Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Jacqui Smith to make porn show for BBC

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.


  1. RAB says:

    Nick as specifically per your PS, you really must try to keep up, and stop watching those Sky cookery progs 😉

    The BBC has a new head, he’s a 34 year old Etonian (isn’t everybody these days?) and he wants to get rid of middle class comedy. Well I would have cancelled My Family after the first series, but Outnumbered is actually bloody good.

    Quite how you conjour up a new raft of Steptoe and Sons, Fools And Horses, Bread etc he hasn’t explained.

    And as for Larkrise to Candleford, it has been cancelled. Quitting whilst ahead I believe the phrase was. And as for the fat Munter French, she hasn’t been in it since series one, and they are on the fourth series now.

  2. NickM says:

    Everyone, and I mean everyone, responsible for “My Family” ought to be taken out into a back alley and shot. As to “Fartrise to Cuntleford” – well I can claim some sort of immunity. it is shite though. I never watched it because I would rather rim John Prescott’s beshitted arse.

    Anyway, I’ll tell you how I’d do it. “Simples” said the meerkat. I’d read the fucking script. If you don’t have a script worth a toss then you don’t have a show.

    My current fav thing on TV is “‘Allo ‘Allo” and does that not speak volumes?

    They would never make that again. I mean Jeebus wept Private Helga does a striptease in front of General von Klinkerhoffen to her basque and stockings and the basque has little swastikas on it whilst Rene half-inches the painting of the fallen Madonna with the big boobies by Van Klomp whilst crawling out under a bear-skin rug… Genius! Utter brilliance.

    Ze flashing knobs!

    We will never see the like again. We’re stuck with Gavin and fucking Stacey.

  3. Ian B says:

    Well as a general comment, the persistent puritanism that the Modern left emits in great reeking clouds is the biggest proof that whatever they’re up to, it’s not the following of Marcuse’s Eros And Civilisation. This theory that they’re trying to tear down Western Civ with immorality is just plain wrong. Whatever else they got from the Frankfurt School, it sure as hell wasn’t libertinism.

    Drives me fucking mad, to be honest, because too many people on the non-left persist in claiming that the Left are libertines, and they simply are not. What does a PC wallah “discover” when they “investigate” porn? They discover it’s evil and must be banned. Always. This’ll just be trotting out Mackinnonesque propaganda. I can just imagine what she means by her “views” being “challanged”. It’ll be, “I thought it was quite bad, now I realise it’s even worse” or something along those lines.

  4. Paul Marks says:

    At first I thought this was a joke – the former government minister doing a sex “investigation” for the BBC…….

    I have just worked out that you are not making this up – the BBC are really doing this.

    As for Ian B’s comment.

    Well a libertine is supposed to enjoy what they do (at least at first), but P.J. O’R (and others) say that their Comrades did not enjoy all the stuff – it was a rather joyless political act.

    “Puritanical in their vice”.

    So perhaps Ian has a point.

    As for the desire to ban stuff – yes they have moved (on some things).

    It used to be “let us encourage vice – it will undermine ……”.

    Now it is “let us ban everything – if we gain the power to ban stuff WE ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO BAN OTHER THINGS AND DO ALL SORTS OF INTERESTING THINGS”.

    Same objective – but 180 degree change on tactics (sometimes and on some things).

    If it is for the benefit of the collectivism they will support (say) homosexual acts, and if it for the benefit of collectivism to have all homosexuals killed and sold for dog food – well they would support that also.

    As for the followers – some are prudish and some libertine, and some neither.

    But it is the leaders who count – and they are pragmatic (about means – not ends).

    I doubt they really care if people bugger each other in the street, or use drugs till they die, or sell their young children to brothels.

    Their eyes on the prize – the future society where all will be perfect.

    I remember a C4 programme about Venezuela.

    The journalist (who was black and female) complained that the murder rate had vastly INCEASED under Chevez, and that so had rape and child prostitution and…. (well just about every vice and crime actually).

    The government representative did not bother to deny any of it – he just smiled and said that this was the transitional generation.

