The Student Room Group

Labour MP Keith Vaz paid for male prostitutes

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Things like this can become relevant if the person is a superior, snotty individual with a penchant for giving moralising lectures, which Vaz has frequently been.

No, his personal life is never relevant unless it reflects a conflict of interest or prejudices his ability to conduct his responsibilities.


It's also relevant if his committee are busy investigating the subject, as it clearly affects his objectivity and casts a sharper light on any statements he makes on the subject.

The drug-taking I agree, but not the prostitution/infidelity.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's an offence to incite prostitution, which it sounds a little as if he was doing


You can only incite someone to become a prostitute if they're not already one. These were. I also don't see the necessary element of gain either.
Reply 62
Original post by lawyer3c
No, his personal life is never relevant unless it reflects a conflict of interest or prejudices his ability to conduct his responsibilities.


The drug-taking I agree, but not the prostitution/infidelity.


One of the tabloids was alleging yesterday he may have paid for the prostitutes with money meant for a Labour veterans charity. This is rapidly becoming a public interest issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Has anybody cracked the vazeline joke yet?
Reply 64
He should be publicly flogged on Southall High Street.
Original post by Aj12
One of the tabloids was alleging yesterday he may have paid for the prostitutes with money meant for a Labour veterans charity. This is rapidly becoming a public interest issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Yes, plus a lot of stuff about how he seems to have infiltrated a good-looking young guy into the House as a researcher for someone else and then the said young guy also happens to be the one who did the arranging and paying of rent boys.

I wonder if this is like a whole little industry with Vaz?
Original post by Ladbants
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/04/keith-vaz-to-step-down-commons-committee-chair-sunday-mirror-sex-claims

The Sunday Mirror reported that Keith Vaz used the services of male prositutes, making him a possible pimp.


You realise that a pimp is not someone who uses the services of prostitutes, a pimp is someone who "owns" a prostitute and rents them out for profit.

If anything, the pimp in this case is the Sunday Mirror; they procured sexual services from a common prostitute to sleep with another motivated by profit.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, plus a lot of stuff about how he seems to have infiltrated a good-looking young guy into the House as a researcher for someone else and then the said young guy also happens to be the one who did the arranging and paying of rent boys.

I wonder if this is like a whole little industry with Vaz?


Oh come on, most MPs have pretty young things working for them. In fact, this is common throughout pretty much all professions. An older barrister friend of mine does mini-pupillages for all the really cute law student lads. In the United States congressmen regularly hire staff who are particularly attractive; male or female according to preference

As it is, it seems as though Momentum types are using a homophobic double standard merely because Vaz is an opponent of Jezbollah. Keith Vaz has not broken any law, he has not done anything that would constitute any sort of public immorality. This story is absolute trash and the people who use it for political purposes are too.

I'm disgusted but not surprised that now Corbynites are attacking Keith Vaz by roping all these conspiracy theories about establishment paedophiles. Keith Vaz appears to be attracted to males above the age of consent, and so the Corbynites are pushing the age-old homophobic trope of all gays wanting to have sex with little boys. Predictable as a metronome
Original post by unprinted
You can only incite someone to become a prostitute if they're not already one. These were. I also don't see the necessary element of gain either.


Indeed. The only party that did anything that could constitute pimping is the Sunday Mirror; it is not legal in this country to pay someone to provide sex services to a third party.
Original post by Aj12
One of the tabloids was alleging yesterday he may have paid for the prostitutes with money meant for a Labour veterans charity. This is rapidly becoming a public interest issue.


By "rapidly becoming", you mean "we got nothing... yet"? The Sunday Mirror is being used by the Corbynites to attack Keith Vaz, and unfortunately Tories are playing along with it. In so doing, they have strengthened Jezbollah.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 70
I'm only surprised at the fact they are male
not the fact he uses prostitutes
like seriously... which MP doesn't use prostitutes?
Reply 71
Original post by neal95
Yeah it's disgusting and deceiving and the Muslims voters of Leicester won't vote him back in because of this and so his political career is effectively finished now


As someone who lives in Leicester, I can tell you that, unfortunately, people probably will still support him. This will likely all be brushed off pretty soon tbh
Original post by AlexanderHam
it is not legal in this country to pay someone to provide sex services to a third party.


I don't think that's correct.

I also haven't seen anything that suggests it's what the Mirror did.
Original post by neal95
Yeah it's disgusting and deceiving and the Muslims voters of Leicester won't vote him back in because of this and so his political career is effectively finished now


So the Muslim puritanical vote now has a veto over political candidates on the basis of their sexuality?

In any case, I don't buy your analysis. Vaz will not be deselected, and Muslims will continue to vote Labour because it's in their best interests to do so. Also, Vaz has always had good relations with the Muslim community because of his work around social justice-y stuff

In 2015 Vaz got 61% of the vote; the next candidate, the Conservative, got 23%. Muslim voters won't defect to the Tories, and even if they set up their own extremist Islamist Party they still won't have enough votes to overturn Vaz' majority
I don't care about Keith Vaz's sex life, as long as it was all consensual. He might well be a cheating bastard, but I don't vote for people based on their fidelity to their spouse.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Oh come on, most MPs have pretty young things working for them. In fact, this is common throughout pretty much all professions. An older barrister friend of mine does mini-pupillages for all the really cute law student lads. In the United States congressmen regularly hire staff who are particularly attractive; male or female according to preference

As it is, it seems as though Momentum types are using a homophobic double standard merely because Vaz is an opponent of Jezbollah. Keith Vaz has not broken any law, he has not done anything that would constitute any sort of public immorality. This story is absolute trash and the people who use it for political purposes are too.

I'm disgusted but not surprised that now Corbynites are attacking Keith Vaz by roping all these conspiracy theories about establishment paedophiles. Keith Vaz appears to be attracted to males above the age of consent, and so the Corbynites are pushing the age-old homophobic trope of all gays wanting to have sex with little boys. Predictable as a metronome


I wouldn't see a problem here, if there wasn't the possibility someone raised that he was using money meant for charity for it.
Original post by Mactotaur
I wouldn't see a problem here, if there wasn't the possibility someone raised that he was using money meant for charity for it.


Someone has made some vague claim in that area, supported by zero evidence. If that's all you're basing your problem with this on, then surely it is incumbent on you to actually look into those claims rather than just accepting them at face value?
Original post by AlexanderHam
Someone has made some vague claim in that area, supported by zero evidence. If that's all you're basing your problem with this on, then surely it is incumbent on you to actually look into those claims rather than just accepting them at face value?


Oh, I'm not making wild claims in either direction - simply saying that should the rumour be true, it's the only problem I see here - Vaz generally voted in favour of gay rights and human rights in general; he doesn't appear to be the flavour of hypocrite which is such in fashion among the hardline religious right of America's churches as of late.

Quick Reply

Latest