Keith Vaz - Oh dear!

[NooBHA]

It is fine for you to have your laissez-faire attitude towards such matters. Very non-judgemental, excellent. It is, however, rather judgemental of you to brand all those who don't share your view that anything goes, even for people in positions of trust or power, as sanctimonious religious die-hards of one faith or another.

My post you responded to made reference to no one but myself

 

[Bakero]

If in your view drug users are best placed to assess drug laws, why not apply the same principle to other aspects of criminal law?

Or does it just apply to drugs..........

I don't consider personal drug use a serious crime.

 

[cunning fergus]

Surely that applies to the entire human race?

Every single contributor to this board has told a lie. Every single one has probably done something ever so slightly questionable in their time. Every single one will have- or will know somebody who has- had affairs, or been unfaithful in one way shape or form to a partner, or experimented with their preferences in some way, or even paid for sex


That's just humanity. It doesn't make it morally correct, of course- depending on your particular moral standpoint- but it's gone one since the dawn of time. Are politicians statistically likely to be any better or worse than the rest of us? I'm not surprised Vaz has resigned from his position on that committee, and I think that's fair enough. But I imagine there are few cracked glass houses out there right now, be they amongst the ladies & gentlemen of the media or the wider public

You are conflating generic human frailty with an MP who has deceived his constituency electorate and the wider electorate about who he is.

If you think an MP with significant influence on our laws on prostitution, drugs and immigration should be able to (allegedly) have a secret private life that involves paying Romanian male prostitutes to engage in a drug related trysts whilst projecting himself as a family man then I think you will never be disappointed by any MPs conduct.

Very sad, but you are in a minority.

 

[Cian]

What's the difference between a prostitute and an escort?

You have dinner with an escort, I believe, m'lud.

I'm not sure what the general public sees as the biggest issue here, but I'd consider the hypocrisy over personal drug use to be the biggest one. The bonking whores of any description may be down to the unacceptability of getting divorced in the eyes of his electorate, which is a separate issue.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Quite simply because I don't care what he does in private. I care not one jot whether he takes drugs or how hairy his arse is or whether he likes Romanian prostitutes. It is none of my business and I did not say that it did not deserve to be made public and for to let the electorate decide for themselves.

To some people - other peoples private lives matter. To me it does not and if it did I would buy the Sun on Sunday or Hello magazine. I do not.

I take an interest in current affairs and historical matter and am educated to University level. I wouldn't say I am any more learn-ed than anyone else on here but I am most definitely not thick. I know people from all walks of life and from many different backgrounds and although I may have views on things I try not to judge people if I can help it because in life I can only take responsibility for myself and no one else

I agree with you, Noo with one qualification which actually turns my overall view to the opposite.

If people in power have a 'shameful secret' then that makes them very vulnerable to blackmail. This could come from business pressure groups, foreign governments etc.

Best it is all out in the open and this 'influence' is removed.

 

[GT49er]

My post you responded to made reference to no one but myself

Then why specify particular groups - "I don't have the sanctimonious morals of a church on Sunday or Mosque on Friday or Schul on Saturday". You could just say, "not agreeing that it's a problem (Vaz's behaviour) doesn't make me thick". By specifying 'sanctimonious religious people' that implies that is exactly what you think those who disagree with you are.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Agree with your agreement and description plus the Schadenfreude but do feel sorry for his family though.

Yes - a fair point.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was responding to a poster who indicated that sex scandal tended to involve Tories........a simple google search bought up the website, which includes plenty of links to court cases involving Labour members etc.

If you think these links are false feel free to advise.

For what it's worth I am not defending Tories, merely seeking balance. The awful truth is that our political class is riven with liars, chancers and sexual deviants.

They would do well to have a cross party purge otherwise the electorate's faith in politicians will enter dangerous territory.

Calling out any websites that identify shameful conduct by elected officials as neo nazi is missing the point.

I agree with all your points except the last line. The provenance of 'evidence' is important. A website that considers Harriet Harman's 'shameful conduct' is her 'zionism' is not a website to use to substantiate a point. If I wanted to make a point about Jummy Savile, I wouldn't quote from Gary Glitter's web page

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Who on earth uses the phrase sexual deviants in this day and age?

 

[NooBHA]

I agree with you, Noo with one qualification which actually turns my overall view to the opposite.

If people in power have a 'shameful secret' then that makes them very vulnerable to blackmail. This could come from business pressure groups, foreign governments etc.

