Jacqui Smith fights for future after pornographic film row (British Home Secretary)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5073677/Jacqui-Smith-fights-for-future-after-pornographic-film-row.html ^

[bethybabes69]

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is fighting for her political future following the disclosure that she paid for the cost of pornographic films with her taxpayer-funded allowance.

Miss Smith apologised for submitting the £10 bill for the two adult films, which were watched by her husband, Richard Timney, while she was away in London. She promised to repay the money.

[bethybabes69]

Isn't it amazing that the 'already under investigation' Ms Smith needs gutter MSM to double check her Parliamentary expense account for issues like this?

They have their vile snouts so deep in the trough of taxpayers cash, they they simply glut themselves without conscience, then offer a fake apology if they get caught out.

Expenses are strictly for Parliamentary business, how does her cable TV account fall into that? Nevermind porn on such an account.

I wonder if Obama will pop round her place this week to watch a few of those 'bluey's' with her?

[Always Right]

In the US, all she would have to do is donate the films to the local elementary school and she would be forgiving and praised as such a caring person.

[Mobile Vulgus]

And they say Americans are prigs. I’m jess sayin,’ ya know?

[Republic of Texas]

I’m gonna need a picture of Mrs. Smith before I render judgment. These films might have been medically necessary for Mr. Smith.

[knarf]

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is fighting for her political future following the disclosure that she paid for the cost of pornographic films with her taxpayer-funded allowance.

Steady on. If it is an allowance can't she just spend it on whatever she dam'n well pleases? I'd understand the outrage for an expense claim but isn't the nature of an allowance such that you need not account for its use? Isn't its purpose to cover all manner of sundries?

Not that I think that porn is a particularly wise "sundry" for a politician to be claiming, but...?

[Tax-chick]

The article says she submitted the bill, presumably for reimbursement, so maybe they mean something different by “allowance” than we would. In the businesses where I’ve worked, “allowance” did mean, “You get $50 a day,” or whatever amount. The point was to reduce the number of expense clerks needed to clear every dime the employee spent.

[bethybabes69]

Scrub the original description, she paid this from her Parliamentary expenses account, the same account she's already being investigated for, as it's claimed she rarely uses her Sisters property, whilst a portion of the rent on the property is paid for as a Parliamentary expense.

For the record, she isn't allowed to submit expenses against that account unless it's directly related to expenses incurred in her role as an MP.

[RandallFlagg]

NOT GUIL-—

Gad! I’m getting desperate lately...

[bethybabes69]

FWIW, although this isn't a NULabour exclusive practice, but they're currently the ones under the spotlight for expenses abuse.
Tony McNulty, The employment secretary is being investigated for claiming for a second home to help him commute into Westminster, that's 11 miles from Westminster, when his own property (occupied by his Parents) is only 3 miles away, it's just a big trough of Public cash, and they can't resist sticking their fat, Commie snouts in for a mouthful.

[Republic of Texas]

Eh. She’s put on a couple of pounds but for a Brit she was probably ok in her day. Gordon Brown on the other hand...