    The future society would be perfect – so this stuff was just not important.

    Neither a libertine or a prude.

    Just stark, raving, bonkers.

  5. Ian B says:

    I doubt they really care if people bugger each other in the street, or use drugs till they die, or sell their young children to brothels.

    Their eyes on the prize – the future society where all will be perfect.

    On the contrary, I think the point is they care very much about those things. The perfected human being who they hope to create will do none of them. I think one way of looking at it is, once true communism failed as an objective, all they were left with was the dream of perfected humanity. It’s interesting to note how even homosexuals are being moulded by them; gays are now expected to be restrained suburban couples, hence the whole gay marriage malarkey. All the old “gayness” is being made un-PC, replaced by moderate coupledom.

    We have got ourselves at cross purposes to some degree Paul, I think. I have not in my various posts been trying to imply a “Christian Conspiracy”. Rather, that this bizarre totalitarianism is what you get when you start with the religious impulse but take God out of it. It careens off the rails into the strangest tyranny the world has ever seen.

  6. RAB says:

    Jacqui Smith talks Porn on the radio? Should work about as well as ventriloquism shouldn’t it? Buy hey phone sex sells, and all those babes those idiots ring up are actually sixty year old grannys doing knitting and talking dirty in shifts, not the young babes the punters think they, are and I’ve never understood that either. And the Babestation shit on the freeview high numbers should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act!

    I could write the script for what she is going to say right now.

    Yes we are all facinated by Porn, but NO it is NO good for US! It corrupts, depraves and numbs the poor victims of it, da yadda da yadda… It must be restricted da yadda da… Well fuck you Jacqui! or rather not, not even with a blindfold and a gagball (and that’s for me! 😉

    I have just come in from a dinner party in Glastonbury and I’m pretty wasted. Life long Libertine moi, but nice with it. Sure you still want to come for the weekend sometime soon Paul?

    I would like to nominate Charlie Sheen as Britain’s new Drugs and Porn Tzar. Now there’s a man who takes the subject seriously!

  7. Paul Marks says:

    They do NOT believe that true Communism has failed as an objective.

    Ian you are “projecting” – you are projecting your belief (one I share) that it is false, on to them.

    They do NOT believe it is false objective – whatever temporary setbacks there may have been (which is how they think of 1989 and so – “but that is barking mad” did I say they were not barking mad?).

    Remember this stuff is a LOT older than Karl Marx – it goes back to Plato and beyond.

    And from Plato to Star Trek (New Gen anyway).

    Do you know that the typical American hard leftist (the university prof type) does not see anything wrong in “Star Trek: New Generation”.

    He might agree that the science is crap – but the society, well that is fine, a noble objective (not crackbrained madness, for that is what it really is, at all).

    As for sex and stuff.

    Back in the days of the early Fabians – it was screw anything that moved (or did not move come to that).

    Then in the time of Stalin and so on it turned into what Orwell sneered at as the “Anti Sex League”.

    Then in the 1960s it was decadent again.

    Then it was let us censor everything and ban X, Y,Z.

    Now it is…….

    Oh who cares – it will change again in awhile (and I do not really know what moral position the left leaders are claiming to hold this week).

    “Religious impluse”.

    Actually I suspect Ian is CORRECT.

    Plato and co were profoundly religous people (in some sense of the word) – although the neither believed in the Gods (as traditionally understood – i.e. as real beings) or believed in any of the traditional teaching.

    Indeed Plato’s Republic starts off with an attack on the traditional definition of justice given by the old sages of Greece.


    Well instead we have a lot mystical round hairy objects – as far as I can make out (although I can not read Greek, and so have to judge by various translations).

    Karl Marx (in the early manuscripts) is much the same – the egalitarian community is all in all.

    The fake “science” come later.

  8. NickM says:

    “Mystical hairy round objects”

    In the context of porn? Behave Paul! I do the smut round here.

    Ian. I don’t have an issue with gay marriage but you do hit a point that the left is OK with sex as long as it obeys their boundaries and in some ill-defined way serves a “socially useful purpose”. The opposite of sex in my book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *