What's the actual scandal here? He's not done anything illegal.
Guido has this today:
Jeremy Corbyn said on Sunday that he didn’t believe that Keith Vaz had broken the law so it was a “private matter”. However the recently introduced Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 which came into force on May 26 makes it an offence to produce, supply or offer to supply.
Realistically he had no option anyway and from now on this escapade should be of no interest to anyone.
I hope the press drop it as I cannot imagine what kind of state his wife is in.
Realistically he had no option anyway and from now on this escapade should be of no interest to anyone.
I hope the press drop it as I cannot imagine what kind of state his wife is in.
It's not going to be dropped. This was a set up to get the bigger financial stuff into public arena. He got a Labour aide to pay these folks via his charity! He has been entertaining in the back room of an hotel apparently. The same person involved in iffy loans. It's an absolute minefield.
It's not going to be dropped. This was a set up to get the bigger financial stuff into public arena. He got a Labour aide to pay these folks via his charity! He has been entertaining in the back room of an hotel apparently. The same person involved in iffy loans. It's an absolute minefield.
All charged not to Mr. Vaz but the multi millionaire Indian owner of that Mayfair hotel. And then there is the unexplained £400,000 loan for the flat.
Vazy might have been doing this for years or decades without his wife knowing. Ergh. I hope she washes her hands throughly the next time she has any contact with hubby. You don't know where they've been!
Thought he was actually going to get away with it, Newsnight had an abysmal puff piece about it, see what people mean about the BBC now.
He's on a committee that advises the Government on it's policies - including the actual thing he was caught doing. I'm right in thinking a lot of other people who indulge in this get arrested and sent to court even though it's technically legal.
This is the definition of corruption in office, which I thought was a crime.
I hope none of those rent boys had Russian accents.
Thought he was actually going to get away with it, Newsnight had an abysmal puff piece about it, see what people mean about the BBC now.
He's on a committee that advises the Government on it's policies - including the actual thing he was caught doing. I'm right in thinking a lot of other people who indulge in this get arrested and sent to court even though it's technically legal.
This is the definition of corruption in office, which I thought was a crime.
I hope none of those rent boys had Russian accents.
Apparejtly the BBC investigated him over allegations of more serious crimes about a year ago.
This is the definition of corruption in office, which I thought was a crime.
I hope none of those rent boys had Russian accents.
This is funny, but also a bit disconcerting.
A friend of mine works for the Gub'mint doing top secret research (no idea which department, or what he researches). He has held something called Developed Vetting for several years. This is basically the highest level of general clearance, for people who need to access data classified as "Top Secret" on a regular and unrestricted basis. In order to do this, he had to fill in a 40-page questionnaire about his life, the lives of his parents, his siblings, their partners, their partners lives, and probably more besides. He had to provide details of 4 people who would act as personal referees, and was advised that on top of those 4 people the vetting people may contact anyone else in his family or who he has had contact with.
Once you've given them all that, they go and have a good rummage around in your past for skeletons. Then (having created a profile of you), they invite you in for a cozy little chat. They go into depth about your sexuality, kinks and fetishes, financial situation, habits and addictions, political opinions, overseas holidays, and countless other things. Now don't forget that by this point, they already know lots of things about you - they want to see if you can be honest, and if you have any secrets that you are so ashamed of that they could be used for blackmail. And after you've answered those questions, they go away and check your answers again, just to be sure. I remember the day after his interview, he came round to my house in tears about how invasive the whole process was, and how violated he felt, and we had to drink a lot of alcohol. (They ask about alcohol and drugs too.)
The idea behind all of this is that by the time you are allowed to see sensitive documents, there is nothing about you that the intelligence service does not know, and therefore nothing which could be used as a lever against you.
Alternatively, it seems, get yourself elected to Parliament. They you don't need to worry about being vetted for suitability before getting your hands on state secrets.
Cannot believe people are saying why does it matter what he's done. This is someone who tries to control what is best for other people. Of course it matters if it turns out he is a lying sleaze. Words fail me.
Of course people link the two otherwise they wouldn't be coming out with this story as a 'prelude' and it wouldn't be making people speculate about his involvement in sex with children. Don't pretend; it's what a lot of heterosexuals think.
