Keith Vaz

Jings I don't think it at all hypocritical to say that refugees and migrants might be drawn into prostitution - there is a great deal of exploitation in this area no doubt. But no suggestion that the male prostitutes in this case were being exploited, trafficked or coerced is there. Prostitution is legal but forcing vulnerable people to be prostitutes is not. Neither is living off immoral earnings or running a brothel.

Iam, I do understand why you and the msjority think Vaz deserved this, I do not. A person doesn't hsve to be popular person, a nice person to defend them, well not for me.

What he has done or msy have done in the past, how many properties he owns , thst be msy. be arrogant, none of this concerned me, this is about a man who invited prostitutes into his home , a newspaper was involved , the man had not broken any law yet the newspaper in full knowledge that the man had children published a photograph of the act of buggery taking place. I honestly do not believe anyone deserves this public humiliation, he thought he was safe in his home .

I have no idea if he is homosexual or bi sexual, but which ever , neither is ilegal . I had a friend who hanged himself rather thsn come out, yet we read on here he should have, no he should not if he doesn't want to. And I am so against outing of gays, that's it. in my opinion no one deserved what happened to test man, and for what? A few tut tuttings, sniggers, even glee

Deeda, you have no idea if his wife knew or not, the flat was ten minutes from the family home , she my have known , she may not, I don't know and neither do you.

Do you think the mirror did all this to protect his wife ?

. That's not the point. How can it not be hypocritical to speak as though being in the prostitution trade is a thing to be avoided as detrimental to the wellbeing of the workers, but then support that industry by buying into it?

I don't understand your reasoning.

That was to jess

I'm sure they thoroughly enjoy being prostitutes for the likes of Vaz. Nothing to do with needing the money to survive.

or to buy their drugs jingls (oh, I forgot, he provided those as well - isn't that against the law?)

I wonder anniebach if you would defend him so vigorously if he was a Tory MP caught with two prostitutes and supplying them with drugs to which he had access? Someone who had a rather dodgy reputation as being able to slide away from other scandals, financial and otherwise, shady dealings with trying to obtain passports, been suspended from Parliament for 'negligently' overclaiming on expenses. Someone in the same position as Vaz as Chair of a Select Committee?

Just wondering
I'm not saying this to be contentious, just that I am curious, especially as he's a 'Blairite', isn't he?

Jings the point I am making is that there are 2 different cases
1. someone who chooses to work as a prostitute. The are not coerced or forced to share their earnings with anyone. (legal)
2. a vulnerable person who is tricked or bullied into becoming a prostitute to earn money for someone else who is illegally exploiting them and forcing them to stay in the situation. (illegal)
(yes I know that these are 2 extremes)

I don't think it is hypocritical to disapprove and condemn 2, while thinking that 1 is perfectly fine and ethical.

Jalima, I accept my posts can be boring but I assume you have read one and missed one where I said I would say the same regardless of party. I have also said I would think differently if the prostitutes had been female. If he provided poppers then not against the law and paying prostitutes is not against the law. He did not commit a crime that night. He was punished over the expenses thingy, found innocent of the passport allegations.

Just curious, you want a person to pay twice for anything they did wrong or allegations even though cleared ofvthecallrgstuons?

And there was no need to bring Blair into this, uncalled for and certaintly asked from more than curiosity.

I will say again, I am speaking of that night , don't care if he is arrogant,pompous , disliked, I think the mirror were in the wrong.

Everyone so eager to condemn, not one post saying he was right to widen the scope of the committee to cover FGM, not one post saying he was right to press on the phone hacking. Oh no, sex is far more interesting.

Hell bells, I would say the very same for John McDonald - as Jalima had to bring politics into this and hint /was just curious my reasons for thinking this sting was wrong was because Vaz was in Blairs government. Wondered who would be the first

Jalima, I accept my posts can be boring but I assume you have read one and missed one where I said I would say the same regardless of party.

Oh, apologies, I did miss that one anniebach
Have been out all day and evening
(a talk by someone who worked with Jeremy Corbyn but only mentioned him briefly!! )

actually, I don't think they found him not guilty of things in the past, they just seemed to give up hence his H of C nickname of Vazeline

No, your posts are not boring!!

Oh no, sex is far more interesting.
no, I don't find other people's sex interesting at all

Jalima had to bring politics into this
um, he is a politician

Jalima, I think you will find the enquiry into the passport claims resulted in him being cleared of not making money for personal gain.

What has his past have to do with the events of that night, please don't say Karma, it's so overdone . I am speaking only of that night and the fact he had hidden his sexuality for so many years , this always troubles me no matter who the person is or had done. We assume homosexuality is so accepted by all, sadly it is not , and this man became an MP in the eighties, seems that period which was horrific is forgotten by most here

Yes I know he is a politician .Jalima,you chose to make it personal with dragging Blair into it. No need for that.

Anniebach I think you would make a brilliant defence barrister (or perhaps you are!).

Honestly,I don't mean that nastily or unkindly, but admiringly.
You could almost convince me and I am very cynical

No, I just can't accept that jess. I see your point, but no. I don't believe those men would have gone into that trade willingly. While there is a sex industry there will always be victims working in it.

I can understand someone perhaps using a prostitute as a kind of physical relief out of necessity, but to make a wealthy man's party out of it with 'poppers' and suchlike, is just wrong.

He's a hypocrite.

Jalima, with my limited use of the Vocabulary an with spelling, law? Think not.

Yes I argue , confess on AOL Royal news board I managed one which lasted over a year . Think it comes from years of battling for what in my opinion is injustice, I just truely believe what happened that night should not have been in the press, I think stings are vile and I do believe it was set up by the mirror,

I have said if Vaz had been photographed entering a brothel then he asked for it. But not in his own home, I firmly believe everyone should feel safe in their home

i had the most distressing battle in the eighties with the church council - got voted off , over the treatment of two gays during the AIDS terror , the people were lovely people but filled with fear .

Anyway , I cannot accept that what that man was subjected to that night was justified, I would say the same if he was a recently released criminal.

Are you just deciding on Vaz about one night?

And why does it matter to you whether the prostitutes were male and not female?

He may not have committed a crime[probably did?], but I am going to say something that I have held back from saying.

Do you think God would think that Keith Vaz is a suitable candidate for being an MP, knowing everything God must know?

Who is to say obieone what God knows? We are not omniscient, but if a person is found out trying to conceal dubious behaviour then it is fair to assume even that person does not think it is fine and acceptable.

jalima is that realy his H of C nickname..... Vazeline? Oh dear.

What has shocked me about this thread is with the exception of a very small number of posters, the majority are not concerned that a human being was photographed in a sex act and this was released to the public, so thrilled that this man has been so humiliated and so eager to condemn him , he is not an animal.

Next time there is a thread about swearing or table manners I will read with amusement the condemnation of this behaviour.

Obieone, little point in asking a question about God of the majority here. I believe the God is far more troubled by the cruelty on this thread than what happened that night.
Brings to mind psalm 8 and the line about animals

Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring the vast majority of the Bible.

As regards the first paragraph, two wrongs dont make a right.

Yes Obieone, I am ignoring what the Old Testament says about homosexuality , I accept you do follow closely the laws of the Old Testament, I do not

Ok ab, I for one, will give you that such a picture is entirely wrong. Cruel and despicable. But it's outside the bounds of why Vaz had to go.