The Jacqui Smith Thread
evilevilevilevilevilevilevile
Reply
She's earned her own thread now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm

Downloading porn then blaming it on her husband - for shame. Not only that - OCEAN'S FUCKING THIRTEEN AND SURF'S UP! Tasteless cow.

I like how her excuse was she needed to claim for internet. Why's she claiming for that? We all might do work from home on the internet, I can't imagine why she should be claiming her BB connection as an expense! Unless she's illegally downlodinng stuff she'll not need much more than a tenner per month basic 1 meg package - and it is rather disingenuous to ask the recession-hit masses to fork out for that when she's on however many tens of thousands a year.

Most importantly though, she now knows how it feels to have private business known by others when you've no control of that. Almost as if God is trying to tell her something.....?
and she's clearly not putting out at home :)

Malc
Quote:
Mr Timney said outside the couple's home in Redditch, Worcestershire: "I'm really sorry for any embarrassment I have caused Jacqui."


"I know she prefers to do it herself," he added.
What with this and her house, it seems there is a real campaign to dig up all the dirt on her private life and so on to give her a taste of her own medicine.

It is quite wonderfully karmic.
Half of these politicians are mandarins anyway. I'll never forget being at an event that Harriet Harmon spoke at. She was wheeled in with a huddle of assistants, gave a 5 minute speech full of soundbites and buggered off again. Hardly seemed worth having her there.

She looked like she had no idea where she was or what she was doing, she just read a speech from a piece of paper and we were supposed to be intently listening to this bullshit, not aimed at us but aimed at getting news coverage.

You know how some pop stars look back on their touring career and say sometimes they didn't know what city they were in, they just got shoved on stage and performed their standard routine? That's how this looked!

However I'll never forget the story I read about some students setting up a hall for a event. A lady pottered in on her own and asked if she was early. She was indeed early so she started to help set out the chairs.

Only when the event began did the students realise who this lady was. It was Mo Mowlam!
One thing I don't understand. Well two...

It was reported that he had watched 2 "adult" films. Now most people would assume "adult"="pron". But he watched Ocean's 13 and a fulm called Surf's Up. Both of which are "18", but neither of which is "adult" in the way the Daily Express meant to suggest.

Second thing is that the silly cow has made the husband apologise and has told him off. Why exactly? Poor sod is sitting at home and decides he wants to watch a couple of PPV films on Sky Movies. As far as he knows he's paying for this. Then he gets dragged into the media and made to apologise.

The fault here lies with the silly cow who was claiming for her Sky/Virgin package on expenses. If her poor husband decides to watch a film, it's not his fault.
Hang on, Surf's up?

This one?

That's not even slightly 'adult'
chinnyhill10 wrote:
One thing I don't understand. Well two...

It was reported that he had watched 2 "adult" films. Now most people would assume "adult"="pron". But he watched Ocean's 13 and a fulm called Surf's Up. Both of which are "18", but neither of which is "adult" in the way the Daily Express meant to suggest.

Second thing is that the silly cow has made the husband apologise and has told him off. Why exactly? Poor sod is sitting at home and decides he wants to watch a couple of PPV films on Sky Movies. As far as he knows he's paying for this. Then he gets dragged into the media and made to apologise.

The fault here lies with the silly cow who was claiming for her Sky/Virgin package on expenses. If her poor husband decides to watch a film, it's not his fault.


I think it's more about a person who thinks they should have access to everything digital that flows into everyones house, having the things that flow into her house made public.

If you've done nothing wrong, which he didn't, you've nothing to fear. Except humiliation, extortion and a lack of privacy. Which maybe she is realising a little.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
Half of these politicians are mandarins anyway.


Unless she is claiming back a huge make-up bill as well, I am going to hazard a guess she isn't Mandarin.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
It was reported that he had watched 2 "adult" films. Now most people would assume "adult"="pron". But he watched Ocean's 13 and a fulm called Surf's Up. Both of which are "18", but neither of which is "adult" in the way the Daily Express meant to suggest.


Th two adult films weren't named, and were said to be £5 a pop. Ocean's 13 (twice at £3.75 each) and Surf's up (once at £3.50) were two extra films viewed. The article, for some reason, decides to focus more on the fact adult films were watched. Shock horror.

chinnyhill10 wrote:
Second thing is that the silly cow has made the husband apologise and has told him off. Why exactly? Poor sod is sitting at home and decides he wants to watch a couple of PPV films on Sky Movies. As far as he knows he's paying for this. Then he gets dragged into the media and made to apologise.

The fault here lies with the silly cow who was claiming for her Sky/Virgin package on expenses. If her poor husband decides to watch a film, it's not his fault.


Indeed. The excuse doesn't make sense — why would he have to apologise and get "an ear-bashing" when she was the one claiming the films as an expense? Regardless of who watched them, she's responsible for checking her claims.
Dr Lave wrote:
chinnyhill10 wrote:
One thing I don't understand. Well two...

