Vaz's Vices

[Marb]

So Keith Vaz goes under cover.....literally....... to get a good feel of his subject..

Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror believes Keith Vaz's position as chair of Home Affair Select Committee is untenable after relevations he banged hookers and snorted coke, but Kevin Maguire is wrong.

This actually makes Keth Vaz more qualified as he's now got first hand experience of both issues.

I'm so tired of this neo-liberal 'we need our politicans to be whiter than white' culture. MP's scared to admit they smoked a bit of dope at college etc. Lets get real and accept they can be mischevious too.

Politics is a more interesting and less authoritarian subject if we accept they screw up like the rest of us.

No surprise to me if the Old Bill tipped off the newspaper, especially given his excellent chairmanship and questioning of police constables after 3000 girls were sexually abused in Rotherham.

 

[Maruco]

I'm sure Vaz's wife and two children won't regard it as being mischievous, so why should we?!

 

[Marb]

He wouldn't be the first man to **** on his wife and kids.
The idea MPs' should never break the law is an ideological fallacy.

 

[Warbler]

A few months ago Marb you posted something that I believe painted him in a positive light. I recall sounding a cautionary note when you did.

Let's just say that these revelations will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone familiar. This is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. Sometimes though Britain gets what Britain deserves. That no one took any action for decades, despite a lot of this (and worse) being an open secret is a reflection on the systemic rotteness of our political structure. I don't believe KV has a single redeeming personal characteristic.

I kind of want to go Clive on this and describe him a vile man. He truly is (imo)

 

[EC1]

A few months ago Marb you posted something that I believe painted him in a positive light. I recall sounding a cautionary note when you did.

Let's just say that these revelations will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone familiar. This is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. Sometimes though Britain gets what Britain deserves. That no one took any action for decades, despite a lot of this (and worse) being an open secret is a reflection on the systemic rotteness of our political structure. I don't believe KV has a single redeeming personal characteristic.

I kind of want to go Clive on this and describe him a vile man. He truly is (imo)

I personally don't care if an MP has any particular leaning sexually..but when it interferes with his job..then i do. Its not long ago he was involved in the poppers vote..so he is now seen as having conflicted interests

at end of day..the whole revelation..means its curtains for him.

yes its not savoury the way he has been exposed..but when you sit on those select commitees you best make sure you haven't got skeletons in locker..as those who you preside over just might reveal them..thats life unfortunately

what made me laugh a little was it was reported on the news that his nickname around westminster is "vass -eline"..the reason given.."he manages to slip out of situations"..i think we all now know why he has that nickname tbh

 

[Maruco]

He wouldn't be the first man to **** on his wife and kids.
The idea MP's should never break the law is an ideological fallacy.

No it's not. He represents his constituency and serves the public interest. The last time I looked drugs and prostitution are illegal so why on earth would I turn a blind eye to what he's done?

 

[Marb]

A few months ago Marb you posted something that I believe painted him in a positive light. I recall sounding a cautionary note when you did.

If I painted him in a positive light, it would have been because of something he's done in a professional capacity, as I obviously don't know the man. I don't particularly want to either.

Maruco, I reiterate the point... If you're only going to allow MPs' to talk about issues and laws like drug legislation, if they've never actually had any direct experience of them, (legally or illegally), then your not going to get a representative sample. So therefore you won't be genuinely serving the public interest either.

Prostitution and drug use are two of the most controversial subjects in terms of illegality. To deny an MP who has partaken in either vice, a say in the laws made surrounding those issues, seems sanctimonious.

 

[Warbler]

If you painted him in a positive light, it would be because you're unaware of everything else that surrounds him. I personally regard him as the worst MP in the country

 

[Drone]

Marble,

Warbler is understandably a little wary of disclosing specifics but if you Google 'Vaz'

plus any of the following, you should get an idea

Rushdie
Hinduja
Wilders
Eggington
Mireskandari
Rochdale
Janner
Expenses

Consuming entheogens, getting pissed, putting it about and generally behaving badly are pre-requisites of the metamorphosis from young-and-daft to adulthood and no one should hold these youthful experiments against anyone once older-and-wiser, quite the opposite infact; but if a 59 year-old who chooses to pursue a profession that includes in its remit the 'setting of example' and enjoys pontificating from the moral high ground continues to behave - secretly - as the young-and-daft do then he has no place in that profession

 

[Warbler]

I could add a lot more to that list Drone.

 

[Marb]

I understand, Drone.

For me its not so much about Keith Vaz personally. Individually he does have a back catalogue of issues. Whether he stays or goes, or goes or stays is not my real concern.
I used his example, solely on this one issue, to ask why it makes him less fit to talk about laws on prostitution and drugs. The same as Iain Dunt asked on Newsnight last night when commenting with Iain Dale.

 

[Diamond Geezer]

Resigned as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Commitee

 

[Warbler]

Got off lightly then

 

[simmo]

I understand, Drone.

For me its not so much about Keith Vaz personally. Individually he does have a back catalogue of issues. Whether he stays or goes, or goes or stays is not my real concern.
I used his example, solely on this one issue, to ask why it makes him less fit to talk about laws on prostitution and drugs. The same as Iain Dunt asked on Newsnight last night when commenting with Iain Dale.

Playing devils advocate to a certain extent - I get your point - but - would you have rapists, murderers and paedophiles constructing the laws around those crimes? Should we only be able to frame laws if we have committed the crime?

I suspect that what you are really trying to say is that you don't believe prostitution and drugs to be crimes at all. I would have some sympathy for that viewpoint.

 

[Marb]

Playing devils advocate to a certain extent - I get your point - but - would you have rapists, murderers and paedophiles

The answer is no. The legality of those crimes is not, has not, and will clearly not, ever be up for debate.

Should we only be able to frame laws if we have committed the crime?

The answer is obviously no. However, we have a status quo at present that only allows 'clean' people - so by definition 'clean MPs' a right to legislate.

I suspect that what you are really trying to say is that you don't believe prostitution and drugs to be crimes at all. I would have some sympathy for that viewpoint.

My comments on this are about getting proper public representation into parliament, especially on the issue of legalisation/decriminalisation of drugs. I'm sure being a women MP was illegal at some point in ancient history, but thankfully change happens; its usually a question of when.

What I personally think about this isn't the crux of the matter.

 

[simmo]

My comments on this are about getting proper public representation into parliament, especially on the issue of legalisation/decriminalisation of drugs.

Fair enough - personally I think the key question is what are we attempting to protect ourselves from by outlawing such substances? The answer is probably different for each type of drug.

Does genuine MDMA cause deaths in the same way as "street" ecstasy (which is usually a mixture of amphetamine, heroin and LSD) does? Does it cause the same levels of mental health issues that result from the use of, say, LSD?
Would someone hooked on a purer version of heroin be as likely to resort to crime in order to fuel their habit?
Would freely available cocaine stop the users being complete arseholes?
Should we make ketamine use mandatory amongst politicians?

I'm not sure that Keith Vaz having a drugs and sex binge make him qualified to answer those sorts of questions. But I accept your point that better information needs to be supplied to MP's making these decisions and not just the current drugs=bad national newspaper mindset.

 

[Grasshopper]

Better info is already available to politicians. Indeed, most Police Commissioners are already in favour of a level of decriminalisation, because chasing dealers/users takes-up an inordinate amount of resources, which would be better spent elsewhere.

The issue is that most politicians view themselves as our moral guardians, rather than public servants who are there to serve the public. Until this mindset changes amongst the political class, it will be impossible to get meaningful, 21st-Century legislation through Parliament.

 

[Grey]