Last night she said: ‘As I know from my personal experience, porn fascinates us – media and public alike. But we actually know very little about what it’s like to work in the industry and what porn is doing to our society, our children and our relationships.
‘In making this programme, I’ve been able to challenge my own views and attitudes and I want others to have the chance to join the debate too.’
A very dull debate. Talking about porn is like tap-dancing about architecture. Porn really is the ultimate show don’t tell. You either like it or you don’t and if you don’t like it then Sky TV has many other options. For example I watched Ching do Peking duck on Sky last night. If you do like it then well, you’ll know where to go.
During the hour-long documentary she will also raise questions over the accessibility of porn on the internet.
Now we get to the grist. Jacqui wants it banned. She wants it banned because it ruined her career and because banning porn fits some narrative she believes and because headgirl Ms Harman said so. Also of course it goes without saying that a turbo-munter like Smith is morally outraged that there exist ladies that people will pay to see with their kit off. I mean there might be ugly, obese former Home Secretary* fetishists out there but it’s a niche market at best. But really she wants it banned because like most pols she desires control. So you don’t care for internet porn? They will come for what you care for in time. The salami slicer has no off switch.
The 48-year-old former school teacher said it had been a mistake to submit the bill, which also included two other pay-per-view films.
And herein lies the rub (for want of a better term). We were amused by “porngate” but I don’t think that is what outraged us. What outraged me was that we were paying for Smith’s Sky TV in general. You see she still doesn’t get it. She thinks it was OK for us to pay for her telly as long as it wasn’t porn. And why is that? A charitable answer might be that she thinks porn is “naughty” whereas endless re-runs of Porridge on Watch isn’t but I do not feel charitable towards Ms Smith and I don’t partly because someone on a six figure salary ought to be able to pay Sky TV’s affordable rates. Or get a Freeview box or a puppet theatre or indeed just fuck off. Mainly though I think she means a mistake in the sense of a “politician’s mistake” by which I mean she got caught and it looked not just bad but risible and whilst pols can take a lot of stuff they can’t be laughed at. Apart from Mandelson, obviously, he can take 30mm depleted uranium rounds to the chest. He can take anything.
She will consider whether pornography damages the men and women who make it and watch it.
Now I dunno if porn is harmful. My suspicion is that it isn’t in and of itself. Of course there will be casualties but there are in any job. There are in accountancy. There are in politics. Indeed the only person I can think of who had their career trashed by porn is… Ms Smith. Well, I say trashed but…
Miss Smith has since secured a role as a consultant for KPMG, which won lucrative contracts when she was Home Secretary.
You don’t say!
She has also applied to be a vice chairman of the BBC Trust.
The two-and-a-half-day-a-week job comes with a £77,000 salary – far more than an MP’s with shorter hours.
So… Not content with shafting us her Sky bill she has designs on doing it via the telly tax. Magic. Porn, such is my understanding, involves the shameless display of cuntery. I feel Ms Smith is therefore supremely qualified to make a documentary about it.
PS. I wouldn’t mind the BBC job. I would stet “Larkrise to Candleford” (that’s another fat munter – Dawn French – on the skilly and iffit) and personally shoot the cast of Eastenders. I would get rid of the appalling slew of upper middle-class “comedies” and you know what? I might commission some real comedy and drama and such. I know it’s radical but my principle would be, “Will Dave be showing this twenty years from now?”. If “no” then bugger it.
PPS. One of our commentators (I forget your name, sorry) said that this site is filtered on his work computer as being “pornographic”. Well… I once posted a tasteful full-frontal nude but this post really answers the question. We are not a porn site but porn is mentioned. The ‘bot in question is filtering by text, not imagery.
*It is a truism of British politics that Home Secs are either grossly incompetent or fiercely draconian. Ms Smith broke the mould by being both. Somehow though I can’t quite see her as a dominatrix. Dita von Teese yes, Smith no.