blow it!".

Clearly it would be quite inconceivable to imagine that a man married to a woman as attractive and intelligent as Jacqui Smith could be driven to watching homo-erotic pornography.

I think we can therefore safely assume one of two things:

Either: 1 The Smith/Timney household was entered on the night in question by a very cheeky gay burglar, who sneakily sat watching Raw Meat 3 while poor Mr Timney was fast asleep.

Or 2. Mr Timney is a closet gastronome who downloaded Raw Meat 3 on the perfectly understandable assumption that it contained exciting new variants on the recipe for Steak Tartare.

Whichever of these is true, I would like to think as that as a nation we are now able to exonerate poor Mr and Mrs Timney of all charges, and never s**** at them ever again. Not even behind their backs. It would be wrong, wrong, wrong.

[/url]

Marvellous!

This seems to suggest that the 2 'other' titles were "Raw Meat 3" and "By Special Request". Google at your peril!

No it does not in any way. Those are merely 2 titles in VM's PPV collection.

Was he actually watching anything 'pornographic'? Has this actually been proven? Or is it simply more wild media speculation?

And anyway, would watching any skin-flick be less acceptable than watching 9 Songs? Same sort of content, after all.

something like 'Emmanuelle' is an 'adult' film. Hardly owt to complain to the RSPCA or NSPCC about though.

he was watching something pornographic as these cost 5 quid as opposed to regular movies at 3-75
as to the exact titles there appears to be no proof whatsoever but since the telegraph 'reported' it as such its now all over the web
the salacious nature of the story makes it a great laugh
but its a bit of a sad indictment of our society when we are so amused that someone married to an mp might need to have a w@nk now and again that we all, myself included, start gafawwing and chuckling away and posting on bulletin boards

i mean own up whos [u]never[/u] watched porn on the web, video cable, top shelf magazines etc??
we are all a bunch of hippocrites

i may not order porn on the taxpayer but im using my work bandwidth to post on here!

No it does not in any way. Those are merely 2 titles in VM's PPV collection.

RudeBoy - I agree, that's why I said 'seems to suggest..' - my guess is that the Telgraph journo scanned the schedules to try to find some suitably salacious titles that they could pin on him but had to make do with those two. I bet the Torygraph's internet filters wouldn't let them do any more advanced research into those titles so they had to publish & be damned.

Anyhow, for the benefit of STW I've googled and found the video of [url=

Meat 3[/url]* - if he gets off on this then good luck to the guy.

* mods - check it before you ban me!

[i]The films were viewed at 11.18pm on April 1 and 11.19pm on April 6, while Miss Smith was staying in London. On the evenings in question, Television X, one of nine adult channels available under the terms of their Virgin Media cable television contract, was screening features called "Raw Meat 3" and "By Special Request". [/i]

talk about bad journalism.