Best it is all out in the open and this 'influence' is removed.

I don't disagree with that. Potentially being open to Blackmail is a major issue for people in power - my posts were more about statements making reference to ''hairy prolapsed are and drug taking'' - We all in life need to do things to heighten endorphins in our bodies. That's what allow us to enjoy life.

Some use drugs, some have stimulating sex, some bungee jump or sky dive, some people gamble or drink alcohol and some people do it through indulgence of chocolate or other rich food stuffs. Whatever we as individuals choose is fine by me so long as all involved are consenting adults.

Keith Vaz, his indulgencies are illegal, so he cant be open about them and still do his job as has been demonstrated by his resignation

 

[NooBHA]

Then why specify particular groups - "I don't have the sanctimonious morals of a church on Sunday or Mosque on Friday or Schul on Saturday". You could just say, "not agreeing that it's a problem (Vaz's behaviour) doesn't make me thick". By specifying 'sanctimonious religious people' that implies that is exactly what you think those who disagree with you are.

My post carefully referred to the ''Entity'' of ''a church on Sunday'' ''a mosque on Friday'' '' a schull on Saturday'' Using the word ''a'' as a pronoun I thought would have made that clear.

Once that was clear then it up to the reader to read into the ''entity'' and once I have done that then the reader is the person who identifies the sanctimonious views which we all know are harboured within these entities. Not by everyone as we know but definitely by some within each of those particular entities

 

[El Presidente]

Is it true that he advertised himself in the contact magazines as a washing machine repairman?

If so, can we call him Keith Daz?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I don't disagree with that. Potentially being open to Blackmail is a major issue for people in power - my posts were more about statements making reference to ''hairy prolapsed are and drug taking'' - We all in life need to do things to heighten endorphins in our bodies. That's what allow us to enjoy life.

Some use drugs, some have stimulating sex, some bungee jump or sky dive, some people gamble or drink alcohol and some people do it through indulgence of chocolate or other rich food stuffs. Whatever we as individuals choose is fine by me so long as all involved are consenting adults.

Keith Vaz, his indulgencies are illegal, so he cant be open about them and still do his job as has been demonstrated by his resignation

I have heard several comments that he hasn't actually done anything illegal.

He is "compromised", however.

 

[alfredmizen]

Wayne Rooney has not been elected into the houses of Parliament to represent the interests of tens of thousands of people, and neither does he influence our laws or sit on parliamentary committees assessing matters such as immigration, prostitution or drug use.

If Vaz (allegedly) wants to pay Romanian male prostitutes to felch his hairy cum spattered prolapsed arse whilst high on coke and amyl nitrate then I think it should only be fair that his fellow MPs and the broader electorate should be fully aware of the predilection save there is any conflict of interest.

I suspect just like his wife the broader electorate didn't.

If you can't understand this dynamic then maybe the remainers in the Brexit have a point about people being to thick to vote.

spot on.

 

[alfredmizen]

Of course Corbyn has to take some of the blame himself but the press he gets is worse than Labour leaders of the past. It comes from the left wing papers too.

Edit- Anway, back to Vaz

And that doesnt tell you something ?

 

[spring hall convert]

This is the tip of the iceberg with Vaz. One of the dodgiest Parliamentarians out there.

Not that it's is a barrier to advancement though, ask Liam Fox.

 

[spring hall convert]

And that doesnt tell you something ?

That newspapers have stopped performing their primary function.

But I suspect that's as widely acknowledged as Keith Vaz's dodgyness is.

 

[Bakero]

And that doesnt tell you something ?

That he riles the establishment?

 

[spring hall convert]

What I never understand - if you are in a position of public scrutiny, how can you possibly believe that these things will not get out into the public arena. Arrogance ?

Or maybe knowledge that if it is anything really serious, the old boys club will help you out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ter-telling-police-of-MPs-alleged-crimes.html

Interestingly that Conservative MP in that story, Andrew Bridgen said yesterday - “I have long been of the opinion that Keith Vaz is not fit to be an MP.

“I’m afraid that what has been exposed by the Sunday Mirror is the tip of the iceberg. There should a full police investigation and a Parliamentary standards inquiry.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-shame-labour-mp-keith-8768207

Coincidence?

 

[Jim D]

Is it true that he advertised himself in the contact magazines as a washing machine repairman?

If so, can we call him Keith Daz?

Surely there's a play on Fairy in there too. Non-bio or not.