A Tory frontbencher watched porn on his mobile phone in the House of Commons while sitting alongside a female minister

[user750]

twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1519264807798595584?s=20&t=rA-tD9ekpAfridYkkl8hdg

FFS I have no words. Speechless.

In almost any other job looking at your mobile phone in work time is not allowed. We are paying MPs to act on our behalf in Parliament, we are not paying them to look at their phones. Completely unprofessional (before you even start on the porn issue)

Just because something isn't illegal to view does not mean it is morally wrong to do so.

In my opinion if you think it's ok to openly view pornography in the chamber of the House of Commons you're morally corrupt and a broader investigation needs to take place.

Which is what I believe is happening after the front benchers viewing habits were witnessed and reported by two female MP's, one of whom is a minister.

• isn't morally wrong

its a really grim time for politics… not a shred of integrity

I just took a look at sexual offences law on line.
thing that struck me is that almost all things considered offences against other adults were actual physical acts of sexual assault or actual exposure
there is more safeguarding around involving children in broader categories but even then only where that the offender is in a position of trust. So for instance performing sexual act is only an offence in front of a child if they’re in a position of trust
the bill is only protects adults from acts of penetration or actual exposure of genitals for “someone to see them and to cause alarm or distress”:
it seems performing a sexual act in front of any child or adult without their consent is not considered worthy of concern let alone prosecution.
strikes me this is a very male focus on what people find such distressing and appalling behaviour it should not be acceptable in society and therefore a crime. It completely ignores that men who do this are often doing so to get an extra thrill of doing so in public where other people, especially women or children, will be “alarmed or distressed”
the law believes we would only get distressed if he actual shows us him wanking himself vs. what most women know that it doesn’t need to be that flaming obvious to be alarming or distress.

so I assume the only reason there’s a ministerial code against this is that there is an objection that said MPs are not actively doing their job whilst watching porn…not much difference than watching anything else or gambling or playing video games then.

Absolutely gross

so I assume the only reason there’s a ministerial code against this is that there is an objection that said MPs are not actively doing their job whilst watching porn…not much difference than watching anything else or gambling or playing video games then.

Pornography v Candy Crush

I wonder what the male to female ratio is for indulging in either activity in the House. 🤔

Name change for this…our company had its own monitoring systems for employees using words it considered to be inappropriate- you’d get a big red box come up on screen telling you that you were violating policies and you needed to stop or would be facing disciplinary action
it wasn’t just sexual words and terms. It covered gambling ( uk employees found it a bit annoying when it stopped the practice of them looking up national lottery results when it first was bought in…red boxes flashing up all over the place )…and even used to throw up warning for some legitimate words that may be strange to the USA colleagues that devised it.
We once had to search a data base for “game birds” ( eg pheasant). Perfectly legitimate search for task we were doing. the big red boxes went off - clearly our American friends used that term exclusively for describing women who were “ up for it”😱🤷🏼‍♀️. But I took a lot of simple pleasure in explaining to IT folks that the term Game Birds in uk only meant a food type and why on earth would that get a warning and making guy at other end explain what they were defining it as…I was deliberately very naïve and enjoyed his embarrassment greatly 🤣🤣🤣

Of course legal pornography is 'indecent images'.

Here, indecent means "not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters." In other words, illegal material.

See for example, this BBC article;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56404743

"People are being urged to spot signs that members of their families are viewing indecent images online."

Hint: they're not telling you to phone the police if you know someone who is looking at naked women.

What would people think about starting a petition to make viewing porn in a public space illegal? Would that achieve anything?

I'd sign it. It's vile.

And as for the assertion upthread that porn is 'harmless'. What a load of shit.

It's absolutely disgusting and definitely inappropriate conduct at work and misuse of 'company time'. It also shows a lack of engagement with actual issues.

*@greasyshoes
*
Here, indecent means "not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters." In other words, illegal material.

And? You believe viewing pornography in a public place is a generally accepted standard of behaviour? Really?

I think you'll find it's not and you're in a minority.

Children (many primary aged) on school trips are regularly in the gallery of the chamber of House of Commons observing debates and learning about British democracy.
Are you saying you think it's ok for children to be exposed to pornography via 3rd party?