Realistically he had no option anyway and from now on this escapade should be of no interest to anyone.
I hope the press drop it as I cannot imagine what kind of state his wife is in.
Why should they drop it? The media would be negligent in their duty if they failed to use this to hold his long and well-documented dodginess up to the light.
As for his wife, who knows. She's a professional and worldly woman. I find it difficult to believe this has come as a surprise to her. Not a criticism of her, more an acknowledgement that a luxurious, celebrity lifestyle can tolerate all sorts of 'compromises'.
I disagree with Vaz on lots of things, but he's right, he's done nothing wrong here. It's very possible his wife knew of what he was doing and was OK with it. It wouldn't surprise me - people marry for all sorts of reasons, not always romantically.
This smacks of revenge to me. Vaz has been very open about how biased the media is against all sorts of things, so they've honey trapped him. So what if he uses rent boys? Male escorts aren't illegal and there's no evidence he took part in the drug-taking himself, just that it happened around him. I mean, it's hardly like Cyril Smith, is it?
It also reeks of "Oh look, a man who's married but sleeps with men too!", which is so 1950s. You can be married to a woman and still find men attractive - it's called being bisexual or pansexual. Plenty of people are.
I disagree with Vaz on lots of things, but he's right, he's done nothing wrong here.
You really can't see the problem? Most people don't have a problem with people being gay. He took these men to a hotel in Mayfair owned by a multi millionaire Indian businessman, and used the restaurant and rooms for free. Why was that businessman effectively giving him gifts that would have amounted to thousands of pounds? Then he got a £400,000 loan for a flat he used for sex which he has not explained the source of, or whether he has actually paid it back. Neither are registered in the Register of Member's Interests in Parliament. The payment of these prostitutes was also made by his aide, who happens to be a young Romanian man, working for him for at least 6 years as an aide and a London coordinator of his Diabetes charity. That man is highly likely to have been paid with public money.
It's very possible his wife knew of what he was doing and was OK with it. It wouldn't surprise me - people marry for all sorts of reasons, not always romantically.
It also reeks of "Oh look, a man who's married but sleeps with men too!", which is so 1950s. You can be married to a woman and still find men attractive - it's called being bisexual or pansexual. Plenty of people are.
I don't care about any of that. What any consenting adults get up to is of no interest to me.
But why are so many people missing the point of why what Vaz has done is such an outrage? It should not need to be explained.
Complete rubbish. Obviously some people may think that way but you're in no position to claim most heteros do so stop generalising...
Did I say 'most'? And you somehow ARE in a position to say my assertion is 'complete rubbish'? My assertion is based on experience, and what I pick up, even if it is not explicitly said - I never purported to be initiating a scientific study on the subject.
In my experience a lot of men have an attraction to adolescents or teenagers. While heterosexual men may shrug off their attractions as natural and the objects of their affection as young women rather than children, they will assume that homosexual men have this attraction too, but because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and they wish to vilify it, they will much more readily define the real or imagined teenagers as children, whether or not they are over legal age, consenting, etc.
You only have to look at the difference between how Bill Wyman and Jonathan King are viewed by ordinary people and indeed the law, to see what I am saying. It's willfully naive not to have picked up on it.
A friend of mine works for the Gub'mint doing top secret research (no idea which department, or what he researches). He has held something called Developed Vetting for several years. This is basically the highest level of general clearance, for people who need to access data classified as "Top Secret" on a regular and unrestricted basis. In order to do this, he had to fill in a 40-page questionnaire about his life, the lives of his parents, his siblings, their partners, their partners lives, and probably more besides. He had to provide details of 4 people who would act as personal referees, and was advised that on top of those 4 people the vetting people may contact anyone else in his family or who he has had contact with.
Once you've given them all that, they go and have a good rummage around in your past for skeletons. Then (having created a profile of you), they invite you in for a cozy little chat. They go into depth about your sexuality, kinks and fetishes, financial situation, habits and addictions, political opinions, overseas holidays, and countless other things. Now don't forget that by this point, they already know lots of things about you - they want to see if you can be honest, and if you have any secrets that you are so ashamed of that they could be used for blackmail. And after you've answered those questions, they go away and check your answers again, just to be sure. I remember the day after his interview, he came round to my house in tears about how invasive the whole process was, and how violated he felt, and we had to drink a lot of alcohol. (They ask about alcohol and drugs too.)
