Jacqui Smith's porn

[blindboyard]

We all know Jacqui Smith paid for porn with tax-payer money, and that it was supposedly for her husband.

What I'm wondering is, was there any particular reason to believe it to be his porn, or was that just something she put about to get herself out of trouble, like with David Mills?

What I'm asking is, was it conclusively proven that she was just a thief or was she also a sex fiend?

[Skald the Rhymer]

We all know Jacqui Smith paid for porn with tax-payer money, and that it was supposedly for her husband.

What I'm wondering is, was there any particular reason to believe it to be his porn, or was that just something she put about to get herself out of trouble, like with David Mills?

What I'm asking is, was it conclusively proven that she was just a thief or was she also a sex fiend?

I don't think we all know that. In fact I'd wager all the money in my savings against versus all the pennies in your charge jar that I was not the only person who had to google Jacqui Smith to discover that you're talking about a two-year-old scandal involving a British MP.

[SciFiSam]

How would saying that it was her husband's porn get her out of trouble? It doesn't matter who the porn (a pay-per-view porn TV channel) was bought for - the problem was that she claimed it on expenses.

I don't think most of the British public would think that watching porn makes you a 'sex fiend.'

[Acsenray]

Isn't this characterization a little overboard? My understanding was that she submitted some kind of bills (phone/internet/video service?) for reimbursement and the bills included, among legitimate reimbursement claims, four pay-per-view movies, two of which were pornographic. She said that this was a mistake and she would repay the amounts for the portions she shouldn't have been reimbursed for.

Regardless of whether this was just a mistake or thought that she could slide through some non-reimbursable items that were hidden among legitimately reimbursable item, how does two pay-per-view pornographic movies purchased by a healthy adult amount to any kind of case that she might be a "sex fiend"?

[zoid]

I don't think we all know that. In fact I'd wager all the money in my savings against versus all the pennies in your charge jar that I was not the only person who had to google Jacqui Smith to discover that you're talking about a two-year-old scandal involving a British MP.

First I heard - who's Jacqui Smith now?
Off to google...

[BigT]

The only way I can make sense of out of the OP is if she was claiming she didn't notice because her husband bought the videos, thus trying to make herself seem less morally responsible for putting personal pleasure on a compensation form.

I don't know why that type of thing would even be necessary, though. She's not in any sort of moral conservative party, is she?

[blindboyard]

Well, no party takes a stand for moral deviance. However, the scandal was about her paying for her husband's porn on expenses, rather than that he watched porn or she watched porn. I believe it was meant to have taken place in a shared hotel room, so I just wondered if it was proven to be his, or just assumed on the wrongful assumption that frumpy old women don't want hardcore German anal, while bald old men do.

Jacqui Smith was the Home Secretary under the former UK Government.

[aldiboronti]

Porn, if you could really call it that, was always a side issue here (although of course happily seized on by the gutter press). No, her fall from grace was occasioned by the same thing that nobbled several MPs, and sent some of them to prison - the fiddling of expenses.

[Acsenray]

I believe it was meant to have taken place in a shared hotel room

According to this BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7970492.stm):

Jacqui Smith said she "mistakenly" claimed for the TV package while billing for an internet connection.

The Sunday Express claims the £67 Virgin Media bill included two 18-rated features viewed last April.

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

So, it was not a hotel bill, and it was not merely a bill for pay-per-view movies.

She submitted her home internet bill for reimbursement, which, apparently was reimbursable to the extent that it was used for official purposes. She went ahead and claimed the entire bill as an expense, even the portions of it that constituted her family's private use. Those items included four pay-per-view movies, two of which were "18-rated." (I don't even know whether "18-rated" necessarily means pornographic.)

If it had happened as an isolated event, I don't think that it would have been notable at all. Sixty-seven pounds? Four pay-per-view movies incorrectly claimed as expenses? She'd have paid back the reimbursement and that would have been the end of it. The only reason it was notable is because it happened along with her other, much more substantial ineligible expenses claims, and those of several other members of parliament.

[Darth Panda]

No, her fall from grace was occasioned by the same thing that nobbled several MPs, and sent some of them to prison - the fiddling of expenses.

I think you mean the expensing of fiddling...

[blindboyard]

Porn, if you could really call it that, was always a side issue here (although of course happily seized on by the gutter press). No, her fall from grace was occasioned by the same thing that nobbled several MPs, and sent some of them to prison - the fiddling of expenses.

Well, what nobbled her wasn't the expenses thing, that didn't cost her her job, it was losing the general election. Fiddling expenses was so widespread in an environment where no receipts or anything were needed, where you could just walk up the correct office in Parliament and say "I've got a little man who cleans my woods for £15,000 a year" and collect a big wedge of cash to pay for it, that they'd mostly be unemployed and a significant number in prison now if justice had been done.

