Adults
If she wasn't such an appalling and brazen little Hitler, I'd feel sorry for home secretary Jacqui Smith, having to leave her house this morning with the whole world knowing that her husband Richard Timney bought two pay-per-view porn movies last April at their taxpayer-funded Reddich home, the bill for which was "accidentally" claimed for on her MP's expenses. (He's also her parliamentary aide - he should be more careful.) Had they not "accidentally" tried to get the taxpayer to stump up for their Virgin Media bill, including the selection of films, nobody would know that he likes a bit of perfectly legal adult titillation.To be fair to her (I can't believe I've just typed those words), hubby seems to have watched the dirty movies when she wasn't there, so he was probably missing her, and he did also pay for Ocean's 13 (which he watched twice - I could barely get through it once) and the funny animated penguin film Surf's Up, so only two fifths of his viewing pleasure while she was away - perhaps at one of her other taxpayer-funded constituency homes - involved functional, simulated sex. I'm sure these films were only soft porn, if they're available from Virgin, nothing too penetrative.
The details of this bill are now very much in the public domain (ha ha, I really did just type pubic domain by mistake), including the breakdown of costs: a quite steep five quid each for the pornos, £3.75 for each Ocean's 13 and £3.50 for Surf's Up. So how come we don't yet know the titles of the mucky ones? Imagine what good publicity that would be for Virgin to have two of their expensive porn movies all over the papers? I think we should be told. And I expect we will be.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 2:58 PM
43 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
43 Comments:
hey, if we had, I don't know... some kind of National ID card scheme...
...then we could key our ID card number into the box when ordering porn to verify who we are...
because as has been said by those promoting them, people with ID cards would have nothing to hide...
I love you for that comment, Coloradocolin.
...Bangkok Chick Boys?
Seriously though... can we really begrudge him a bit of porn? I mean, look what he's married to. We should probably be paying him some kind of stipend.
I don't deny him his porn, Alison (accepting, of course, that porn is a harmless bit of fun, which some would argue it isn't) - I'm just marveling at the idiocy of these people who are apparently in charge of us. Claiming for pay-per-view movies, porn or otherwise? It's pornographic in a different sense.
(Oh, and I'm way too much of a gentleman to say what you said about Ms Smith - I'm glad a woman said it. That makes it bitchy rather than misogynistic, I think.)
He can't be that internet savvy. There's much saucier stuff on the web, for free.
Isn't calling her a 'little Hitler' a bit Gauntyesque?
It does smack of stupidity, but his apology was positively stomach-churning. What a terrible day that would be to live through.
Her husband is a stupid fool. He has access to the internet, and yet pays money (I'm assuming he didn't expect the tax payer to be recharged) for soft core porn? It's bound to have been really low quality.
Who pays for porn nowadays?
What a monkey.
To put it in your terms Andy, it would be like renting Tango and Cash when The Wire was on BBC2 that night.
Apparently the films in question were called "Raw Meat 3" and "By Special Request". I do hope he watched "Raw Meat" and "Raw Meat 2" first though, otherwise he’d probably have been very confused if he watched the final part of a trilogy first. I think we should be told, considering we probably paid for them.
I wonder what the inquiry will be called? "The All-Party Special Report into Spousal Wanking Expenses"?
Swines: "Isn't calling her a 'little Hitler' a bit Gauntyesque?"
Not when she is a little Hitler. If in fact she isn't a little Hitler, and just a mouthpiece for New Labour policy with no views of her own on the matters of civil liberties and privacy and torture, then she is even more of a disgrace. If she really does believe in ID cards and all the infringements of my liberties, then she is a little Hitler by definition.
Gauntyesque would be to call her "Jacqui Spliff" which is his hilarious way of conveying that he thinks her admission of recreational drug use at Oxford is in some way a criticism of her. I don't care one way or the other if she smoked pot at college or not - although reclassifying it as Class B drug, thereby steepening the potential fine and sentence for possession and supply, is a bit like saying, I've had some, but you're allowed to.
I don't care about the porn, I really don't. It's the fact that they claimed 88p for a bath plug for Jacqui's family home. I wish I got subsidised for little things like that - plus a grand for an antique fireplace (and the coal to burn in it) and two plasma screen tellies. I don't think those are justifiable expenses. And as for that Harry Cohen, that greedy Labour MP who's claiming everything he can - no wonder nobody cares aboug politics any more, as they appear to be spending so much time claiming personal expenses and rather less doing their bloody jobs.