The idea behind all of this is that by the time you are allowed to see sensitive documents, there is nothing about you that the intelligence service does not know, and therefore nothing which could be used as a lever against you.
Alternatively, it seems, get yourself elected to Parliament. They you don't need to worry about being vetted for suitability before getting your hands on state secrets.
Makes I laugh, it do. :cool:
The important thing is that the person being vetted does not hide anything. I was told about someone in the Army who was vetted so he could be promoted to a more secret job but he did not want to move. So gave an elaborate story about some dubious practices. He was cleared because he told them, the security man said that he could have been s####ing the CO's wife but provided he told them then they were not concerned.
I don't care about any of that. What any consenting adults get up to is of no interest to me.
But why are so many people missing the point of why what Vaz has done is such an outrage? It should not need to be explained.
At the moment the drugs are the illegal part but the only evidence is the tabloid's recording. If anything is proved then he is finished. There are lots of other accusations and rumours that many have been around for years.
He is very litiguous, the MP who reported him to the House of Commons authorities received a letter from his lawyer. His charity has hired a VERY expensive legal company.
Do we know how many men who also used male prostitutes were convicted last year, all the Government sites have file types I can't open.
As Keith Vas has apparently done nothing illegal according to Corbyn and a surprisingly large number of people on here then surely they should be able to appeal their convictions and get some compensation.
In my experience a lot of men have an attraction to adolescents or teenagers. While heterosexual men may shrug off their attractions as natural and the objects of their affection as young women rather than children, they will assume that homosexual men have this attraction too, but because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and they wish to vilify it, they will much more readily define the real or imagined teenagers as children, whether or not they are over legal age, consenting, etc.
You only have to look at the difference between how Bill Wyman and Jonathan King are viewed by ordinary people and indeed the law, to see what I am saying. It's willfully naive not to have picked up on it.
Depressingly there probably is an element of truth in this.
Similarly, when the media runs a story of some man sexually abusing a boy it leads a lot of people to think that a lot of gay men must also be paedophiles. However, when a story concerning a man abusing a girl comes up it wouldn't even cross the minds of these same people that a lot of straight men are paedophiles.
How on earth is a charity legally allowed to fund this? >:(
excellent point Thornfield ...
maybe someone should consider checking with "The Charity Commission" who register and regulate charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence.
This could be considered to be a breach of the rules they are supposed to abide by !!! and certainly not necessarily the best use of funds.
The people who donated money to this charity might not have expected their money to be used for this.
Comments
Then either you don't know very many people or you are extremely uncynical about humanity and what people aren't telling you.
Guido has this today:
Realistically he had no option anyway and from now on this escapade should be of no interest to anyone.
I hope the press drop it as I cannot imagine what kind of state his wife is in.
It's not going to be dropped. This was a set up to get the bigger financial stuff into public arena. He got a Labour aide to pay these folks via his charity! He has been entertaining in the back room of an hotel apparently. The same person involved in iffy loans. It's an absolute minefield.
He's on a committee that advises the Government on it's policies - including the actual thing he was caught doing. I'm right in thinking a lot of other people who indulge in this get arrested and sent to court even though it's technically legal.
This is the definition of corruption in office, which I thought was a crime.
I hope none of those rent boys had Russian accents.
Apparejtly the BBC investigated him over allegations of more serious crimes about a year ago.
This is funny, but also a bit disconcerting.
A friend of mine works for the Gub'mint doing top secret research (no idea which department, or what he researches). He has held something called Developed Vetting for several years. This is basically the highest level of general clearance, for people who need to access data classified as "Top Secret" on a regular and unrestricted basis. In order to do this, he had to fill in a 40-page questionnaire about his life, the lives of his parents, his siblings, their partners, their partners lives, and probably more besides. He had to provide details of 4 people who would act as personal referees, and was advised that on top of those 4 people the vetting people may contact anyone else in his family or who he has had contact with.
