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.
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.