- Free pr0n!
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.Posted 9 years agotheotherjonvSubscriber
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.Posted 9 years agotheotherjonvSubscriber
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?Posted 9 years agoBigButSlimmerBlokeMember
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 expensePosted 9 years agobuzz-lightyearMember
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!Posted 9 years agoBigButSlimmerBlokeMember
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 troughPosted 9 years ago
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 😉Posted 9 years ago
oh, thats OK then, as long as she isn’t taking the piss.
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!Posted 9 years agoCaptainFlashheartMember
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 snigger at them ever again. Not even behind their backs. It would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Marvellous!Posted 9 years ago
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.Posted 9 years ago
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 never 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!Posted 9 years agothepuristSubscriber
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 Raw Meat 3* – if he gets off on this then good luck to the guy.
* mods – check it before you ban me!Posted 9 years agoeth3erMember
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”.
talk about bad journalism.Posted 9 years ago
The topic ‘Free pr0n!’ is closed to new replies.