Once you've given them all that, they go and have a good rummage around in your past for skeletons. Then (having created a profile of you), they invite you in for a cozy little chat. They go into depth about your sexuality, kinks and fetishes, financial situation, habits and addictions, political opinions, overseas holidays, and countless other things. Now don't forget that by this point, they already know lots of things about you - they want to see if you can be honest, and if you have any secrets that you are so ashamed of that they could be used for blackmail. And after you've answered those questions, they go away and check your answers again, just to be sure. I remember the day after his interview, he came round to my house in tears about how invasive the whole process was, and how violated he felt, and we had to drink a lot of alcohol. (They ask about alcohol and drugs too.)
The idea behind all of this is that by the time you are allowed to see sensitive documents, there is nothing about you that the intelligence service does not know, and therefore nothing which could be used as a lever against you.
Alternatively, it seems, get yourself elected to Parliament. They you don't need to worry about being vetted for suitability before getting your hands on state secrets.
Makes I laugh, it do. :cool:
Why should they drop it? The media would be negligent in their duty if they failed to use this to hold his long and well-documented dodginess up to the light.
As for his wife, who knows. She's a professional and worldly woman. I find it difficult to believe this has come as a surprise to her. Not a criticism of her, more an acknowledgement that a luxurious, celebrity lifestyle can tolerate all sorts of 'compromises'.
This smacks of revenge to me. Vaz has been very open about how biased the media is against all sorts of things, so they've honey trapped him. So what if he uses rent boys? Male escorts aren't illegal and there's no evidence he took part in the drug-taking himself, just that it happened around him. I mean, it's hardly like Cyril Smith, is it?
It also reeks of "Oh look, a man who's married but sleeps with men too!", which is so 1950s. You can be married to a woman and still find men attractive - it's called being bisexual or pansexual. Plenty of people are.
I don't care about any of that. What any consenting adults get up to is of no interest to me.
But why are so many people missing the point of why what Vaz has done is such an outrage? It should not need to be explained.
Did I say 'most'? And you somehow ARE in a position to say my assertion is 'complete rubbish'? My assertion is based on experience, and what I pick up, even if it is not explicitly said - I never purported to be initiating a scientific study on the subject.
In my experience a lot of men have an attraction to adolescents or teenagers. While heterosexual men may shrug off their attractions as natural and the objects of their affection as young women rather than children, they will assume that homosexual men have this attraction too, but because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and they wish to vilify it, they will much more readily define the real or imagined teenagers as children, whether or not they are over legal age, consenting, etc.
You only have to look at the difference between how Bill Wyman and Jonathan King are viewed by ordinary people and indeed the law, to see what I am saying. It's willfully naive not to have picked up on it.
The important thing is that the person being vetted does not hide anything. I was told about someone in the Army who was vetted so he could be promoted to a more secret job but he did not want to move. So gave an elaborate story about some dubious practices. He was cleared because he told them, the security man said that he could have been s####ing the CO's wife but provided he told them then they were not concerned.
At the moment the drugs are the illegal part but the only evidence is the tabloid's recording. If anything is proved then he is finished. There are lots of other accusations and rumours that many have been around for years.
He is very litiguous, the MP who reported him to the House of Commons authorities received a letter from his lawyer. His charity has hired a VERY expensive legal company.
As Keith Vas has apparently done nothing illegal according to Corbyn and a surprisingly large number of people on here then surely they should be able to appeal their convictions and get some compensation.
One law for politicians one for the rest is it?
Depressingly there probably is an element of truth in this.
Similarly, when the media runs a story of some man sexually abusing a boy it leads a lot of people to think that a lot of gay men must also be paedophiles. However, when a story concerning a man abusing a girl comes up it wouldn't even cross the minds of these same people that a lot of straight men are paedophiles.
How on earth is a charity legally allowed to fund this? >:(
excellent point Thornfield ...
maybe someone should consider checking with "The Charity Commission" who register and regulate charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence.
This could be considered to be a breach of the rules they are supposed to abide by !!! and certainly not necessarily the best use of funds.
The people who donated money to this charity might not have expected their money to be used for this.