Brilliant, thanks for that, Rick.
Going no further than the Internet Movie Database, I have deduced that the Raw Meat franchise is based upon actual voyeurship filmed on spy cameras in a California "voyeur house". Quite specific porn, by the sounds of it. And particularly funny when you know that Ms Smith likes to spy on us. I imagine this will be in the tabloids tomorrow, with more detail than I am prepared to find out!
shucks. If only someone downloaded this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAWdaBQdNo8
at keepvid.com
added a porno soundtrack,
and uploaded it as "Raw Meat 3" (one of the alleged titles)... it'd get a few hits.
I can't be arsed. (poor choice of verb, it turns out).
Lets wander back down memory lane to the time when the Tories were swept from power against a background of sleeze and corruption.
As our Battlestar-watching friends would have it, "This has all happened before, this will all happen again".
Fair enough, I suppose her political influence makes the Hitler accusation bear weight.
Does Raw Meat III literally involve raw meat? If so, that sounds a lot more niche than the voyeurism one.
By the way - I'm changing my passport before we reach 2010 in order to avoid having to get one of those infernal ID cards...
Also New Labour are the same people who have dismissed the Idea that computer based information such as Id cards held by the government could fall into the wrong hands ooops.
Don't worry Andre Jaqui Smith has been given his whole hearted support by Gordon so as every football fan knows this means she won't see out Easter in her job.
Raw Meat 3? Maybe he wasn't missing his wife that much.
Can we FOI he office for the titles? I'm sure a week later there will be a rack of the offending porn in HMV with stickers that say "As endorsed by the Labour Gov't" or a "As recommended by the hubby of Jacqui Smith" section in the local purveyor of porn in Soho.
Please, makers of the Raw Meat series, please use a shot of Richard Timney, looking shame faced outside his own garden gate, admitting to a state sponsored fiddle fest on the cover of the next film.
And to Timney himself... If you want them, I have a couple of useful website addresses so you no longer have to pay for it.
Interestingly, Raw Meat 3 appears to be a geezer-on-chap porn movie.
You're right - according to James Delingpole at the Telegraph, Raw Meat 3 is gay porn.
I look forward to the day when all porn will receive 'as recommended by your local MP' style stickers and we can all get on with feeling dirty and sticky about the other more genuinely worrying aspects of our personalties.
Sex is beautiful(and funny).
I reckon one of these ‘adult channels’ should offer Harriet free subscription for all the free advertising they’ve got! Maybe even offer her and hubby a movie deal…..
I thought similarly re: the titles. I was looking forward to his spluttering, indignant protestations of innocence. "Yes, I ordered Big Jugs 4, but on the assumption it was a considered treatise on pottery. I am guilty of nothing but naivety" etc etc.
oh dear, whatever happened to the 'I was doing research' defence?
Does it matter if it's gay porn or not? Does it really matter that it's porn at all? Is it OK to watch the animated penguin at our expense but not a, presumably, not very animated penis? Or two? He wanks off and he lacks imagination. Big deal. I've no sympathy for either of them. But isn't this reaction all a bit...? I don't even know what it is, but I don't like it. And it's missing the point.
I appreciate the attempt to link this to ID cards. But the ID card thing is about people's right to do legal things - even embarrassing ones - without fear of it being used against them. Because that's what we believe in. I can see that we're demonstrating to Jacqui Smith why such privacy might be desirable. But I'm not sure that as the spotlight reflects back on us, it's revealing a pretty sight.
From what I could gather, they're claiming their entire broadband package under expenses - including the TV services, just because she needs an internet connection. Really, that should be embarrassing enough to any Government that's "closing in" on benefit fraudsters. Do we really have to revel in the state of their marriage - or laugh at the amazing wanking man (what were the chances?) - just because he paid for it at our expense?
Dave, of course you're right, it doesn't matter if it's porn of any stripe, but if it gives us a chance to have at best a chuckle at these two people who seem to be taking us all for a ride with her expenses (and don't forget, her husband was writing letters supporting her and her policies to the Redditch newspaper without stating that he was either her husband or being paid 40 grand a year to be her parliamentary aide - there's something really off about the pair of them). It's not just Jacqui Smith, it's the whole MPs' expenses system that's at fault, as it's apparently within the letter of the law that she can claim for a house she doesn't use, and Tony McNulty can claim for his parents' house. And if you happen to agree with ID cards, then presumably you'd have less of a problem with the woman, but it seems that many people do not agree with ID cards and thus enjoy a bit of privacy-related shadenfreude. True?
