Thursday, 25 February 2010

Jaqui Smith's Husband


“'Did I bring the porno?' What to I look like? Some kind of 'non-porno-bringer'?”
-Peter Griffin, Family Guy


It has been nearly a year since the husband of Home Secretary Jaqui Smith was caught using her expense to pay for two pay-per-view porn movies for her husband. Since then, the MPs' expenses scandal has deepened and deepened.

I've already mentioned in 'Human Nature', a previous blog, that greed is intrinsic to human character and that our MPs are just like every other normal person- they'll take what they can when they can.

There was something about this particular expenses claim, however, that didn't sit right.

The Daily Mail quoted Ms. Smith as saying, “I am sorry that, in claiming for my internet connection, I mistakenly claimed for a television package alongside it.”

What?

This is the equivalent of writing a cheque to your gas supplier and “accidentally” missing a digit off.

The majority of Britain was angrily asking, “Why are my taxes being used so that Jaqui Smith's husband can have a wank?” I, however, wondered who actually pays for porn these days.

Ms. Smith had already claimed for her internet connection, which is usually an up-front monthly bill these days. Did neither she, nor her husband, realise how much porn was available online, right at their, um, fingertips? No matter how weird or bland his tastes, he'd find his niche on the net: the internet caters for a wide range of tastes. Or so I believe.

What her husband did was ultimately pretty normal- the adult entertainment industry is the biggest industry in the world. Lots of people do the same thing as him. I just don't know why Ms. Smith used a medium she'd have to pay for separately in the first place, let alone claim for it on her parliamentary expenses. And why didn't anyone else ask this?

It just goes to show how up-to-date our MPs are with technology, society and the world. Why is it that the higher that people climb through the ranks of politics, the less of a grip they seem to have on reality?

No comments: