Given her husband’s viewing habits, I do hope she washed it first…
UPDATE
No, that joke does not mean that I believe the porn claim was the most important bad thing about Jacqui Smith. It wasn’t even the worst thing about her expenses.
I have been working more or less full time for five years now against the systematic abuse of human rights and rollback of Civil Liberties in the UK. This ultra authoritarianism was by no means initiated by Jacqui Smith, and I fear it will not in the least be changed by her departure, unless by some miracle we get Bob Marshall Andrews or Andrew Mackinlay as Home Secretary (and they are about as likely to be appointed as me).
But this news does bring some light at the end of the tunnel, in that it is plainly a symptom of New Labour’s disintegration, which is proceeding in a remarkable fashion. I think a stong part of the public mood is indeed a dislike of the over-mighty state. I remain optimistic that I will not ultimately bequeath my children a country in which liberty is disappearing, despite this terrible ten years.
The crusty towel of disgrace! Excellent. There’s always something special about a Home Sec going, always that extra piquance, a hint of shame with a residue of disgusting arrogance. Personally, I reserve a certain place for Charley Clarke but still, days when they go are to be cherished.
Out with the old scumbag in with the new.
Still, she was particularly unpleasant to look at. Now her and her husband can spend more time watching porn together.
What about the Ginger Dwarf and her triple flipping fingers?
(the Soap Music playing)
Where will Mr. Jacqui Smith, find the money to watch blue movies, now?
Will Jacqui Smith, put an expense claim for the towel that she just threw in?
To find answers for these and more, tune into Soap tomorrow.
PORN?
It’s not porn, at least according to the BBC. The Gobbels broadcasting service calls it an ‘adult movie’
Shameful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8079205.stm
I always suspect that those who fall like this must have had some redeeming features. Maybe they were poleaxed by their subconscious desire for honesty and truth.
Also, the figures who suffer loss and humiliation because of their misdeeds are usually minor miscreants.
The Blairs of this world sail ever onward and upward.
He, by all reports, is destined to reveal to the great religions of this world the true light of a God they can all worship together…..or something like that.
What is so special about her choosing today to resign, rather than choosing to resign some weeks ago?
Has somebody changed the universal constant of gravitation around Whitehall; it took so long for the penny to drop?
Of course claiming for “adult movies” from the taxpayer is a bloody cheek, but let’s be grateful to see her go for better reasons – we’re losing a desperately nasty authoritarian whose extremism and lack of principle fitted her well into the Blair/Brown cabal.
Anyway, I can’t help liking this, from a comedian recently on R4: “The ten pounds of porn on the public purse was money well spent. Never before has the whole nation laughed loudly for such a small sum”.
Perhaps, given the upcoming game of cabinet musical chairs Mrs Smith was deemed ‘unshuffleable’.
The same cannot be said for her husband’s five knuckles.
“We’re all lying in the gutter – and some of us are looking at the Stasi”.
Good riddance, o putrid servant of inhumanity!
Could not care less about her or her husband’s viewing material, and am actually slightly concerned about the hoo ha it has caused.
I am much happier to see her go because of the shocking erosion of civil liberties her and her forbears have presided over, her arrogance and general belief that the population must be watched and controlled at all times!
Alasdair Cameron, second that.
Good news. However, I seriously doubt her replacement will be any more inclined to call a halt to the relentless onward march of our surveillance/security state and the shameless promotion of a phoney ‘War on Terror’ to justify it.
Perhaps she didn’t fancy what was coming in the reshuffle?
A job for which was fully qualified, junior minister for scones and fairy cakes.
NeoLabour will soon be running out of extremenly abrasive swill to fill this fascist plinth.
Lets play: What ID/database/secret inquiry/law subverting/immigration hostile(caveat:unless your Jack Straw)/dirty police excusing, toxic freak will they shove into the job this time?
My money is on Millibung Jr. – To beef him up for the inevitable “stateman” career path he and the others before him will never deserve.
God forbid Yezel Blearz.
that goes without saying!
Alasdair Cameron:
The “hoo ha” about her claiming ten pounds on expenses for porn films is because of her anti-sex stance. She poured millions of pounds of taxpayers money into fake charities that campaigned against lap dancing and striptease. Eaves: 3,608,395 pounds of taxpayers money (1,200,000 pounds from the Home Office) out of its total funding of GBP 5,220,603; Fawcett Society: 62,886 pounds (42,000 pounds from the Home Office).
Reason, do you have links for websites with further details about this hypocrisy?
