Bloody disgraceful, but thats the goverment for you, a load of thieving gits.

was he a Scottish mp?

Just incase any of you feel like giving to charity Go on.. you know you wanna!

Haha! Cheap shot but we need the help!

Bloomin disgusting!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
was he a Scottish mp?

Dont know

I take it back

Stockton on Tees

i heard it on the radio this morn and thought i heard wrong so waited until full news then realised it was for real!!!!!

that really is the lowest of the low.

quote:

Originally posted by Scrumtum:
i heard it on the radio this morn and thought i heard wrong so waited until full news then realised it was for real!!!!!

that really is the lowest of the low.

Yes it is real, heard it today.

quote:

Originally posted by Scrumtum:
well it beats Mr & Mrs Porno....

Can I dare to suggest it doesn’t?

He, I suspect during the course of his work and duties may have been put on the spot to donate money to a charity that he would not have wanted to do so at the time. Whereas the home secretary’s husband wanted us to pay for his sick solo pleasures and he got paid the claim Mrs Smith put through, but the charity claim was rejected by the fees office.

BTW they are both wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
He, I suspect during the course of his work and duties may have been put on the spot to donate money to a charity that he would not have wanted to do so at the time. Whereas the home secretary’s husband wanted us to pay for his sick solo pleasures and he got paid the claim Mrs Smith put through, but the charity claim was rejected by the fees office.

BTW they are both wrong.

i disagree because a charity donation is what you want to do. u aint under no obs to do it.

the actual thought of claiming itt back, to me, is worse than actually claiming it.

nowt wrong wiv porn. claiming it is wrong but i feel this charity saga is way worse.

'sick solo pleasures'?

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
'sick solo pleasures'?

I understood he was on his own when he watched the movies.

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
'sick solo pleasures'?

I understood he was on his own when he watched the movies.

What a banker.

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
'sick solo pleasures'?

I understood he was on his own when he watched the movies.

Being married to the Various Homes Secretary like he was, he'd want to be on his own while watching such material

id say they both used it as lube

they were both a bit dryyy

quote:

Originally posted by Scrumtum:

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
He, I suspect during the course of his work and duties may have been put on the spot to donate money to a charity that he would not have wanted to do so at the time. Whereas the home secretary’s husband wanted us to pay for his sick solo pleasures and he got paid the claim Mrs Smith put through, but the charity claim was rejected by the fees office.

BTW they are both wrong.

i disagree because a charity donation is what you want to do. u aint under no obs to do it.

the actual thought of claiming itt back, to me, is worse than actually claiming it.

nowt wrong wiv porn. claiming it is wrong but i feel this charity saga is way worse.

Let’s say he was asked to attend a charity as a representative of the government and he really had no personal interest in that particular charity or he was short of money. But felt obliged to hand over some money he could not afford or wished to contribute, I can see why he would want to claim that money as an expense. This is not to say I agree with him , the fees office didn’t either and refused to reimburse him. Just can’t see it beating the Smith’s claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
Just can’t see it beating the Smith’s claim.

What really troubles me is how out of touch these politicians and their spouses really are. £8 to watch some tosh on Red Hot Dutch, when the internet is right there. And (for the most part) free at the point of use

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
[ But felt obliged to hand over some money he could not afford or wished to contribute, I can see why he would want to claim that money as an expense.

It's the largesse that gets me.

A fiver

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
Let’s say he was asked to attend a charity as a representative of the government and he really had no personal interest in that particular charity or he was short of money. But felt obliged to hand over some money he could not afford or wished to contribute, I can see why he would want to claim that money as an expense. This is not to say I agree with him , the fees office didn’t either and refused to reimburse him. Just can’t see it beating the Smith’s claim.

if he was short on monye he shoulda just declined politely and keep it movin.

we had sum1 to that the other day outside a concert. i didnt wanna give but did anyway knowing i only had coppers. so i gave 5p.

rolling up @ said charity to sayin 'can i have my 5p back' is loooooooow.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:
Just can’t see it beating the Smith’s claim.

What really troubles me is how out of touch these politicians and their spouses really are. £8 to watch some tosh on Red Hot Dutch, when the internet is right there. And (for the most part) free at the point of use

He may have been worried about the traces on their PC, in case some one had to have a look at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
What really troubles me is how out of touch these politicians and their spouses really are. £8 to watch some tosh on Red Hot Dutch, when the internet is right there. And (for the most part) free at the point of use

yea but u only get snippets for free... unless u torrennt like...

I think both the porn film claim and the charity claim are shameful, but I do feel the charity claim takes the edge on the greater 'sin'.

I think the porn thing is funny and a terrible personal embarrassment for the home sec. Giving to a charity and then claiming it back seems altogether more damning of the mans character, and therefore is just cringeworthy.

The films claimed for could have just as easily have been The Lion King, or any other family film, it's only because it was porn that it caused such a reaction in people.

Charity donations are usually someones personal quest to help a cause they firmly believe in. We do it because we want to, we walk away from the deed hoping to have made a difference and feel we have contributed to something good. To then claim that back makes that individual a taker, not a giver.

Claiming for porn is definately a no no, but it's not as if her Husband claimed HIS donation back! I believe he was happy to let it go off to the laundry with all the other linen.

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:

He may have been worried about the traces on their PC, in case some one had to have a look at it.

Ccleaner

quote:

Originally posted by Scrumtum:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
What really troubles me is how out of touch these politicians and their spouses really are. £8 to watch some tosh on Red Hot Dutch, when the internet is right there. And (for the most part) free at the point of use

yea but u only get snippets for free... unless u torrennt like...

I beg to differ