| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: Jacqui Smith Husbands Adults Films |
 |
|
People would expect this to be a April Fools Joke? Someone within Virgin Media or the people who look at the government expenses have really let a cat out of the bag with this story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
However unacceptable her "error" in accounting for expenses, I don't really think this is a big story. It's just another media story, that's all.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | However unacceptable her "error" in accounting for expenses, I don't really think this is a big story. It's just another media story, that's all. |
Not really? It's public money and we, and the media are entitled to report on this.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | Not really? It's public money and we, and the media are entitled to report on this. |
As I said above, I don't condone it, but in the grand scheme of things it's not a big issue. It's only because there's a tabloid media witch-hunt on this subject at the moment resulting from a succession of gaffes and admissions that the story has come to the fore.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Helen May
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 19382
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does make you wonder what else they have claimed for though Colby.
H
_________________
88 - 91 FM this is Radio 2 from the BBC!
I said it live on air in the studio with Jeremy Vine on 10/3/2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minx
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4088
Location: France/Spain/Peterborough/Tenerife
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The words "public office" and "gravy train" spring to mind. No matter what the political persuasion. 
_________________
Minx
To err is human, to forgive - canine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They are all under the spot light, but as people say she's the one who have been caught. I think the whole expenses saga needs to be cleaned up? Either scrap it or give them another 20K or less in their pay packets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iknewdavidjacobsmum
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't the Labour Administration come to power on the back of the Tory Sleaze ? Forgotten this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iknewdavidjacobsmum wrote: | | Didn't the Labour Administration come to power on the back of the Tory Sleaze ? Forgotten this? |
Yeah!! I think this isn't really sleaze. They are just not accountants, and think people won't notice adding a few pounds here and there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Robinson
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3609
Location: Chorley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It definitely shows MPs don't live in the real world. If they're renting films and living in houses on 'expenses' what are they actually using their wages for?
And, if I were Smith's husband, I'd be even more embarrassed about downloading Ocean's Thirteen - twice!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian Robinson wrote: | | It definitely shows MPs don't live in the real world. If they're renting films and living in houses on 'expenses' what are they actually using their wages for? |
Again, I think it's mountain out of a molehill. I don't that, because of the actions of one or two MPs we should assume that all MPs are onto the same racket. I'm pretty confident that the majority of MPs from all sides of the house just get on with things in a proper manner - and as of next month we'll have the power to investigate under new disclosure rules so we'll be able to see for ouselves.
Unfortunately this - yet again - is a clear demonstration of the way in which tabloid journalists can make the activities of the few appear representative of the many.
The answer? Just don't read the tabloids and ignore what's written in them. Easy.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| These MP's only need their families to bring down there political career. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Jacqui Smith Husbands Adults Films |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | People would expect this to be a April Fools Joke? Someone within Virgin Media or the people who look at the government expenses have really let a cat out of the bag with this story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm |
I thought the heading was an April Fools - where are the apostrophes? "S's" in he wrong place 
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | These MP's only need their families to bring down there political career. |
An MP is responsible for her/his career irrespective of what family members do. It's what the members of the press decide to make an issue that they have to be on guard against.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's laughable that the press and news media have made such a big thing of this - ok it's a bit dodgy but is it really worthy of hours and hours of coverage?
That's the trouble with 24 hour news - they are often stumped for anything newsworthy to talk about.
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | I think it's laughable that the press and news media have made such a big thing of this - ok it's a bit dodgy but is it really worthy of hours and hours of coverage? |
Yes. Exactly my point above.
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | That's the trouble with 24 hour news - they are often stumped for anything newsworthy to talk about. |
Where tabloid newspapers are concerned, we have to bear in my the political leanings of proprietors are concerned, too. It's quite astonishing how gullible people are when being presented with "the news". They just don't question whether it really is "news" or whether it's a story that's been cooked up or re-heated for political ends.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agree totally. What worries me is that people who read the Daily Wail actually BELIEVE everything they read in it
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Agree totally. What worries me is that people who read the Daily Wail actually BELIEVE everything they read in it |
I have a friend who was, until recently, a picture editor on the Express. She told me that rookie journalists on the paper are told that if they can't find a story on someone then they not only have to create one on the flimsiest of facts but also fill at least a spread (DPS - a double-page spread).... or else "the Boss" (Editor) won't be happy. It's this stuff that generates the sales over days to come. If that last bit is true then readers really are stupid!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well they must be if they buy comics like that!
