Prime Minister David Cameron in Twitter gaffe Prime Minister David Cameron has committed yet another Twitter gaffe after following a high-class escort agency on the social network. Using his official account, @Number10gov, the Prime Minister keeps up to date with the goings-on at Carltons of London, which bills itself as a “high class escort agency”. Its gallery shows a …
Following the letter of cabinet office guidelines, yes it should be handed over to the next incumbent, as it's run by non-political civil servants out of number 10's communications office (which is why it shouldn't ever tweet about political affairs - it should go quiet during election cycles, for example).
The same goes for the mayor of london's account. Boris, being a bit of a silly old sod, decided that the best way to sidestep this issue during his re-election campaign was to simply take the mayoroflondon account, promoted on the GLA site and run from public funds the same way as the number 10 account, and rename it "@borisjohnson", taking all of its 250,000 followers (gained with public funds, if you're still following) with him to promote his political activities in re-election, on the basis that if it didnt have an official name, it ceased to be an official account.
It was swiftly changed back once the lawyers loomed on the horizon.
Whether or not it will actually be handed over is another matter. It probably will because the cabinet office, despite the current government's best efforts, is still pretty strong on the matter of the civil service's political neutrality. It becomes a lot more muddy in the realm of corporate communications. There's dozens of journalists who switch to rivals and just replace one employer with another - Laura Kuenssberg is a good example.
>>as it's run by non-political civil servants out of number 10's communications office
Lolity lol lol lol.....as it's run [by assorted Sophias, Annabelles and anyone who can throw toys out a of pram far enough who then demand their hipster Eton messes are enacted] by non-political civil servants out of number 10's communications office. Fixed it for ya. Anon obviously, otherwise mine's the Oxfordshire field with the packet of Gillettes in it.
According to these stories,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/20/cameron-folllows-escort-agency-on-twitter_n_4310648.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511016/Harriet-Harmans-MP-husband-Jack-Dromey-adds-gay-porn-Tweet-favourites.html
(ahem!)
the, er, meat of the story is that until 2009 - at which time Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, so settling that point as well - "@Number10gov automatically followed anyone who followed the account", and, for that reason, until now was still following 370,000 accounts.
I think it was in Metro and a bit early in the morning for correct interpretation of the news that I thought I saw a garbled version of this story which just implied that Gordon Brown subscribed to the friendly ladies.
I think someone else said that the friendly ladies don't do any tweeting and so presumably they just have an account in order to keep track of potential clients, which makes subscribing to No 10 a bit cheeky, if that's what happeneed.
Actually, the most amusing bit is El Reg's insistence that the site is for "hookers", a potentially libelous accusation given that the site has a minute disclaimer stating they are only selling the ladies' services as "escorts" for companionship, genteel conversation, etc., and not at all as a sex for cash. Yeah, I know, we all "know" what they're selling, but I'm not sure I'd want to making that assumption online.....
> prices of up to £800 an hour, which would seem expensive
Isn't that why MPs have expenses?
.... and I seem to recall Cameron himself being involved in a "cash for access" scheme a couple of years ago, He was charging a dam' sight more for his time then. Makes you wonder: who's really getting screwed?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Just how beautiful a woman, how extreme a kink, can you get for ₤800 that you couldn't just as easily get for ₤100?
Sitting here at the wrong end of a 16-to-1 currency exchange ratio, "eye-watering" doesn't begin to cover it.
Wait, I think I just answered my own question. The thought of throwing away that amount of money must be part of the "thrill", especially as it sets you so far apart from the plebs.
As a thought experiment - would you go out with me for £100?
Not sure?
I'm assuming that you're not a woman, but the calculation that you make should be the same, regardless.
By the way, I've been meaning to comment for a while on the practice of describing one or another demeaning task being performed by "an out of work actor". If the demeaning task is the sort of thing that Julian and Sandy used to get up to on [Round the Horne] - they ran a different fly-by-night business every week, such as law - "We have a criminal practice that takes up most of our time" - then yes, but if the demeaning task is in fact acting, then that isn't an out of work actor, because this is them working.
IF you think the prices are high then think again. The prices quoted (on any escort agency website) are "JUST" for the legal, escorting bit. Anyhting else is additional and negotated after paying that but before meeting the woman. Normally via email.
Anon because I know this as we've designed a fair few websites for escort agencies. We randomly got one then 5 or 6 more followed. The design guys loved the days when all the pictures were handed over. In one case the owner was very open about the other side of things.
Suffice to say you'd probably want the same amount of cash again if you wanted any antics other than hanging on your arm and looking amazing at whatever event, function or party you wanted company for.
In fairness to Jasper I have to cough to pointing him to the Pornhub story, which I encountered while pulling the strings behind @TheRegister - which, by the way, is the best thing going on Twitter and you should all follow it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