The MP's phone would be visible from above, as has been confirmed by Jo Coburn BBC politics show presenter; he wasn't being discreet as two female MP's witnessed it and reported him.

It's akin to indirect sexual harassment, and that MP is a deviant.

Could be his way of intimidating the women around him, harassment in the work place

I was on a bus a few years ago, headphones on not paying attention to to anything when suddenly the woman behind me started talking in a very loud voice, calling the guy beside her a pervert.. A few more voices joined in from behind them. The bloke was on the bus at 8.00 in the morning watching porn. He made no attempt to leave, eventually sauntered off when he reached his stop. He had no shame in what he was doing, didn't care that he was been called all the names under the sun. I told the story when I got into the office and was greeted with stories from colleagues of both sex about similar experiences in public place. Seems that is acceptable in many men's minds to behave like this. And yet we are told that unfettered access to porn is not dangerous.

It's creepy and gross. What's wrong with men these days they can't even wait to get home and do it in privacy? They have to include everyone around them it their predilection and its so normalised that someone like @greasyshoes thinks its perfectly reasonable for someone to be watching porn at their work station next to their colleagues and the only issue is other people's reactions.

Appalling behaviour but I don't expect he will face any consequences. Probably will not even be named in order that his constituents will vote for him in the next general election

What's the betting on:
He will not be named
All evidence will have been wiped from his phone
The women will be told they were mistaken

And? You believe viewing pornography in a public place is a generally accepted standard of behaviour? Really?

The term is "indecent image." It's the image itself that's indecent, not the context.

They have to include everyone around them it their predilection and its so normalised that someone like @greasyshoes thinks its perfectly reasonable for someone to be watching porn at their work station next to their colleagues and the only issue is other people's reactions.

Literally no one said that. You are making things up.

Just how is this legal and not alarming or distressing behaviour?
I can remember many years ago when we were first issued with portable computers having to sign an amendment to our contract acknowledging that any use of company equipment for viewing or storing adult or pornographic images would result in immediate dismissal and gross misconduct.
At the time I naively thought it was overkill and heavy handedness, no one would dream of doing that...
Yet here we are.

I used to wonder at my mum's level of rage. She's battered a lot of sexually agressive men, in some startling ways (cast iron frying pan springs to mind). She was brutalised by men and could no longer cope with this sort of shit about her. Too traumatised.

Now I am older and have suffered men's sexual violence: friends, partners and strangers. I don't wonder at her rage anymore. I wonder how I'll stop myself snapping one day, as that same rage builds in me as I look at shit like this; perverted scum like this; read self satisfied antagonistic arsery like greasyshoes. I wonder if I'll try to axe 15 men at once like her, or if I'll just never come back from my next abuse related breakdown.

Name change for this…our company had its own monitoring systems for employees using words it considered to be inappropriate- you’d get a big red box come up on screen telling you that you were violating policies and you needed to stop or would be facing disciplinary action
it wasn’t just sexual words and terms. It covered gambling ( uk employees found it a bit annoying when it stopped the practice of them looking up national lottery results when it first was bought in…red boxes flashing up all over the place )…and even used to throw up warning for some legitimate words that may be strange to the USA colleagues that devised it
We once had to search a data base for “game birds” ( eg pheasant). Perfectly legitimate search for task we were doing. the big red boxes went off - clearly our American friends used that term exclusively for describing women who were “ up for it”😱🤷🏼‍♀️. But I took a lot of simple pleasure in explaining to IT folks that the term Game Birds in uk only meant a food type and why on earth would that get a warning and making guy at other end explain what they were defining it as…I was deliberately very naïve and enjoyed his embarrassment great

I wonder what FWR would make of a male employee who deliberately embarrassed a female colleagues by making her explain sexual terms?

Also, having lived in the US, your story doesn't add up because Americans don't use 'bird' to mean 'woman'. It's much more likely that the warning went off because they thought you were online gambling - which used to be illegal in many US states (still is in some). Americans use 'the game' when we would say 'the match'.

Absolutely disgusting, only a man would do this

I despair that we have such odious men making decisions that affect my family and my children’s futures. They wouldn’t be welcome in my reputable company, so why parliament?

To hear of this on top of everything else, is just so throughly depressing. What a state our political system is in.