This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Keith Vaz
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Part Time James  05 Sep 16 9.54am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Whilst I do hate Keith Vaz, with a passion, I don't actually think he's broken any laws here except maybe some rather obscure, and rarely enforced laws around drug possession (facilitating the possession of a class A drug is technically illegal). Said it before when its been straight MPs with prostitutes, its really a false moral issue. Much like people having affairs. Although obviously he has to answer for any hypocracy - Vaz in terms of prostitution has always been pro-legalisation, rather than criminalisation. I agreed. As long as he rubbered up, no harm's been done.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| matt_himself Matataland 05 Sep 16 10.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Whilst I do hate Keith Vaz, with a passion, I don't actually think he's broken any laws here except maybe some rather obscure, and rarely enforced laws around drug possession (facilitating the possession of a class A drug is technically illegal). Said it before when its been straight MPs with prostitutes, its really a false moral issue. Much like people having affairs. Although obviously he has to answer for any hypocracy - Vaz in terms of prostitution has always been pro-legalisation, rather than criminalisation. It depends how you look at matters morally. If you think that the sex industry does not exploit people in any manner whatsoever, then it becomes a 'false moral' issue. I believe that MP's should be upholding the common values of people. I think that most people think the idea of a married MP, paying rent boys for sex does not uphold their values.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 05 Sep 16 11.09am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
It depends how you look at matters morally. If you think that the sex industry does not exploit people in any manner whatsoever, then it becomes a 'false moral' issue. I believe that MP's should be upholding the common values of people. I think that most people think the idea of a married MP, paying rent boys for sex does not uphold their values. Absolutely right.... and add to that Vaz's past corrupt indiscretions and the fact that he currently chairs the parliamentary committee looking into prostitution as well as taking corrupt businessmen and women to task I guess it helps if he is not morally bankrupt himself?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 16 11.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Whilst I do hate Keith Vaz, with a passion, I don't actually think he's broken any laws here except maybe some rather obscure, and rarely enforced laws around drug possession (facilitating the possession of a class A drug is technically illegal). Said it before when its been straight MPs with prostitutes, its really a false moral issue. Much like people having affairs. Although obviously he has to answer for any hypocracy - Vaz in terms of prostitution has always been pro-legalisation, rather than criminalisation. This is more about compromising his position.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Sep 16 11.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Absolutely right.... and add to that Vaz's past corrupt indiscretions and the fact that he currently chairs the parliamentary committee looking into prostitution as well as taking corrupt businessmen and women to task I guess it helps if he is not morally bankrupt himself? I think it doesn't exclude him. Having experience and engagement in something, generally makes you more qualified. Now his past indiscretions, are what he should have been buried for.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Sep 16 11.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This is more about compromising his position. The irony of course is that his position is only compromised because of how society views and promotes the moral persecution of those who work in the sex industry, and those who pay for sexual encounters - Which is a key issue for the Committee he chaired.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Sep 16 12.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
It depends how you look at matters morally. If you think that the sex industry does not exploit people in any manner whatsoever, then it becomes a 'false moral' issue. I believe that MP's should be upholding the common values of people. I think that most people think the idea of a married MP, paying rent boys for sex does not uphold their values. To an extent, but then that's down to the electorate to decide, notably the MP's constituents. I suspect neither you or Mr Hoof, would be voting for a Labour MP. If no actual crime is committed, and admittedly there is one minor criminal offence that would never go to court here, then the decision of his future should lie with his constituents. Your moral outrage, in all fairness, is irrelevant, given a) he's not your MP, and even if he stood in your area, you'd never vote for him.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| blackpalacefan 05 Sep 16 12.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
It depends how you look at matters morally. If you think that the sex industry does not exploit people in any manner whatsoever, then it becomes a 'false moral' issue. I believe that MP's should be upholding the common values of people. I think that most people think the idea of a married MP, paying rent boys for sex does not uphold their values. If he'd had a paid threesome with a pair of buxom blondes would it be closer to upholding common 'values'? In my view his past corrupt behaviour and the fact that he could've exposed multiple people, including his own wife, to dangerous stds are his major f*** ups. Good riddance.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 05 Sep 16 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by blackpalacefan
If he'd had a paid threesome with a pair of buxom blondes would it be closer to upholding common 'values'? In my view his past corrupt behaviour and the fact that he could've exposed multiple people, including his own wife, to dangerous stds are his major f*** ups. Good riddance. I think it would conflict with a good percentage of the electorate, the 'buxom blondes' example you use. I don't think that women or people praciticing religion would be view it as upholding their values. I suspect a lot of people would be pretty miffed about a married MP nobbing around. It has nothing to do with the gender of the, er, recipients.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 05 Sep 16 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
To an extent, but then that's down to the electorate to decide, notably the MP's constituents. I suspect neither you or Mr Hoof, would be voting for a Labour MP. If no actual crime is committed, and admittedly there is one minor criminal offence that would never go to court here, then the decision of his future should lie with his constituents. Your moral outrage, in all fairness, is irrelevant, given a) he's not your MP, and even if he stood in your area, you'd never vote for him. I didn't say he should go to court or be arrested. Although personally, I think anyone procuring or assisting to procure coke is a dick because of what the drug does to people. I am entitled to a view on him. He is a member of commons committees and a member of parliament. Are you saying that just because he is not my MP, I shouldn't have a view on this, his role with the Hiduja Brothers or the commons expenses he claimed for? This all boils down to your belief that drugs and pro-ing should be legal. I am not 'morally outraged'. I am providing a view.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| blackpalacefan 05 Sep 16 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I think it would conflict with a good percentage of the electorate, the 'buxom blondes' example you use. I don't think that women or people praciticing religion would be view it as upholding their values. I suspect a lot of people would be pretty miffed about a married MP nobbing around. It has nothing to do with the gender of the, er, recipients. You're most likely right that whoever was involved it would've been a rocky ride, so to speak, with getting the public back on side. With his past behaviour, he's not created a situation for himself where anyone is looking to be forgiving either.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Sep 16 12.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I didn't say he should go to court or be arrested. Although personally, I think anyone procuring or assisting to procure coke is a dick because of what the drug does to people. Actually its a criminal offence. The only one committed. Originally posted by matt_himself
I am entitled to a view on him. He is a member of commons committees and a member of parliament. Are you saying that just because he is not my MP, I shouldn't have a view on this, his role with the Hiduja Brothers or the commons expenses he claimed for? The later two, definitely, because those were corrupt practices,. Originally posted by matt_himself
This all boils down to your belief that drugs and pro-ing should be legal. I am not 'morally outraged'. I am providing a view. My view is whether or not the laws represent an effective means of control and regulation, which they don't. The consequences of the laws on drugs massively have outweighed the health risks to users and that they should be weighed in accordance with other drugs such a tabacco and alcohol, rather than on peoples moral objections. Similarly prostitution, its exploitation, definitely, but the problem is that the law creates greater exploitation than the sex trade. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see Vaz go. But it should have been for the other issues, not because he pays people for sex (and quite well judging by the article).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.