But I'm more interested in tabloid aspects.

[Francis Vaughan]

That she was on the public record against porn viewing probably didn't help. That and the problem that the porn bill was part of £116,000 of expenses of quite dubious validity.

[Gyrate]

Yeah, the porn was a non-issue, despite the "hur hur" reporting in the media. The blatant attempts to claim vast and unwarranted sums to money for expenses with only the most tenuous links to official work were much more concerning.

[Rayne Man]

And the movies were viewed on a channel owned by Richard Desmond - owner of the Sunday Express (see post #9).

[Cayuga]

Damn. I clicked into this thread thinking it was about the former Charlie's Angel.

Oh, well.

[JKilez]

Wait, there are no naked Angels coming? Talk about bait and switch.

[Cugel]

If you are not American, threads concerning mystifying people and concepts are commonplace, so welcome to the club.

[Boyo Jim]

Ooh, Charlie's Angels porn!

Uh, I'll be in my bunk.

[isaiahrobinson]

No one mentioned this at the time, but I always thought it was probably her son. She has a teenage son, who was 15 at the time, and we all know what those little deviants tend to get up to. That would explain why they submitted the pornographic films on expenses - they didn't realize they were there. If Smith or her husband had been watching porn themselves you'd think they'd be more careful about submitting the expenses claims ("oh shit, don't submit the TV bill! I have a confession...") And if you were in their shoes - a married couple who found out, via the newspapers, that your son has been watching PPV porn films - what would your story be? Obviously the husband would take the flack. No point damaging the politician's reputation needlessly and you're not going to let the newspapers report that it was your son and have his friends read about it.

On the other hand I suppose it is possible that the husband watched the porn films and then Smith submitted an expenses claim for the BT internet line, and he didn't click they were same thing. But I have a maxim - when there's porn and a 15 year old boy involved, the chances they're not connected are negligible. :)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

No one mentioned this at the time, but I always thought it was probably her son. She has a teenage son, who was 15 at the time, and we all know what those little deviants tend to get up to. That would explain why they submitted the pornographic films on expenses - they didn't realize they were there. If Smith or her husband had been watching porn themselves you'd think they'd be more careful about submitting the expenses claims ("oh shit, don't submit the TV bill! I have a confession...") And if you were in their shoes - a married couple who found out, via the newspapers, that your son has been watching PPV porn films - what would your story be? Obviously the husband would take the flack. No point damaging the politician's reputation needlessly and you're not going to let the newspapers report that it was your son and have his friends read about it.

On the other hand I suppose it is possible that the husband watched the porn films and then Smith submitted an expenses claim for the BT internet line, and he didn't click they were same thing. But I have a maxim - when there's porn and a 15 year old boy involved, the chances they're not connected are negligible. :)Now this sounds like a much more likely scenario.

We had a local legislator here that got in trouble for unpaid parking tickets, which went unpaid, and notices ignored, until his drivers license was suspended. And that was used against him in the election campaign (rather unsuccessfully; people said "unpaid parking tickets? that's the worst his opponent could dig up about him? He must be pretty clean!").

But locally, many people knew that those tickets were from his teenage sons, who had just recently obtained their driving licenses. Who threw away the tickets, and (being home from school before their parents) intercepted the mailed notices about these unpaid tickets. Not exactly a real long-term strategy, but then teen age boys aren't known for long-term planning.

He could have easily responded to this campaign attack, and blamed the problem on his sons. But he didn't. Many of us admired him for this. Showing more real concern for his family than his 'family values' opponent.

[SciFiSam]

No one mentioned this at the time, but I always thought it was probably her son. She has a teenage son, who was 15 at the time, and we all know what those little deviants tend to get up to. That would explain why they submitted the pornographic films on expenses - they didn't realize they were there. If Smith or her husband had been watching porn themselves you'd think they'd be more careful about submitting the expenses claims ("oh shit, don't submit the TV bill! I have a confession...") And if you were in their shoes - a married couple who found out, via the newspapers, that your son has been watching PPV porn films - what would your story be? Obviously the husband would take the flack. No point damaging the politician's reputation needlessly and you're not going to let the newspapers report that it was your son and have his friends read about it.

On the other hand I suppose it is possible that the husband watched the porn films and then Smith submitted an expenses claim for the BT internet line, and he didn't click they were same thing. But I have a maxim - when there's porn and a 15 year old boy involved, the chances they're not connected are negligible. :)

It could have been the son, but if it had, then why would the husband take the flack? Like you say, porn and teenage boys is not exactly an unusual combination - who'd be more shocked by a teenage boy watching porn than by the husband?

[sitchensis]

What kind of a parent sells their kid out to national embarrassment. He would still have to go to school, get teased by his friends, made fun of by his enemies. How about girlfriends, does he have one? Does he have a crush on a girl? What does he do when he meets her parents? His teachers giving him a smirk when he talks to them, his friends parents.

