Thursday, 10 June 2010

Pornography is a legitimate expense for an MP

There can be grey areas over what you can charge – such as meals etc. But no one could have a reasonable expectation that hotel porn is a legitimate work related expense.

When your employer requires you to travel away from home as part of your employment it seems reasonable that they meet those fundamental human needs that are reasonably expected to be met at home. Why is it any less important for a persons sexual needs to be met than their need for shelter and food ?

Paying $19.90 for a pornographic movie seems a bargain in comparison to the alternative.


SHG said...

Does anyone seriously believe that Carter's "massage" in South America or his "spa treatment" in Cambodia were literally just that?

Hell, the porn was cheaper for the taxpayer.

Keeping Stock said...

Bollocks AG.

Anonymous said...

Having some imagination is even cheaper.

B.S. said...

Inventory2 - so it is ok for Tim Groser to spend $1300 on a meal in Lima but its not ok for Shane Jones to spend $20 on a porno movie in Auckland ? If people think that Jones should have just taken care of himself for free why don't we insist politicians eat at Mc Donalds ? This is nothing to do with the money and everything to do with prurient interest.