The Student Room Group

Labour MP Keith Vaz paid for male prostitutes

Scroll to see replies

Hearing about this, I can't help thinking he's a tremendous hypocrite and a very deceitful person, at minimum and also really rather stupid. Of course, lots of politicians are, but they aren't all quite as pompous as he is on Select Committees. Listening to him pontificate, you'd think he was some kind of saintly individual of rare genius. Quite a low, clever strike by the Express to have him caught doing this at precisely the time when his committee was reporting on prostitution.
as long as he paid them the minimum wage there should be no problem ?

:holmes:*
Original post by the bear
as long as he paid them the minimum wage there should be no problem ?

:holmes:*


Does it count if he paid it in tabs / coke?
Original post by ivybridge
No, not really. That's what happens when society teaches you to suppress your feelings as a gay man.


Mr Vaz shares some blame. Can't imagine how the Vaz house is right now...

If you're gay, don't get married to a woman and have kids (in an ideal world).
Original post by BefuddledPenguin

Edit: Just did a bit of googling, turns out he protested the publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and tried to ban violent video games and as such I have now lost all sympathy.


Oh yeah, he's a massive douche. He's the guy who asked the Editor of The Guardian if the "loved this country" in the context of the Snowden leaks.

But the individuals on food safety committees presumably consume food, and those on banking committees use banks; what's wrong with someone on a committee dealing with poppers and prostitution consuming those? Am I missing something? Has he broken any laws?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Lavaridge
Oh yeah, he's a massive douche. He's the guy who asked the Editor of The Guardian if the "loved this country" in the context of the Snowden leaks.

But the individuals on food safety committees presumably consume food, and those on banking committees use banks; what's wrong with someone on a committee dealing with drugs and prostitution consuming those? Am I missing something? Has he broken any laws?


It's an offence to incite prostitution, which it sounds a little as if he was doing, plus it's also an offence to sell or exchange drugs for reward where they are banned substances, which it also sounds as if he was doing.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's an offence to incite prostitution, which it sounds a little as if he was doing, plus it's also an offence to sell or exchange drugs for reward where they are banned substances, which it also sounds as if he was doing.


I think the offence you're thinking of is "Causing or inciting prostitution for gain / Controlling prostitution for gain" - which isn't the same as buying sex. One of the decisions his committee made was to recommend against explicitly banning buying sex.

Also, poppers aren't banned, that's another thing his committee recommended against. They're an explicit exception to the legal highs ban.
Original post by Lavaridge
I think the offence you're thinking of is "Causing or inciting prostitution for gain / Controlling prostitution for gain" - which isn't the same as buying sex. One of the decisions his committee made was to recommend against explicitly banning buying sex.

Also, poppers aren't banned, that's another thing his committee recommended against. They're an explicit exception to the legal highs ban.


OK, although it sounds from that as if he was actually basing his decision making around his use of prostitutes on knowledge of the law, suggesting a certain calculation to his actions.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
OK, although it sounds from that as if he was actually basing his decision making around his use of prostitutes on knowledge of the law, suggesting a certain calculation to his actions.


I agree with that, but it ties into my original point. Isn't it a little anti-democratic to say that the committee that decides whether to ban something has to be made up entirely of members who don't enjoy doing the thing that's about to be banned?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ivybridge
No, not really. That's what happens when society teaches you to suppress your feelings as a gay man.


lolwat

what kind of justification is that.
Original post by Lavaridge
I agree with that, but it ties into my original point. Isn't it a little anti-democratic to say that the committee that decides whether to ban something has to be made up entirely of members who don't enjoy doing the thing that's about to be banned?


Most people wouldn't regard what he's done as part of a mainstream 'trying out' of policy implications. He might use that as his defence though. :teehee:
Original post by Dodgypirate
Mr Vaz shares some blame. Can't imagine how the Vaz house is right now...

If you're gay, don't get married to a woman and have kids (in an ideal world).


Oh he does definitely share most of the blame if not all of it.

We don't live in an ideal world, sadly.

Original post by BabyLadDarren
lolwat

what kind of justification is that.


It isn't a justification at all. It simply explains, in part, why he may be married yet queer.
Original post by Lavaridge
Oh yeah, he's a massive douche. He's the guy who asked the Editor of The Guardian if the "loved this country" in the context of the Snowden leaks.

But the individuals on food safety committees presumably consume food, and those on banking committees use banks; what's wrong with someone on a committee dealing with poppers and prostitution consuming those? Am I missing something? Has he broken any laws?


Nah, I didn't have an issue with that. I'm in favour of poppers and the legalisation of sex work. I did have a problem with tabloids outing him in this manner, right up until the moment I read about his Moral Guardian status. It's always hypocrisy that bothers me, and his attempt to censor things he deems 'immoral' whilst he's engaging in behaviours that many would deem to be similarly 'immoral' irritated me.

Basically I'm in favour of liberal societies which are non-judgemental. He was judgemental to other people so I don't sympathise with him being a victim of judgemental tabloids. I hate when tabloids out people as gay, except in cases where the individual is homophobic, this is somewhat similar.
Home Affairs Select Committee? More like homo affairs, zing!
Reply 34
Avatar for NigroPlz
NigroPlz
Not surprised tbh western governments are full of freemason sodomites.
Who cares?

At least he's not a paedo like most MPs involved in sex scandals.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Does it count if he paid it in tabs / coke?


From reading the articles it appears as though he paid with cash money. The coke and poppers were additional purchases.

It's important, you see, to correct such slander like this against this fine man who had unprotected anal sex with a prostitute before going home to his wife.......
Labour making an arse of things as usual I suppose.
Reply 38
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
"In 1989, two years after becoming the first Asian MP since 1929, he led a march of several thousand Muslims in Leicester calling for Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses to be banned."

:lol:


How could the Labour have even endorsed him?
Reply 39
Avatar for Pulse.
Pulse.
18
Original post by MildredMalone
Home Affairs Select Committee? More like homo affairs, zing!


Nooooooo.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you