Kids have committed suicide over less

[SciFiSam]

What kind of a parent sells their kid out to national embarrassment. He would still have to go to school, get teased by his friends, made fun of by his enemies. How about girlfriends, does he have one? Does he have a crush on a girl? What does he do when he meets her parents? His teachers giving him a smirk when he talks to them, his friends parents.

Kids have committed suicide over less

Nobody at school would tease a 15-year-old boy for watching porn. Well, certainly not in the UK - I guess it's possible people are more puritan where you live.

[Boyo Jim]

Whether the kid did it or not, it would be interpreted as throwing the kid to the wolves to protect the parents. The press would hound the kid. He would be subject to interrogation bu who knows how many investigative bodies who could smell blood in the water and somehow wangle a subpena out of a judge.

I don't even like kids, and I wouldn't subject one to that if I could avoid it.

BTW, was there any testimony about this taken under oath in a court? While I wouldn't perjure myself, I would lie to the press or pretty much anybody else about it.

[Gyrate]

The narrative would also become about what a "bad mother" Smith is, despite how ridiculous the assertion is (because, as has been rightly noted, pretty much all 15-year-old boys watch porn and lie about it to their parents).

[SciFiSam]

Whether the kid did it or not, it would be interpreted as throwing the kid to the wolves to protect the parents. The press would hound the kid. He would be subject to interrogation bu who knows how many investigative bodies who could smell blood in the water and somehow wangle a subpena out of a judge.

I don't even like kids, and I wouldn't subject one to that if I could avoid it.

BTW, was there any testimony about this taken under oath in a court? While I wouldn't perjure myself, I would lie to the press or pretty much anybody else about it.

Who would interrogate him? :confused:

You guys must have a really different view on porn - I'm sure the press would be a bit interested, but not that much, because 'teenage boy watches porn' is not news.

The narrative would also become about what a "bad mother" Smith is, despite how ridiculous the assertion is (because, as has been rightly noted, pretty much all 15-year-old boys watch porn and lie about it to their parents).

There would be debate about that part in the Daily Mail, yeah. But then there was also debate about whether she was a capable wife.

[Boyo Jim]

Who would interrogate him? :confused:

You guys must have a really different view on porn - I'm sure the press would be a bit interested, but not that much, because 'teenage boy watches porn' is not news.



There would be debate about that part in the Daily Mail, yeah. But then there was also debate about whether she was a capable wife.

It's not about porn per se, though that might be the hook to draw in the scandal mongers Could it be about a government official committing fraud? Or doing something juicy or scandalous? I have no idea who would interrogate him -- a committee of legislators, a prosecutor, any politician who could imagine juicy headlines and decide to get a piece of them.

I freely admit I could be wrong, and I don't know the details underlying this incident. But when you put politicians, sex, porn and government money together in any way, you can bet pretty reliably that some attention whore will come along and ask all kinds of suggestive questions, even if they don't lead to anything substantive.

Maybe British government doesn't work that way. The American one does pretty damn frequently. And even if the government doesn't involve itself, there's the press, which would follow the kid around until the next big scandal popped up on the radar.

[SciFiSam]

It's not about porn per se, though that might be the hook to draw in the scandal mongers Could it be about a government official committing fraud? Or doing something juicy or scandalous? I have no idea who would interrogate him -- a committee of legislators, a prosecutor, any politician who could imagine juicy headlines and decide to get a piece of them.

I freely admit I could be wrong, and I don't know the details underlying this incident. But when you put politicians, sex, porn and government money together in any way, you can bet pretty reliably that some attention whore will come along and ask all kinds of suggestive questions, even if they don't lead to anything substantive.

Maybe British government doesn't work that way. The American one does pretty damn frequently. And even if the government doesn't involve itself, there's the press, which would follow the kid around until the next big scandal popped up on the radar.

It was expenses fraud, yes - that's been pointed out a few times in this thread. But legally speaking it made no difference at all who viewed the porn - it was that Jacqui Smith claimed for it among numerous other items. There would never have been any need for any official interrogation of the boy.

It was highlighted a bit because it was funny, what with her seeming a bit stuck up, but it didn't get nearly as much press as the deputy prime minister's toilet seats or that MP's duck island (yes, really - he built an island for his ducks and asked the taxpayer to pay for it).

If it had been her son viewing the porn, it would have got even less press, because 'teenage boy views porn' isn't funny.

[Boyo Jim]

You are not listening. Someone could concoct an excuse to interrogate the boy. Someone would suggest perjury by a parent if one of them blamed it on the child. Just the idea that a child would have access to porn and somehow get it charged to the government would be enough. Are the parents fit to be raising a child at all? How long is the child left alone?

