Forum Topic

Watching pornogrophy

Apparently one of our MP 's.  having a great time whilst in the commons ? ! What next !!

Helen Bamberger ● 1608d46 Comments

When I watch coverage of debates  I often see MPs using their mobiles.To me that is quite wrong whatever they are viewing or dealing with. They are in the House to listen or contribute and use of phones/ laptops can't be part of that. Phones/laptops should not be allowed.

Adrian Irving ● 1608d

Maybe they didn’t realise they were watching porn. Or maybe the porn just appeared out of nowhere, ambushing them. How long were they watching, under ten minutes? That’ll hardly count as watching it, surely.

David Turner ● 1608d

"Maybe they didn’t realise they were watching porn." Ah yes, that would explain it after all some didn't think that a bring your own booze invitation could be seen as a party!

Adrian Irving ● 1608d

Why does watching something 'for under ten minutes' not count as watching? It would not take anywhere near that long to realise what it was and switch it off.Watching porn at work,particularly in a public service role, is indefensible.

Keith Iddon ● 1608d

We must remember above all they are right honourable gentlemen.

Nicholas Beard ● 1608d

I found it quite astounding that Andrea Loathsome, instead of condemning it, insists on spluttering on and on ‘if it is true’.  Just the way in which she phrases her answers in interviews implies that she thinks it is some ‘communist plot’ to defame her morally perfect party.

Steve Taylor ● 1608d

She is right to talk about it in this way. It remains an allegation until it has been properly investigated. Party colleagues condemning the old perv before the full facts are known will give him the opportunity to say any inquiry has been prejudiced.

Felicity Caborn ● 1608d

Cathy Newman repeatedly asked her if she condemned the action of a colleague watching porn in the HOC.  It was a yes or no question. Very simple.  The pussy footing around  the answer speaks volumes about the party.  The yes or no answer would not prejudice and case.

Steve Taylor ● 1608d

As you said she added 'if it is true'. Are you saying she should condemn a colleague falsely accused of doing something?

Felicity Caborn ● 1608d

No, it doesn't. Andrea Leadsome sensibly declined to reply to a (probably deliberately) loaded question."Yes" would have implied a presumption of guilt, and "No" moral indifference.

Robert Fish ● 1608d

ST is just being silly again.

Richard Greenhough ● 1608d

I have a question. Whose phones are they using? If its phones provided by the goverment then it's us that pay.

Nicholas Beard ● 1608d

Even if not directly provided, you can guarantee that they claim the cost on expenses.

Paul Scullion ● 1608d

We'd all be better off if every one of the useless bastards watched porn 24/7.

Roger Talbot ● 1608d

The thing that annoys me so much is not the alleged watching of porn but that he chose to do so in a public place whilst at work. Oh, and in the House of Commons. I mean what did he think would happen? This implies a level of stupidity totally at odds with his position, either that or a percieved level of invincibility that totally belies that position.Either way, what an idiot.

Chris Blackwell ● 1608d

So what if he was watching porn - better than watching BBC Fake News, which is no doubt allowed in the House. Nosey narrow minded trouble making cows is all this story amounts to; but these prudes will still be appeased so it appears that other members are shocked and appalled by a fellow member showing interest in sex.

Michael Brown ● 1608d

You are wrong. Yes would mean she condemns the act of watching porn in the HOC. No would mean she doesn’t condemn such an act. Possibly because she believes it’s a personal matter and nobody else’s business. It is the ‘act’ she was asked about; not a person. It wasn’t a loaded question.

Steve Taylor ● 1608d

Forgive me, I was merely commenting on the question as quoted by you here. You referred to the action of "a colleague". Presumably the identity of said colleague was already known by many in the house, so this was not just a generalised question about watching porn in the house. It went to the culpability of a particular individual. I don't have much time for Ms Leadsome, but I think her response was perfectly proper.

Robert Fish ● 1608d

Is Michael Brown a real person or a time traveller from the Middle Ages?

Edward Lawrence ● 1608d

I suspect he's from the Middle Ages.

Chris Blackwell ● 1608d

Was he Knocking one out wile watching porn in The House of Commons?

Brian Green ● 1608d

His excuse will be that he was hard at work thinking of new ways to screw us.

Roger Talbot ● 1608d

'We'd all be better off if every one of the useless bastards watched porn 24/7.'Bloody hell! And I thought I was a cynical sod!!

Vanessa Smith ● 1608d

Oh Michael - if one wants to watch pornogrophy - watch it at home - not in the House of Commons !!

Helen Bamberger ● 1608d

But is the offence the using of his phone to watch online material in the House, or his choice of channel? If the latter, then it's just a matter of taste.

Michael Brown ● 1608d

"Nosey narrow minded trouble making cows"You've sunk to a new low Michael.

Andrew Jones ● 1607d

Philippa Bond ● 1607d

Watching online material when you are in the presence of other colleagues at work is highly questionable especially when you are supposed to be concentrating on what’s being said Watching porn at work in the presence of colleagues who can see what you are watching is very odd behaviour. If he’s ‘showing an interest in sex’ then presumably you would accept that for him to become aroused in public is part of that interest. It’s not simply a matter of taste. As has been highlighted in the news over the last few days pornography is an addiction. If the MP in question has a need to watch porn in the HoC then he might very well have the beginnings of an addiction problem in which case he needs help. Just like the MPs who snort cocaine in the toilets or drink excessively.

