Why such fuss over Jacqui Smith's expenses claim?

I'm sorry to blog about Jacqui Smith two days in row, but I'm a little baffled by the whole situation.

Has the Home Secretary come under such criticism because she claimed a "TV package" on expenses, or because that package included two pornographic films?

The BBC says: "MPs can claim for subscription television services but they have to be used wholly, exclusively and necessarily to perform their duties."

Obviously, the blue porn movies didn't help Smith perform her duties (so to speak), but neither, presumably, did Surf's Up or Ocean's 13 – the other films covered by the claim.

Had Smith only claimed for the latter films, I'm sure she wouldn't now be facing quite such criticism and anger – but what, really, would be the difference? The same rule would have been broken.

This suggests that the anger aimed at Smith is fuelled in part by people's feelings towards (legal) pornography, and not solely by misuse of the expenses system.

Anyone care to agree or disagree with me?

• Guardian.co.uk: 'Home Secretary Jacqui Smith embarrassed by new expenses row'

• Telegraph.co.uk: 'Jacqui Smith is clinging on by her fingernails'

Channel 4 News: 'Blue movies' and 'roughed up'

This evening's Channel 4 News made me laugh twice with its choices of words.

Firstly, it referred to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's husband Richard Timney as having claimed two "blue movies" on expenses. Pornographic movies (or films) possibly, even adult movies at a pinch - but blue movies? Very tabloidese.

Secondly, it said that one of the militants involved in the siege of the police academy in Lahore had been "roughed up" by police after they captured him. Rather euphemistic, I feel.

Admittedly, Channel 4 News isn't the only source to use the phrase 'blue movies' in relation to the Jacqui Smith farce. I can't find any other examples of 'roughed up' relating to the police academy siege, though.