Monday, 30 March 2009

We're Paying for their Porn Now....


On a weekend when most people in this country would be celebrating with the England team winning 4-0, the English cricket team winning something for a change, an English win in Formula one and Oxford winning the boat race, one of our top politicians has had the worst weekend of her political life.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, found out this weekend in an exclusive in the Sunday Express that while she was at work or living in the main family residence in Streatham (in her sisters loft) her husband Richard Timney, was downloading porn films to watch at their family's 2nd home in Redditch, Worcestershire, a home that she lived in for 15 years before she became an MP.
Richard is paid £40.000 a year to assist Jacqui by looking after the children inbetween downloads.

Now I don't mind anyone downloading porn films to watch, but I draw the line at paying for them.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was forced to apologise for "mistakenly" claiming the cost of watching a pair of adult movies on Commons expenses. She has claimed a £67.00 bill for Internet connection, a sink plug 88p and a light bulb, along with £22,000.00 worth of other "stuff" last year alone, for their second home.
In the past, she has a claimed £750.00 for a bed, £500.00 for a sink and £1,000.00 for an antique fire place.

Jacqui now has the dilemma of explaining why she knowingly put in this claim for downloaded porn, or if she says she didn't know about it, why she signed off the claim without first reading what it was for.
After all lets not forget this is the Right Honorable
Jacqui Smith Home secretary that wants to put CCTV camera's all over the country to spy on us, perhaps she should spend more time spying on her husband before he winds up with repetitive strain injury.

This is another example of the way politicians, party wide, are taking us all quite legally, for a ride. They all have their snouts in the troth, just like greedy little pigs, no better than benefit scroungers.

2 comments:

  1. Jim aren't we going off the point here mate???

    ReplyDelete
  2. This woman is incharge of the Police who are not doing what we pay them to do at this time.
    If she is replaced we may get some one who will insist on the met getting their act together.
    So yes this post is very much on the point.

    ReplyDelete

Please use an ID to post comments.