Stewart Jones ● 1607d

Unless they totally rebuild and reconfigure the Parliament building as a practical and professional place of work, it will remain the gentlemen's club it is today, with arcane regulations and procedures, silly working hours, and subsidised bars. MPs have for years avoided any clear definition of who 'employs' them and who is responsible for their behaviour and what responsibilities they have for any staff they employ. None of this behaviour would be acceptable anywhere else, but MPs persist with their uniquely elitist status that seeks to put them above and beyond those they represent.

Peter Evans ● 1607d

Reminds me a bit of local Councils.

Maggie Dodge ● 1606d

People have short memories. Back in 2017, Damian Green who was then Deputy Prime Minister was found to have thousands of pornographic images on his computer in the Commons which he accessed constantly. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detectiveHe resigned but not because of that directly and not as an MP. He is still regularly called on to comment as a serious political pundit.

Susan Engel ● 1606d

I am actually feeling quite sorry for him - yes he made a big mistake - but don't we all make mistakes ? I am sorry I made this post .

Helen Bamberger ● 1606d

Save your sympathy for people who deserve it!

Vanessa Smith ● 1606d

I agree, Helen. The man's been an utter fool, but you can't help feeling some sympathy for him, and especially for his family. They will all have to share his humiliation.

Robert Fish ● 1606d

Yes, by all means feel sorry for his poor wife and family - but he is just a complete idiot and old enough to know better!

Vanessa Smith ● 1606d

'..but you can't help feeling some sympathy for him'.Speak for yourself on that one, Robert.It seems like every few days we hear of a sitting mp doing this, that or t'other wrong doing of some sort whilst preporting to be serving their constituents or departments.Watching porn at work in any other job,especially a taxpayer funded one, is a sacking for anyone else in the real world,with probable loss of pension rights to boot.But of course, he's probably from an upper middle class background with all kinds of mates in all kinds of places.

Keith Iddon ● 1606d

He says he opened it by accident. Fair enough but what would you do if this happen?Correct. You would close it instantly.How is it then that two people had time to see what was on his phone?Something doesn't add up here.

Adrian Irving ● 1606d

It’s just another diversion from the clot shot genocide

bobby osborne ● 1606d

maybe not fair enough. we dont have the details, but if he only opened it 'by accident', what was it doing on his phone anyway? previously downloaded? url saved in browser favourites?

Paul Barnett ● 1605d

Use of mobile phones distractedly and wilfully used in any way by MPs in the House of Commons, or lords in the Lords, even councillors in Council Chambers sessions should be an offence.

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1605d

It seems that mp's can do what they like and just say they are sorry without any real sanction,'coz guess wot,they can't be sacked as such because they are answerable only through the ballot box.I worked in public service for 37years and this would have been dismissal for gross misconduct with quite probable loss of pension.Resigning is not a punishment,it's a choice and even expulsion from the Conservative Party would not result in loss of earnings.Seems that our mp's are subject to different rules and regs.than the rest of us,they seem to do what the want and just say they are sorry and that's it.

Keith Iddon ● 1605d

Read his apology. And read what is claimed.It is claimed that witnesses saw him view porn on his phone three times - twice in a committee meeting and once in the commons chamber. He says he only viewed porn twice - the first time by accident and the second time was a 'moment of madness' but intentional.I'm not inclined to believe his peculiar 'by accident' claim where he says he was looking for a site about tractors and the porn site had a similar name. Really?I'm not inclined to be sympathetic about the 'moment of madness' claim as it was so clearly not madness but (at the very best and very kindest assessment) a terrible and tasteless lack of judgement. Such a lack of judgement that this man has no business being an MP. If this is the level of judgement he makes then he does not have the capability to be represent people and vote on decisions that impact the nation.

Alan Clark ● 1605d

Googling tractors was he? I used to like tractors but I don't anymore. I'm an extractor fan.

Chris Blackwell ● 1605d

The MP in question has resigned and there will be a by-election. It did take him three days to resign which indicates that he was possibly hoping that it would all disappear. However, he has resigned which is the right thing to do. Curious that the Minister for Women has had nothing to say in the matter at all. That’s Liz Truss, btw

Stewart Jones ● 1604d

Absolutely agree with you. MPs should not have mobiles when in the HOC.Should be concedntrating on the proceedings taking place. Same with Councillors . Should be banned

Beryl Bashford ● 1604d

Speaking from a long while ago I know but sexism and misogyny in local politics is not unknown either. A colleague of mine and myself were the butt of some really nasty comments and sarcastic remarks culminating in rumours that we were actually having a same sex relationship! This ironically from men who presented a real 'right on' 'woke' front to other people in public. There were some real Neanderthals in the Labour group of the time. One famous comment that sticks in the mind was 'of course I'd vote for a woman if she was really bright', to which my colleague responded 'look around this room at all these men and tell me which of those is 'really bright'? We would like the right to be as mediocre as them and still have it all.' At which point his wife dragged him away! However, this nonsense only made us all the more determined to stand our corner and fight back.

Vanessa Smith ● 1604d