I don't actually care. Ok fair enough it's not my government but I don't actually care.
So someone screwed up their expenses. I can see how it can happen. I'm sure if my expenses were audited some human error would crop up.
Oh wait. ALL OF MY EXPENSES ARE AUDITED.
Anyway back to the real world:
how many news reporters do we need anyway ? I worked from home today and had BBC 6Music on all day. I dipped into the BBC news site now and again during the day (mostly because the RTE site is poor by comparison).
I now know more about this guy's porn preferences than I ever wanted. Thank you very much.
Really. How many editors, reporters and ' unbiased independent news organizations ' do we need ?
Still. He's an eejit. It's available for free on the internet. I'll bet he fell asleep halfway through anyhow...
I.D. cards alone won't tell you whether he watched them or not, either for enjoyment or merely 'research' purposes.
Not that I'm that curious to be honest, but Jacqboot might be.
Only a national compulsory DNA database could help us there. Now there's a thought or two for her.
I think the Jacqster looks rather like Bernard Manning in that picture you used btw.
(Word verification - "reary" - I shit you not!
Peter, if I worked for the government and was paid by taxpayers who had, in effect, voted me in, I would be very careful with my expenses. (I work for myself and I am already very careful with my expenses, erring on the side of caution if I'm unsure, so I speak from experience.) Jacqui Smith and her husband have been a bit devil-may-care, fuck-'em with their expenses, or so it seems. No actual deliberate wrongdoing, but a bad attitude.
You put a Virgin Media bill through for the broadband connection; you fucking check it off before putting it through - there are extras! You subtract the extras! If you put through a WHSmith bill for office sundries and there is a birthday card on there, you subtract the birthday card, and the birthday card is not an allowable expense. Easy.
Mr Timney is her Parliamentary aide - he's paid 40 grand a year to be her aide. The least he could do is just check over the expenses. Even if it was a genuine mistake a) it makes them look like they were trying to get away with a few extra quid, and b) if you rent adult movies and you are in the public eye, be extra careful, that's all.
I hope he washed his hands after handling Raw Meat...
You're clearly upset by this. It's not like you to endorse ad hom comments on an individual's personal appearance, such as "I mean, look what he's married to." Remember, one man's raw meat is another man's plaything. (Did I get that right?).
I think Claire (and others) make a key point. The adult movies are the eye-catching headline maker but they mask the other stuff that's harder to swallow (to pick up the theme). For instance, what justification is there for tax payers funding an antique fireplace? I'm sure the answer will lie somewhere in the definition of "allowances" versus "expenses" but whatever the case it's clear that the rules allow for some rum goings on.
It's also apparent that the government is missing the influence of Alistair Campbell. I'm sure that he'd have had a list of opposition MPs up his sleeve to counter attack. We're into the third day of this story and the Mirror is one of few newspapers highlighting the abuses in the system across all parties.
Moreover, the story reflects the current trend in the press for targetting individuals for the failings of the many. To glance at the media over the past few months you'd be forgiven for thinking that Sharon Shoosmith was single handedly responsible for a child's death and Fred Goodwin single handedly brought the country's financial sector to its knees. The problem I have with this is that for each figurehead there are N others, equally culpable, but likely to get "away with it" because we're looking in the wrong place.
Meanwhile, in other news, things are taking place which are at best superficially reported or simply sidelined altogether. Is the take-over of the Dunfermline Building Society a political move to undermine Alex Salmond's Scottish government? Is Northern Ireland on the brink of reverting to sectarianism and violence? Is the reported rise of BNP support for real and how is it being addressed by the main-stream parties? Why is "Not Going Out" being dropped?
Two observations:
1) It took the Tories 17/18 years to descend to this level of tabloid mockery, but the current government have achieved it in just under 11. I bet none of us imagined that in 1997.
2) The clip of Mr Timney stepping outside his gate to read a prepared statement about the expenses claim mistake made me think instantly of the Little Britain sketches where David Walliams plays a public figure apologising for some sort of "adult" indiscretion. This real life version is much, much funnier though just for the sheer stupidity involved.
The Sun (not a newspaper of choice I might add) has tracked down some of the performers in the films Mr Timney may have watched (including a performer called Jacqui Smith).
One of the stars provides the following quote:
But fellow sex siren Keisha Kane, 20 — star of one of the films showing on the night Richard Timney paid for — was livid.
She said: “I pay my taxes. I don’t mind him paying to watch me have sex but I DO mind him spending my money on it.”
For some reason, I found that quite hilarious.
For the record, David, I wrote, in response to Alison's comment "look what he's married to", "I'm way too much of a gentleman to say what you said about Ms Smith - I'm glad a woman said it. That makes it bitchy rather than misogynistic, I think." In other words: if a man make such a remark about a woman's appearance, it could be conceived as misogynistic, but if a woman does, it's bitchy. As a man, I cannot hide behind the "bitchy" shield. Which is why I didn't, and wouldn't, make a comment about Jacqui Smith's appearance. I think my woolly liberal credentials are still intact. *checks*
You're also right when you say that I'm "upset" by this. "Upset" by yet another authoritarian Labour home secretary. Serves me right for dreaming, all those years ago, that things would be different under Labour. Now it's the Tories who are against ID cards. All the truths I once held to be self-evident and now self-evidently not self-evident. I don't like Jacqui Smith as a politician. I don't like the way politicians claim so much in the way of expenses although it looks like that may change, and a good thing too.
You're also right that the media focuses on individuals. But most of the stories in the papers today are about MPs' expenses in general, with Smith as the easy route in to a wider subject, so if the porn movies get the public reading about what might be passed over as a rather "dry" subject, then all to the good. Equally, Fred Goodwin and Sharon Shoesmith. I can see why fixating on individuals can cloud our vision, but equally, it can give us a human angle with which to grapple with a bigger issue.
Jacqui Smith has always reminded me of someone who appears in the audience in Peter Kay's Phoenix Club.
Roger from Putney
It was not my intention to provoke such a lengthy response. When you start a reply with "for the record" I know I'm in trouble! So please be reassured that troublemaking was not my intention.
Actually, I think we're probably in fierce agreement!
I too had high hopes in 1997 (and before) all of which have been sytematically eroded (starting early on with the obsessive push for PFI contracting of what I felt should be nationalised services). The incumbent government is looking all too similar to those deposed in 97 and its deeply depressing.
You are correct - focussing on individuals can provide a conduit to wider debate but all too often this drops off very quickly. (How many papers are covering the restructuring of Haringey Social Services in any depth, now that "the witch" is out of the picture?).
Finally, I wasn't questioning your "woolly liberal credentials" which I'm quite sure are healthily intact. I was just observing that you have an established track record of neither making nor advocating directly personal comments and that this exceptional case illustrated the strength of your feelings on the subject. Even if you had made such a comment directly, I don't think anyone would be justified in branding you misogynistic. (Just because my wife refers to my brother as "that fat-arse waster" doesn't imply that she's a rabid man hater. She isn't - she just doesnt like my brother.)
But most important of all, how are you and Richard going to deal with the topic of Raw Meat 3 without him breaching his lenten embargo once more?
David Jockey, me and you, at the barricades, then!
You will find out sooner than you thought how Richard and I will deal with Raw Meat 3, as we are recording the next podcast this very afternoon. Watch the usual space.
Did I call you David Jockey? Sorry about that. I'm sure it's happened to you before.
Did I call you David Jockey? Sorry about that. I'm sure it's happened to you before.
Actually, no. Nobody in the real world uses my net nom-de-plume although they seem to find my real name sufficiently amusing. Its Roger Vulva.
See you at the barricades. I'll bring the cakes.
Word verification: fookin. Seriously! How Red Riding is that!
At least she's promised to return that £10 back. In full!
Don't worry about that hundred-and-sixteen grand, love. This crumpled up tenner has made everything better.
Blimey.
Andrew:
I'm glad a woman said it. That makes it bitchy rather than misogynistic, I think.
Why? Women can be misogynistic too. And I will defend to the death your right to be bitchy. ;)
David:
(Just because my wife refers to my brother as "that fat-arse waster" doesn't imply that she's a rabid man hater. She isn't - she just doesnt like my brother.)
Precisely. I was being facetious with my original comment... I do think Jacqui Smith is unattractive, but it has virtually nothing to do with the way she looks - she's an unremarkable looking person. It's her political control-freakery which makes her look, through my eyes, like a child's drawing of a witch: ugly and terrifying.
AC has selected a brilliantly unflattering photo of her to illustrate this post, which I think makes the same point.
No one else think it might not have been the husband?
Post a Comment
<< Home