It was reported that he had watched 2 "adult" films. Now most people would assume "adult"="pron". But he watched Ocean's 13 and a fulm called Surf's Up. Both of which are "18", but neither of which is "adult" in the way the Daily Express meant to suggest.

Second thing is that the silly cow has made the husband apologise and has told him off. Why exactly? Poor sod is sitting at home and decides he wants to watch a couple of PPV films on Sky Movies. As far as he knows he's paying for this. Then he gets dragged into the media and made to apologise.

The fault here lies with the silly cow who was claiming for her Sky/Virgin package on expenses. If her poor husband decides to watch a film, it's not his fault.


I think it's more about a person who thinks they should have access to everything digital that flows into everyones house, having the things that flow into her house made public.

If you've done nothing wrong, which he didn't, you've nothing to fear. Except humiliation, extortion and a lack of privacy. Which maybe she is realising a little.


THis. Given what this mental bitch is trying to do to all of us, this is one of the few times when I think I'll tolerate people lowering themselves to her level. Those films weren't "adult" at all, but if the roles were reversed, she'd be the first one lying through her fucking teeth to make someone look bad.
The biggest shock to me is that people still actually pay for porn.
LewieP wrote:
The biggest shock to me is that people still actually pay for porn.


Proof if ever, that piracy can't kill an industry.
chinnyhill10 wrote:
It was reported that he had watched 2 "adult" films. Now most people would assume "adult"="pron". But he watched Ocean's 13 and a fulm called Surf's Up. Both of which are "18", but neither of which is "adult" in the way the Daily Express meant to suggest.

It's all a manipulative play on words, to raise the ire of people who just glance on newspaper headlines.

But! Both Ocean's 13 and Surf's Up are in fact certificate PG. Hardly 'adult' in either sense.
Quote:
The Sunday Express reported that two films, which cost £5 each, were viewed on 6 and 8 April 2008 at Jacqui Smith's constituency home in Redditch.

The claim was also said to include two viewings of the film Ocean's 13 - at £3.75 each - and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf's Up.


Ocean's 13 and Surf's up were not the Adult films!
Quote:
The two films, which cost £5 each, were viewed on 6 and 8 April 2008.

It was also said to include two viewings of the film Ocean's 13 - at £3.75 each - and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf's Up.


He watched Porn and Shit Films.
Dr Lave wrote:
He watched Porn and Shit Films.
Hanging isn't not good enough.
Sigh...

It makes you yearn for a simpler time when politicians used public money on hookers and blow.
Malabar Front wrote:
Ocean's 13 and Surf's up were not the Adult films!


Ah, the reporting is a little confused and I'm not very up on modern films. For all I know "Surf's Up" could be two hookers pissing on an elderly dwarf.

Image
Two hookers and a elderly dwarf, yesterday.
GovernmentYard wrote:
who are they?


Ronnie Rosenthal, Duncan Norville and Babs from Pans People.
Dr Lave wrote:
I think it's more about a person who thinks they should have access to everything digital that flows into everyones house, having the things that flow into her house made public.

If you've done nothing wrong, which he didn't, you've nothing to fear. Except humiliation, extortion and a lack of privacy. Which maybe she is realising a little.


Yeah, I alluded to this in bits and bobs and I do think there's a certain amount of, what's the word, schadenfreude? to be enjoyed at her expense..
Malabar Front wrote:
Quote:
The Sunday Express reported that two films, which cost £5 each, were viewed on 6 and 8 April 2008 at Jacqui Smith's constituency home in Redditch.

The claim was also said to include two viewings of the film Ocean's 13 - at £3.75 each - and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf's Up.


Ocean's 13 and Surf's up were not the Adult films!

Weren't they? Cripes!

Career over! If there's any justice left in the world.
Quote:
"We are allowed to claim for telly communications and it is vital for work," he said.


Is that when you shake the telly about and yell "What the hell are you talking about?"
GovernmentYard wrote:
She's earned her own thread now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm

Downloading porn then blaming it on her husband - for shame. Not only that - OCEAN'S FUCKING THIRTEEN AND SURF'S UP! Tasteless cow.

I like how her excuse was she needed to claim for internet. Why's she claiming for that? We all might do work from home on the internet, I can't imagine why she should be claiming her BB connection as an expense! Unless she's illegally downlodinng stuff she'll not need much more than a tenner per month basic 1 meg package - and it is rather disingenuous to ask the recession-hit masses to fork out for that when she's on however many tens of thousands a year.

Most importantly though, she now knows how it feels to have private business known by others when you've no control of that. Almost as if God is trying to tell her something.....?


I think a net connection is a justifiable expense claim.
MaliA wrote:
I think a net connection is a justifiable expense claim.


Agreed.

At her main residence. You know, the one in London she claims a five figure sum for.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Dr Lave wrote:
He watched Porn and Shit Films.
Hanging isn't not good enough.
It's a good job Mypothy is on holiday - his head would explode trying to work out what you mean with that double negative.
It's a shame thought, because if most other public figures had very nearly managed to get away with expensing porn they'd be a hero.
Plissken wrote:
MaliA wrote:
I think a net connection is a justifiable expense claim.