So what if none of it has any real validity? It's all about sensation and headlines, not about substance. This is not to say it would happen, but it could, and I wouldn't my kid to the risk that it would.

Again, my perception might be colored by viewing how the American government sticks its nose into private family matters because sleazeballs want headlines. I am reminded of the Terri Schiavo case, where the husband wanted to cease treatment of his brain-dead wife, her religious family didn't, and Congress got involved to the point of passing some bullshit legislation about it. The facts aren't similar, but this is the kind of attention whoring I'm thinking of.

[SciFiSam]

You are not listening. Someone could concoct an excuse to interrogate the boy. Someone would suggest perjury by a parent if one of them blamed it on the child. Just the idea that a child would have access to porn and somehow get it charged to the government would be enough. Are the parents fit to be raising a child at all? How long is the child left alone?

So what if none of it has any real validity? It's all about sensation and headlines, not about substance. This is not to say it would happen, but it could, and I wouldn't my kid to the risk that it would.

Again, my perception might be colored by viewing how the American government sticks its nose into private family matters because sleazeballs want headlines. I am reminded of the Terri Schiavo case, where the husband wanted to cease treatment of his brain-dead wife, her religious family didn't, and Congress got involved to the point of passing some bullshit legislation about it. The facts aren't similar, but this is the kind of attention whoring I'm thinking of.

And you're not listening (well, reading) either - that wouldn't happen. I'm sceptical if it would even happen in the most conservative parts of the US either, but it definitely wouldn't here.

Something similar to the Terry Schiavo case has happened here too, though religion wasn't involved; that's because choosing whether ot not to keep someone 'alive' is a genuinely huge moral issue, not because the govt likes to stick its nose in.

[MarcusF]

SciFiSam is right, the story was about the MPs' expenses including the £157k Jacqui Smith claimed. The £10 for the to PPV "adult" films was just a minor opportunity to mock an annoyingly self-rightous politician. There was no individual or branch of the government with any interest in or right to interogating her children.

The idea that it was her son watching the films was suggested at the time but nobody bothered to follow it up. Incidently, from the sources on the internet, it is not clear exactly how old they were at the time: 13 & 10, 15 & 10, 15 & 8. Different papers give different ages. One point against it being the older son would be why on earth would he be ordering porn on TV when it will appear on the bill at the end of the month for his parents to see when access to porn on the internet is so easy. In fact, according to a piece on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12535038)Jacqui Smith claims her son actually pointed this out:

Despite outlawing violent pornography while she was home secretary, she said she was "shocked" at the amount of hardcore material still available on the internet.

Asked if her husband had known about this, he might not have chosen pay-per-view films, she replied: "Yes, that's what my 17-year-old son said: 'Dad, haven't you heard of the internet?'"

[isaiahrobinson]

Nobody at school would tease a 15-year-old boy for watching porn. Well, certainly not in the UK - I guess it's possible people are more puritan where you live.

If you were a 15-year-old boy and it was in the news that you had downloaded pay-per-view porn films, then your politician mum accidentally submitted the expenses and had the taxpayer pay for the films, and was now in trouble partly because of it, you would never hear the end of that at school in the UK. That would be absolutely hilarious. It would define you for the rest of your school days. I don't agree with the guy saying that the media would go after the kid or that he'd get 'interrogated' - I think even the British press would leave him alone. But if that was a guy at my school no one would ever have stopped bringing it up. Think how funny it would be. Any caring parent wouldn't do that to their kid.

On the other hand I'm not sure why a kid would charge pay-per-view films knowing they'll come up on the bill, or why they wouldn't use the internet. It was just a thought that crossed my mind when I first read about it and I don't remember anyone mentioning it at the time. :)

[isaiahrobinson]

I imagine those poor kids probably got a hell of a lot of banter as it was. "I swear there's no good porn on the internet any more... Smith has your dad got any new material?" And on, and on...

[medstar]

If you were a 15-year-old boy and it was in the news that you had downloaded pay-per-view porn films, then your politician mum accidentally submitted the expenses and had the taxpayer pay for the films, and was now in trouble partly because of it, you would never hear the end of that at school in the UK. That would be absolutely hilarious. It would define you for the rest of your school days. I don't agree with the guy saying that the media would go after the kid or that he'd get 'interrogated' - I think even the British press would leave him alone. But if that was a guy at my school no one would ever have stopped bringing it up. Think how funny it would be. Any caring parent wouldn't do that to their kid.

On the other hand I'm not sure why a kid would charge pay-per-view films knowing they'll come up on the bill, or why they wouldn't use the internet. It was just a thought that crossed my mind when I first read about it and I don't remember anyone mentioning it at the time. :)

A lot of times, teenagers don't think of long term consequences--what they want is right in front of them so they'll give in to temptation, assuming they've gotten away with something.