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Well they must be if they buy comics like that! |
She's also told me a few enlightening things about how the pictures (usually the ones of people who've been papped) are, shall we say, "edited" too!  Put it like this, Photoshop is a necessary tool.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can quite believe it! Given that millions of people rely on "papers" of that ilk as their main source of news, it's scary that they are allowed to vote!
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the armed forces- “ fiddling one expenses” is one of the most serious of offences. Demotion, huge fines and if serious enough, 28-days in prison followed by a dishonourable discharge is not uncommon for those found guilty.
Theft (because that is what it is) is no joke, no trivial matter- misappropriation of public funds by a person in public office, is a breach of trust that shows contempt for the people whom put you in that position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | In the armed forces- “ fiddling one expenses” is one of the most serious of offences. Demotion, huge fines and if serious enough, 28-days in prison followed by a dishonourable discharge is not uncommon for those found guilty.
Theft (because that is what it is) is no joke, no trivial matter- misappropriation of public funds by a person in public office, is a breach of trust that shows contempt for the people whom put you in that position. |
Can't disagree with any of that, Rachel. However, people shouldn't take every story at face value on the basis of what they read in the tabloids due to various other less obvious agendae. That, in my opinion, is the real issue here.
I'm sure there have been plenty of instances where, perhaps, the cost of a couple of items in addition to a phone/internet connection bill have gone un-noticed in a expenses claim submission by a Member of Parliament in recent years, but it's this particular one by the Home Secretary that has been raised by the press. We have to ask ourselves why. In other words - why has one or more tabloid editors decided to pursue this incidence? Thre may be a perfectly good reason - but will we be told?
The implication, if the standard of the reporting is anything to go by, is that "they're all it" and that clearly is not the case at all - but the papers want their readers to assume that to be the case.
I wouldn't mind betting that there's a good few MPs in the Commons who follow the rules properly who are well fed up with being tarred with the same brush on this one, yet whose reputation is at the mercy of the senior tabloid newspaper editors and proprietors.
It's no wonder that the electorate is losing interest in the principle of democratic representation. People who believe what they read in the press (especially Britain's tabloids) are fools!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iwarburton
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2133
Location: Northumberland
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry to disagree with those who think this is trivial.
If JS knew about this, it doesn't say much for her integrity.
If she didn't, how can she be fit to run a department as enormous as the Home Office?
A few other thoughts:
1. Apparently MPs can claim telephone, internet and cable TV within the second home expenses. Telephone seems OK and I accept that the internet is a necessity in 2009 but why on earth should we fund cable TV?
2. The depth of public anger re this issue is a force to be reckoned with, as evidenced by the skewering that Eric Pickles got on BBC1's Question Time last Thursday when he was forced to admit claiming a second home allowance in the context of his family dwelling being located in the Home Counties and made a hash of justifying this.
3. What's the betting that Jacqui Smith will receive an humiliating demotion at the next Cabinet reshuffle? Chief Whip in charge of paper clip management comes to mind.
Ian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iwarburton wrote: | | I'm sorry to disagree with those who think this is trivial. |
I'm certainly not one who considers it trivial, but I do question the motive of the press in all this.
Of course, as of next month (April) every single item on an MPs expense claim will be subject to public scrutiny - meaning that anybody can obtain details under the Freedom of Information Act. That will, no doubt, keep our representatives on their toes.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minx
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4088
Location: France/Spain/Peterborough/Tenerife
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard JV say on today's programme that Jaqui Smith's husband works as her "special adviser". Are we paying his salary for that too?
_________________
Minx
To err is human, to forgive - canine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gfloyd
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 4861
Location: Here, There, Everywhere.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | iwarburton wrote: | | I'm sorry to disagree with those who think this is trivial. |
I'm certainly not one who considers it trivial, but I do question the motive of the press in all this. |
To sell papers maybe? Come on its a gift of a story & if they are stpid enough to claim on the taxpayer, they deserve what they get.
_________________
His name was ernie ........ and he drove the fastest milk cart in the west..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gfloyd
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 4861
Location: Here, There, Everywhere.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iwarburton wrote: | What's the betting that Jacqui Smith will receive an humiliating demotion at the next Cabinet reshuffle? Chief Whip in charge of paper clip management comes to mind.
Ian. |
It would still represent over promotion.
_________________
His name was ernie ........ and he drove the fastest milk cart in the west..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | iwarburton wrote: | | I'm sorry to disagree with those who think this is trivial. |
I'm certainly not one who considers it trivial, but I do question the motive of the press in all this. |
The way I look at is this: it's not trivial, and the press should make a big thing of it because if the Home Secretary is carelessly claiming unworthy expenses (deliberately or not) just think what all the other MPs might be doing (deliberately or not).
