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 😉