Porn Again: Jacqui Smith on 5 live

It wasn't a particularly informative piece. She showed even more naiivity than she had done as Home Secretary. But it is nice of the BBC to give a former Labour luvvie a step up in to broadcast journalism even if she doesn't have the trained eye of a proper journalist.

At 11:45am on 02 Mar 2011, carrie wrote:

It wasn't a particularly informative piece. She showed even more naiivity than she had done as Home Secretary. But it is nice of the BBC to give a former Labour luvvie a step up in to broadcast journalism even if she doesn't have the trained eye of a proper journalist.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with that and it is also nice for the BBC to pay Jacqui Smith so that her finances can recover from the lack of being unable to claim anymore than the £116,000 she claimed for allegedly living at her sister's house..

Agree with above comments. I think Smith will regret this - she's been very naive to have gone along with it - she'll be more of a laughing stock than she is already..Deadful photo too - utterly ridiculous

"....allegedly living at her sister's house" (Amysmythe -no.2) - who, of course, works for the BBC. Small world.

Just do not understand why this features on Best Bits when it hasn't even aired. Has she got her BECTU membership now?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

At 3:59pm on 02 Mar 2011, Sarnia wrote:



....Dreadful photo too - utterly ridiculous



I agree. She looks like she's looking for a bit of business. I wish this woman would just go away. I didn't like her in power and I certainly don't want her to muscle in on my leisure time and annoy me even more. Pathetic woman.

5. At 5:22pm on 02 Mar 2011, carrie wrote:

Just do not understand why this features on Best Bits when it hasn't even aired. Has she got her BECTU membership now?





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree

Poor judgement all round. Whoever thought this was a good idea was wrong.



I hope my license fee wasn't used wasted on this. I hope she didn't take a fee. Did she?

This blog did not appear to be going well. I am sure that it is just a coincidence that we suddenly got not one but two a day in the life blog entries in the 3 hours before this radio programme went out...

Having heard this much hyped programme (in order to be fair to Ms Smith when commenting afterwards,) from start to glorious finish at nearly midnight, I can honestly say that neither the programme or the phone in should appear on Best Bits! This programme is only being pushed in our radio listening time because station power brokers feel they achieved some kind of coup by signing her up. In fact the insight part was poor and didn't add to anything you couldn't have read anywhere by a proper journalist. The phone in was risky for her and she set herself up for all sorts of slightly dodgy criticisms from people which she seemed to be in her element fielding. It was painful and superficial and I actually felt cringingly embarrassed for her husband who despite making the original mistake along with Jacquie and the expenses debacle must be suffering a renewed humiliation this morning.



Please don't give her a "Jacquie investigates" series. Unless it is a subject mentioned in @2.

I thought the dodgy photo' at the top was Victoria Derbyshire...whoops!



Smith will get her money wherever she can. A no-shamer.

...more like Fogerty, surely.

Under Jacqui Smith's Dangerous Pictures Act, every one of us is (potentially) a sex criminal!

Look at its terms here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008

Being Queen is an act which threatens human life- that's why she has bodyguards.

The pictures of the Queen on all our banknotes and coinage make her as pretty as she can be- the image makers' intention is to arouse a sympathetic response, to make her attractive.

All pictures of people (including those of the Queen) are "grossly offensive" and "disgusting" to Muslims, for whom all pictures of people are blasphemous.

So the pictures on our money fall foul of Jacqui Smith's Law, and all of us could be prosecuted for possessing them.



How typical that in the hour she had to preach, the former Home Secretary didn't think to mention her Law, the worst, most intrusive, new Law this country has ever had imposed. Let alone try to justify it.

How typical that she instead called for even more gross intrusions on our privacy.



We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking all this hatred is just about pornography. It isn't. What Jacqui Smith cannot stand is other people having the right to make up our own minds what we like and dislike. She hates our independence of judgement, our freedom to have our own opinion.

All progress originates in original thought. You can't have progress without new ideas. All new ideas are initially unpopular. Jacqui Smith wants us in the Dark Ages, told what we can and cannot like, and punished for transgressing. There has never been a greater threat to our common future since the Reformation.

Just clarifying a bit... The Act says a contraband image is made to sexually arouse. If anyone thinks money isn't intensely sexually arousing for some people, they're utterly deluded.

Further, punishing sexual arousal is punishing something inherent in human nature we all share. That's clearly unjust

And further again, Jacqui Smith's Law punishes the possessor of an image because of the presumed intent of the image's maker. No person can know for sure the intentions of another person, (that's why poker is such fun!) If a Law cannot be comprehended, it is indisputably a bad Law. And if someone's punished on incomprehensible, (i.e. arbitrary) grounds, that's a clear breach of any reasonable notion of justice.

I'm pretty disgusted that the perpetrator of these injustices was allowed any kind of airtime, particularly since no other person has ever been allowed to discuss porn on the BBC.

Now we hear from a Colin Murray advert that Andrew Flintoff has been given a series to talk about sport news and invite guests on to 5Live. One of the most incoherent people even when sober, can you honestly not come up with someone who has proper media training and experience to front such a show? I can see someone like Graham Swann managing it because he actually does have a decent wide vocabulary, but adding Flintoff to the Savages of your world is totally nuts.

I don’t think there have been enough trailers for this programme ;-)

The Flintoff announcement just makes you wonder what the management at Five Live actually know about programming/presenting skills et all. But it is not just Five Live. Yesterday I was forced to Listen to Talk Sport as R5 didn't hve the days main game. Stan Collymore????? (Mind; remember Five Live championed him at one time. Just what were people thinking about?)



Colymore ... Flintoff ... Boycott ... Savidge ... all people who are so called big personalities who simply cannot carry it off. (Sorry to pre-judge Fred but I don't see it)

Let's not forget that not only has Savage become a 606 presenter this year he was deemed so good by the luminaries at 5Live that he joined the A Team last week, commentating with Alan Green and Mike Ingham on the Carling Cup final. A very dangerous precedent.



#epicfail

Would love to be a fly on the wall when Greeny and Ingham are having a quiet glass of decent red after the show while Savage is twittering to his audience of idiots!

It would be good if the BBC answered the issues raised here https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/08/bbc_opt_in_smith/ personaly I think this program is a complete waste and Ms Smith should stop proudly claiming to make legislation based on her own ignorance.