Agreed.

At her main residence. You know, the one in London she claims a five figure sum for.


And doing the little bit of maths required to submit just the ADSL connection, not the full Sky package would be a given, you'd think.
Because God knows one viewing of Ocean's Thirteen just isn't enough.
Rodafowa wrote:
Because God knows one viewing of Ocean's Thirteen just isn't enough.


Ocean's Twelve, I think it is, is very Post modern, though.
Hang on

Quote:
There is no suggestion that the films were watched by Mrs Smith: the fact that she is now said to be "furious" with her husband and paid researcher Richard Timney imply that she was unaware of her partner’s solo late night habits. Smith has said she will now pay back the cost of the films, and presumably dock her husband's pocket money


Furious with her husband and the paid researcher? Was her husband watching porn with another bloke then?
Mr Chris wrote:
Furious with her husband and the paid researcher? Was her husband watching porn with another bloke then?


He also works for her.

Frankly, adult movies or a night with Jacqui Smith? No contest, really.
In Soviet Russia, Porn pays for state.
Seriously, what has he supposed to have done?

Is there some kind of unspoken law of "If you are married to someone in the public eye, you are not allowed to watch porn"?
LewieP wrote:
Seriously, what has he supposed to have done?

Is there some kind of unspoken law of "If you are married to someone in the public eye, you are not allowed to watch porn"?

More "you are not allowed to get your wife to expense the porn to the taxpayer".
This government just gets better and better. Not only do we have them staging illegal wars, having members of the opposition arrested, nationalisation of banks, we've also got Minister's spouses cracking one off a the taxpayers expense.
MaliA wrote:
This government just gets better and better. Not only do we have them staging illegal wars, having members of the opposition arrested, nationalisation of banks, we've also got Minister's spouses cracking one off a the taxpayers expense.

I for one will be voting to keep them in, as I will miss teh lulz. They have demonstrated very clearly that they're better at this than the Tories, who just shagged people and took bribes which is TEH DULLZORS.
Mr Chris wrote:
LewieP wrote:
Seriously, what has he supposed to have done?

Is there some kind of unspoken law of "If you are married to someone in the public eye, you are not allowed to watch porn"?

More "you are not allowed to get your wife to expense the porn to the taxpayer".


So was it him in charge of the expenses claim or her?

The news article suggests that it was her "I'm sorry that, in claiming for my internet connection, I mistakenly claimed for a television package alongside it." so what does it matter who watched what? She should have checked before claiming, and she has no right to be furious at him.

Seems to me she's just shifting the blame because she knows if she admitted to it she'd be hanged.
Yeah, exactly.

All he did was pick up the remote, and decide to watch some porn.

Well, I guess he is also guilty of choosing to marry a moron.
Malabar Front wrote:
Seems to me she's just shifting the blame because she knows if she admitted to it she'd be hanged.


Precisely this. I'd divorce the bitch if she tried to pin this on me. Man up and admit you fucked up, Smith.
She probably does a good line in Dominatrixing.

"I'll lock you up for 42 days without charge you naughty boy"
"No! I demand a lawyer!"
"I'll teach you to watch porn and make me pay for it. Bend over, bitch, and watch *this*"

No, hang on. No. I'm not thinking about this.
We taxpayers pay the entire Sky/Virgin* bill. Because the 116K for her second home, her salary of £63,000 as an MP, her additional £78,000 salary as a Minister and the 40 grand a year she pays her husband to be her Parlimentary researcher just isn't enough to cover her fucking Sky subscription.
Also, your name isn't spelled with a 'q' unless you're a 14 year-old slut from Billaricay.
Craster wrote:
Also, your name isn't spelled with a 'q' unless you're a 14 year-old slut from Billaricay.

How disappointed must Gordon have been when *she* turned up.
Plissken wrote:
We taxpayers pay the entire Sky/Virgin* bill. Because the 116K for her second home, her salary of £63,000 as an MP, her additional £78,000 salary as a Minister and the 40 grand a year she pays her husband to be her Parlimentary researcher just isn't enough to cover her fucking Sky subscription.


How much should ministers get paid then? What would be fair renumeration?
MaliA wrote:
What would be fair renumeration?

I'd renumber her as "6".
Every company in the world can handle expenses claims with a view to ensuring their employees aren't taking the piss. Why can't the government?
MaliA wrote:
Plissken wrote:
We taxpayers pay the entire Sky/Virgin* bill. Because the 116K for her second home, her salary of £63,000 as an MP, her additional £78,000 salary as a Minister and the 40 grand a year she pays her husband to be her Parlimentary researcher just isn't enough to cover her fucking Sky subscription.


How much should ministers get paid then? What would be fair renumeration?


I am not objecting to her salary. I just happen to think that when you and your husband pull down something in the region of 200 grand a year, then getting your Sky subscription on the taxpayer is a bit fucking much.

Especially when you are a member of a Government who objects to unemployed people getting Sky subs on benefit.
Page 1 of 4 [ 170 posts ]