It needs to be controlled properly because
a) it's taxpayers' money
b) I would have got the sack if there were two instances of irregularities in my expenses like charging for accomodation I didn't use and charging for adult movies (which our company clamped down on when they became available in hotels in the 1990s).
I was pulled up just once on expenses for claiming for two business meals which were the same date and time A receipt of my wife's got mixed in with mine and I didn't notice.
A friend of mine lived with a criminal record, for stealing a Mars bar from a shop when he was 13, value 26p. So, MPs being dishonest about £10, £100, £1000, £10,000 should be dealt with too.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | | A friend of mine lived with a criminal record, for stealing a Mars bar from a shop when he was 13, value 26p. So, MPs being dishonest about £10, £100, £1000, £10,000 should be dealt with too. |
I agree. But I still question the motive of the press in having a feast on the back of one case. They're always looking for a story tht will run and run in order to shift more copies. And that's what they're doing - even though the point has been made.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: |
I agree. But I still question the motive of the press in having a feast on the back of one case. They're always looking for a story tht will run and run in order to shift more copies. And that's what they're doing - even though the point has been made. |
Yes the point has been made, but they want action and not just apologies from MPs.
That 'second home' of Smith's has cost the taxpayer £24,000 and I expect her husband, working as 'her assistant', is costing the taxpayer
- £40,000 in salary
- probably another £10,000 in other expenses like :
- his public transport, trains, planes
- his car, fuel, service, road tax, insurance, taxis
- hotels (I wonder how many hotels he stays in within 20 miles of his home or their second home)
- every meal he/they eat 'out' because 'business' came up in the conversation
- probably every book and newspaper he buys
- laptops, computers, printers (to print nice family photos)
- his broadband, his digital TV, his telephone
- home improvements (needs an office and nice oak cabinets for business papers)
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | | Yes the point has been made, but they want action and not just apologies from MPs. |
They're getting action - a change in the rule on disclosure (and governed by the Freedom of Information Act) which kicks in next month. That's the point that I've been making.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If they increased the MP's salary it wouldn't cost that more to the tax payer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | But I still question the motive of the press in having a feast on the back of one case. They're always looking for a story tht will run and run in order to shift more copies. |
...and usually one that involves money, or sex. They needed a kick in the proverbials before they noticed Daniel Hannan's tirade against Gordon Brown in the European Parliament last week.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Brown is right about the Adult Material being a personal matter. The media are making it very embarrassing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iwarburton
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2133
Location: Northumberland
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the discussion on Jeremy Vine's show was a bit tasteless. The only thing that is the public's business--though very much so--is the fact that this was falsely claimed for.
Ian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minx
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4088
Location: France/Spain/Peterborough/Tenerife
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I would tend to believe that it wasn't falsely claimed for. In my view it was probably erroneously claimed, probably encouraged by the incredibly lax system of expense authorisation that seems to prevail. People with busy agendas tend to be less than rigorous in the scrutiny of their expense claims, which are no doubt delegated to some lower echelon of authority, who were either too stupid or too nervous to point out the discrepancy. So I'm not inclined to get too het up about Jacqui Smith, who I think works very hard and very effectively.
Having said that, I strongly endorse a full re-evaluation of the current system. And if that involved MP's having to sell their "second homes", bought at the top of the market, no doubt, I for one would be pleased to see them confronted with the same situation that the rest of us are experiencing, ie a gross drop in market value.
I wouldn't like to be a fly on the wall in the Smith household though! And I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the children of that family, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. 
_________________
Minx
To err is human, to forgive - canine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | Gordon Brown is right about the Adult Material being a personal matter. The media are making it very embarrassing. |
I thought the film in question was "Oceans Fifteen" or "Oceans Thirty-Five" or whatever? Hardly adult? It's more at the level of the insufferable Evans, surely?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.)
Last edited by colby on Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Briant
Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 964
Location: Liverpool England UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As someone once said 'The wise child chooses its parents carefully' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iwarburton wrote: | I thought the discussion on Jeremy Vine's show was a bit tasteless. The only thing that is the public's business--though very much so--is the fact that this was falsely claimed for.
Ian. |
It was. It was funny, but tasteless.
The two films in question, as reported in the BBC News report, were Oceans 13 and Surf's Up, both rated PG. I'd have thought they were more likely to induce sleep than...
More seriously, though, John and Rachel are right. If she had been found to be claiming expenses she wasn't entitled to from a private company or the armed forces she'd have been out on her ear already, and no room for error.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
