Jacqui Smith's expense's claim

[FairMidden]

Here

Apparently her husband got "an ear-bashing"

I think the issue of expenses could have been dealt with privately and she should have been reprimanded and even dismissed.What I don't agre with is splashing the details of their sex life all over the papers.Many people like porn and use it within a loving relationship and it is a private matter.

Ruby's stars are an urban myth. Google them andvthey are quoted for pretty much every legislature in the world. I guess they were once true for one body but have bugger all to do with the current composition of the UK Parliament.

Ah but noddy, they are using our money to pay for that. I think we have a right to know what our money is being spent on.

Plus all corruption and dishonestly should be dealt with in the open - we need to know what kind of people are running our country.

Stats not stars - sorry.

Stats not stars - sorry.

I think they could have said she had used her expenses inappropriately and sacked her.Something so personal will follow her around forever and the truth behind why what when etc will never be known.

Well they could have been exposed as dishonest and that is enough to make them unsuitable for govt.Watching adult films is irrelevant

I'm sorry but the Labour party enjoyed lording it over the Tories whenever there was any sleaze and of course there was plenty of it.
To error is to be human and some of us are more human than others.

Sorry noddy, but I do think the general public has a right to know where our hard-earned money is being spent.

They should have thought of this bad publicity when they were charging the porn films to expenses shouldn't they? They know the risks involved. I have zero sympathy.

Also why is she just given the opportunity to just pay it back, If an employee of mine when I worked for DWP had done that, they would have been sacked for gross misconduct and the police probably brought in, they would have had the opportunity to pay it back but that wouldn't have got them off the hook.

I just think the way they are reporting it is demonising porn films.If they had charged 2 normal movies to tax payers expenses it would have been just as bad but doubt it would have recieved the same publicity.It is just that it will be horrible for her to be such a public figure and have people speculating on your sex life

btw porn is not my thing either and I have been quite vociferous in teh past about it and its relation to women in society blah blah but I do feel each to their own and feel for her

I don't think many people are that arsed about what type of films they were. Everyone has seen the odd adult film at some point. What people are talking about is the cheek of getting US to pay for it!

And yes, it is embarrassing for her and her dh, but if they weren't trying to rob the taxpayer in this time of recession, they wouldn't be in this situation would they?

It's not like they conciously charged the films to expenses. The Commons expenses system covered their Sky account, he ordered porn on Sky so by default it was charges to expenses. It's the system that deserves our vitriol.

Oh, so they can get Sky on expenses can they? How bloody convenient for them!

I agree to a point rhubarb but why did they have to specify teh type of film.Purely tabloid titillation

Exactly Rhubs, the system needs urgent reform.

Yes Noddy it is, but as far as I'm concerned, the more it directs the spotlight towards them the better. People need to get angry about what they are paying for!

noddyholder - very good points.

I dont care what it is he/she/kids/sister in house nearest to commons watched.

I do object to having to pay tax to fund their lifestyle.

She is on 140k, he is on 40k and they cant pay their own fucking television bill????

i still think us paying for sky would have been enough to raise most peoples shackles without the details.

Ah but Noddy, nothing makes people sit up and take notice more than a bloody good scandal! Just telling us that we pay for their Sky TV might have made a mention in the broadsheets on page 3, but this being porn makes sure that it's front page news for every newspaper - and once the titillation is over, everyone will know that we pay for their Sky TV.

But they almost all claim for Sky. It's allowed and they all do it. The story should be how all encompassing the rules are but the media personalize it. They have focused on JS but that is just because it fits their agenda. All MPs claim this, the only difference is JS's husband was dumb enough to order porn.

My bloke's only comment on this was that he was obviously an amateur as he was watching the tame, lame pay-per-view porn you get on TV, 'where you don't see anything' rather than sending out for the good stuff.

Aren't I lucky?

tbh, I am trying to work out why they are allowed to charge anything to expenses unless it is work related...surely that would be the only reason....well, in other jobs that tends to be....and there has to be evidece towards it, too, doesn't it....