The fact it was porn is irrelevantThe public is narked because it's come off the back of her housing allowance claim that is currently being investigated, and she's the fucking home secretary.
She is is one of the main people responsuible for telling people how to live their lives.
It's classic 'do as I say, not as I do' and the public are sick to death of being preached to about morality by people who have all the morality of a criminal.
(She is is one of the main people responsuible for telling people how to live their lives.
It's classic 'do as I say, not as I do' and the public are sick to death of being preached to about morality by people who have all the morality of a criminal.
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration,
Mon 30 Mar 2009, 14:16,
archived)
I don't have an issue with it really.I think it's pretty much the same as VAT returns. I claim absolutely everything I possibly can including her hair and makeup against business expenses and some of it is accepted and some not. Nobody bats an eye that I claim for some things that will never be accepted ( although my accountant and I often have a wry smile at each other as if to say " I can't believe we just put THAT on there" )
Expenses should be the same. Claim for everything you can and then somebody decides what's in and what's out. That's how it works when I get expense claims in during jobs.
The uproar should not be about who claimed it, but whoever passed it if indeed, they did.
(Expenses should be the same. Claim for everything you can and then somebody decides what's in and what's out. That's how it works when I get expense claims in during jobs.
The uproar should not be about who claimed it, but whoever passed it if indeed, they did.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Mon 30 Mar 2009, 14:28,
archived)