I’ve rather given up judging people since having my daft ideas. If correct Dundee could make pots of money from them, I’m from Dundee, and you’d be able to see everything anyone had ever done whether with a tea towel, I’ve used one myself, or with a gun or whatever. If a ghost is a simple accidental replay of past events just what would they do if they knew that with new technology they were going to be caught anyway soon enough and nowhere to hide? They might even hand over their expenses to a newspaper and let themselves be “exposed”. In such a world those who get their linen aired in public first could be the very lucky ones. Maybe Brown isn’t quite as mad as he makes out, maybe he just knows a bit more of what is coming up being a son of the manse and all, he seems very unwilling to step on someone’s toes right enough. As I say I never judge anyone anymore, it’s a fools game now. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough/
@Reason: On second thoughts – I thought her husband was responsible for hiring these videos, not her?
Abe Rene
She is the MP and the expense claim was made in her name. Her husband is not responsible for making the expense claim! He is not an MP! It doesn’t matter who hired what, it is who made the expense claim that matters.
See:
http://fakecharities.org/
Heading under: Identity politics
You can look up their accounts under the Charities Commission website.
Ms Jackboots Smith exits left of stage to strains of These Boots Are Made for Walking. Who comes next? Has Brown got any wheels left on the government train?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRkovnss7sg (very appropriate lyrics)
Good riddance to her for all the repressive anti-terror and surveillance legislation she has introduced.
Regarding her anti-sex stance and how she used her position you might find this article interesting (some of the comments are worth reading as well).
Title:
How the government uses dirty data to legislate morality
Extract 1:
When it comes to sex and censorship, Government’s insistence that laws are “evidence-based” is little more than hot air.
The statistics quoted in support of any given case are frequently misleading, partial, and – according to one expert in this field – subject to highly unethical collusion of interest between government and researchers.
Extract 2:
A constant concern in any academic research is report selection: This is where researchers and policy-makers carefully handpick the papers and evidence that they will use to support their case. As already noted above, when it comes to sexual conduct, the Government seems very interested in the work of avowedly partisan bodies such as the Eaves project and the Poppy Trust.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10/dirty_data/
Good riddance to her for all the repressive anti-terror and surveillance legislation she has introduced.
You say mary.
Trouble is; we the people are left with these draconian laws regardless of the perpetrators’, presence or absence.
Fact is we are the most; watched, followed, criminalized nations in Europe, and gradually getting to be No 1 police state across the globe. Funnily enough not many people understand the changes that our society has undergone, and carry on as though there still exists a modicum of self governance.
Kafkaesque laws, that have been passed, somehow are not understood/digested by the population at large, hence the apparent lack of interest in Craig’s torture articles.
mary, it is not the monkey, which we ought to be paying attention to, it is organ grinder whom ought to be under our watchful eyes, and studied very closely!
Reason @3.20 I thought there was a typo on your figures for EAVES but you are right. I looked uo their accounts on the Charity Commission site and their most recent show income and expenditure over £5m. They have newly received £3.7m for their Poppy project which deals with trafficked women. They also work with the victims of domestic violence so both are worthwhile and necessary schemes. Do you know if there are any controls on these large sums of expenditure by this NGO?
http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/press.php
Did you ever get any response from Tom Watson re the Damian McBride case?
Because it seems that he too is slipping off into the shadows:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3663538/resigned-to-catastrophe.thtml
I love this comment from ‘Verity’ via that link to the Spectator
“So once she loses her seat and she no longer needs a home in her constituency, will the whole family be moving into her her primary residence, her sister’s boxroom?”
mary
I don’t know anymore than you do about any controls on the large sums of expenditure by Eaves.
You are right, dealing with trafficked women and victims of domestic violence may be suitable use of taxpayers money, if it is subject to appropriate checks and controls. Campaigning for changes to laws on lap dancing and striptease is NOT a suitable use of taxpayers money. This is especially important as Eaves gets 70 percent of its income form the taxpayer.
Derek P
Yes, more example how dirty data is used to legislate morality. Eaves produced the discredited Lilith Report a “dodgy document” on Lap-dancing, in 2003. The Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications column admits it contains errors: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jan/12/corrections
@Reason
It is certainly her who is responsible as MP. But I wondered whether the matter was nothing more than a careless slip, e.g. if there had been a bill for ‘home video’ and she hadn’t realised what that meant. Put it another way: if someone used £10 of taxpayer’s money for watching Mary Poppins, I doubt whether anyone would have batted an eyelid.
But the assault on civil liberties, of course, is another matter.
Abe Rene
This arose as she has designated the spare room in her sister’s house as her “main residence”, so she could then claim that the house in her constituency was her “second home” and hence claim all manner of expenses including two washing machines in as many years).
It doesn’t matter whether it’s porno films or Mary Poppins. The house in her constituency is, of course, her “main residence” which she should pay for out of her own pocket.
@Reason
As they can only be in one house at a time, and watching movies (blue, pink, or black) is not per se performing their parliamentary duties, they shouldn’t be claimed for under ANY circumstances.
Un like you, I see no grounds whatsoever for optimism on the civil liberties front.
The exchange of one mminister for another means nothing unless the actual policies are changed positively.
Where is your evidence for that happening?