Keith Vaz

If you want a thread your choice Obieone . We will never agree though

Thank you Jingle.

You are ignoring vast swathes of the New Testament about all sorts of things.
But I will leave it there, else both of us will be here for days.
Unless we want to start a new thread

The God I always thought I knew would be feeling the pain of Keith Vaz, and his love would be encircling him. I do not think he would be interested in whether Vaz was an MP or 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!!

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!! )

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. 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.

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.

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?

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

That was to jess