Isn’t that just too lilly-white and Christian. Yuk. These ministers, there to serve the crown, flogged from the public purse. They tried to get away with it. How arrogant can they get, putting porn on the ministerial credit card.

Remember these were the same lot who wanted to regulate how much water I used in my shower, yet they can charge their porn up to the public purse. And from memory it was Shane Jones to defended the need to regulating the amount of water I could use in my shower.

Who needs the regulating? I ask you?

Least we forget, they were led by the then Prime Minister who signed a painting she didn’t draw, sped through South Canterbury and didn’t stop the police officer from doing it. Least Shane Jones admitted what he did and didn’t for example, blame his driver.

Forgive them? Personally, yes, if they want it. Publicly, certainly not. I don’t want my children to be brought up thinking they can get away with this sort of stuff.

What's the problem is a person reimburses the expenditure?

I'd even go as far as saying this for the Porn too! While it's not something that I'd do and I think it was very unwise, even silly of Shane Jones to use the public purse, albeit temporarily, and while I'd prefer our MP's not engage in this sort of behaviour, it's not illegal and he paid it back.

So other than a personal issue, where's the problem?

These are two of the very perplexing questions the media has investigated on my behalf over the last week. In my view the articles were Fish n Chip paper before they were written.

When people are away on state business, my view is it's part of the cost of doing state business and the state bears the cost. However, there need to be some guidelines and some limits, it's simply not acceptable for the tax-payer to pay for porn.

Which in turn raises the issue of repayments. If these people have repaid what is considered "personal" expenditure, what's the problem and what's there to forgive?