He has denied this, but who cares one way or another? What he does in his private life is his own business surely?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37269919
He has denied this, but who cares one way or another? What he does in his private life is his own business surely?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37269919
Last edited by SteveB; 04-09-16 at 09:53.
Sure they all do it
Well, as long as he paid and wasn't demanding free Parliamentary Privileges.
Reliable too, not a timewaster.
Bound (no potential pun here, didn't read the article) to be re-selected/re-elected.
Mr Vaz had opposed government attempts to criminalise the drug. Ministers later announced they would remain within the law.
His committee is also currently overseeing a review of the UK's prostitution laws.
so whats this about?
I was going to say that this:
would constitute a conflict of interest, but thinking on it it really isn't. I looked up who was on that committee and of course there's nobody involved in the industry in any shape or form (except for Vaz if it's true).His committee is also currently overseeing a review of the UK's prostitution laws.
Going on and having a read through the rest of the report, and from a cursory glance it seems to make alot of sense. They recommend a change in the law to allow sex workers to share premises but have a reformed brothel keeping law to target trafficking/exploitation. They recommend scrapping solicitation laws. They say the Swedish model does NOT work, but do like the New Zealand decriminalised model (I know nothing about it).
http://www.publications.parliament.u...haff/26/26.pdf
The problem with this story now is not that he was seeing male escorts (if he indeed was). It's that that in the court of public opinion that report is now useless, not to be trusted, and bias based on Vaz's alleged activities. So when it gets redone they'll be more careful about who gets selected to be on the committee and I'll be surprised if they come to the same liberal conclusions since they'll not want to agree with (alleged) dirty old Vaz.
Last edited by FatBastard; 04-09-16 at 10:24.
https://www.escort-ireland.com/board...-Bastard-story
Account abandoned 13/04/2017
Thanks for the good times.
Attempt by the Sunday Mirror to undermine his credibility in his position on the committee overseeing a review of the UK's prostitution laws?
Surely, best have someone who has direct experience rather than someone whose only experience is what he has read and heard.
Looks like a “sting” operation rather than a genuine investigation. The Sunday Mirror probably paid the escorts more than Keith Vaz. (Assuming the reports are true)
So if he was seeing female escorts would it be ok?
And he's not a Tory ffs! !
The tabloids are the morality police remember. So when the government responds to their decriminalisation positive report it will now always be tainted by these allegations. Not that they'res anything wrong with what he's alleged to have done, but the fact their report recommended looser laws will be seen as him trying to keep himself right.
https://www.escort-ireland.com/board...-Bastard-story
Account abandoned 13/04/2017
Thanks for the good times.
He said he'd had bareback sex three weeks earlier with an escort and suggested he wanted it this time as well. That's Mrs Vaz business too.
Apart from anything else he sounds like a shit client. Suggesting bareback sex, grossly underpaying and then joking to them that it's a lot of money where they come from. Suggesting they bring along someone else who wasn't going to be paid. Shit client. It goes without saying the tabloids are scum.