I've always found Keith Vaz to be one of the most odious members of the House of Commons. Time and gain he has deserved to get his comeuppance. Yesterday, he did. Twice. First of all Boris Johnson exposed him for abusing his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee by giving details of a private conversation to the press. Vaz spluttered about the fact that he had been insulted by Boris's language. Good. Boris gave Vaz both barrels and he deserved them.
Then on Newsnight, Vaz was exposed for his ignorance of the Fitna film. He was involved in a 15 minute discussion without actually have watched it. Enjoy the look on Kirsty Wark's face when he admits he hasn't seen it.
Everyone in politics knows about Vaz. He's got one of the most affected voices in politics - the political equivalent of Brian Sewell. He's been caught out so many times it makes you wonder how he has survived all these years. And yet Labour appointed him to chair one of the most powerful select committees in parliament. Says it all, really.
Watch the Newsnight debate HERE. Scroll in 7 minutes.
UPDATE: Alastair Campbell has written a blogpost about Boris's outburst. Needless to say, he has some sympathy.
60 comments:
But Ian you blogged on the subject yesterday without seeing the film. Why not just wait until you had seen it before commenting / speculating.
On the face of it, a very fair point. However, this is a blog, not Newsnight. If I had been going on Newsnight to talk about it, I'd have made damned sure i had seen it.
Can I use my freedom of expression to comment that Keith Vaz is a clueless tosser.
No wonder Boris was a little irritated with him
Is there such a crime as 'incitement to think Keith Vaz is an arse?'
You got it spot on there Iain, Vaz is odious in the extreme.
How can he possibly defend the banning of Wilders when he hasn't seen the film.....Tosser!
Fully agree with the distinction but poor Keith did have a lot on his plate yesterday ****ing **** :)
Oh, he's a dreadful little man, one who spouts the kind of drifting, ambivalent nonsense that characterises the majority of new Labour utterances. I do find it appalling that Geert Wilders was refused entry to this country an hour ago; appalling behaviour. if Baron Ahmed can hold a book launch for Israel Shamir, the anti-semitic writer, we can damn' well listen - or not, the choice is ours, after all - to what Wilders has to say. I am heartily ashamed of having been born in this benighted country.
Keith Vaz is not merely ignorant and odious he is completely corrupt.
The Penguin.
Iain,
Personally for me, Keith Vaz is 'the' most odious politician.
After his fall from grace, although it is squalid to point out, Vaz has made himself useful to Labour again as the person who is sent out to "pull the race card" on the topic-du-jour.
Perhaps the inclusion of Mr Vaz only serves to demonstrate that the Home Affairs Select Committee is no longer "one of the most powerful select committees in Parliament", but a select committee without a purpose now that the ministry is scrutinizes is equally lacking. Since the MoJ was split off, the Home Office has done nothing useful that could not be accommodated at the DCLG, the FCO, the MoJ, or the MoD.
Yes, Vaz and Smith should be sacked, but it would be far better simply to abolish their roles. It would be a shame to see the titles go for sure, but it is better than filling hollow shells with self-important non-entities, incapable of any good, whilst seeking to create publicity for themselves.
Thanks for the Newsnight link!
Vaz is a prize tit. A fake tit in an uplift bra.
Even Kirsty, the Labourette, looked genuinely gobsmacked.
What an utter tosser, and what a wonderful advert for "equal opportunities"
Oh, let's not get too upset about Vaz. After all, he hasn't killed anyone by text messaging at speed in his Jaguar....
...yet!
Can't watch these online in Spain "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only". Petty!
iain - i have always found brian sewell an interesting speaker (alright i accept his speech takes a little getting used to as he doesn't use the 'mockney' or 'estuary english'so beloved of our media giants)
he is an original presenter and for example his programme on replicating a meal shown in a medievial painting certainly rose above the level of say gordon ramsey (not difficult one might say)and without the
gratuitous swearing.
not someone to be associated with keith vaz even by a 'throw away' comment
I have never ever seen 'The Sound of Music'. However I know that it's got a lot of nuns in it, there's a lot of singing, and there's a theme of escaping the Nazis.
You don't have to actually see something to find out about it. Kirsty Wark made herself look an idiot for her overreaction.
Regardless of what you may think of Mr Vaz, surely we cannot defend such oafish behaviour by the London Mayor? I think it about time some curtesy was reintroduced into our democratic exchanges.
To only call Keith Vaz odious is to praise him unduly. He is one of the 10 most despicable people in the Labour party, maybe you could have a poll on this Iain?
I have seen Fitna, I was not shocked by it as I already knew how the Koran's verses were being used by certain "Islamic scholars" to turn the heads of some of their audience.
The amount of hate screamed at the Jews on the streets of London is out of all proportion to the showing of one, albeit controversial, film.
The truth of the matter may be that the establishment are scared of what might happen if Lord Ahmed's "10,000" becomes 50,000, 100,000 and so on. They are not worried that any part of the Jewish community will take violent action against those calling "death to the Jews".
Why did Vaz deserve both barrels Iain? Given the opportunity to postpone a meeting until he was ready Boris could not be arsed and got found out entering the conference room naked. Ooooh look the flipping Tory flipping mayor of flipping London's got no clothes on.
And Simon's right you did blog on the Winders film with no attempt to view it, even musing that you'd like the chance to see it. Well, it's been available since it was made. At least 10 months at google videos for starters.
You just don't like Vaz do you? And considering your response would you really have viewed this thing if say you were reviewing the papers? Didn't you make an almighty cock up by claiming that Thatcher's Golliwog reference was in fact to Andy Murray? Not a great sign of any rigour there Iain.
Positive Vaz Anecdote: band I managed touring with Bhundu Boys back in the late 80s or so. Booked in a Leicester hotel. Owner saw the lads from the band and refused them admission as they were very black and very African. Willing to let my band stay when I tried to overturn this pure unadulterated racism. Even though our lead singer was also black.
Perhaps the boys reminded the poor befuddled racist hotelier of Golliwogs or something?
We didn't stay and Keith Vaz MP sorted the Racist F*****s out for us all.
Warelane, it was not a democratic exchange, it was a private telephone conversation.
"I have never ever seen 'The Sound of Music'. However I know that it's got a lot of nuns in it, there's a lot of singing, and there's a theme of escaping the Nazis."
There aren't that many nuns in it (how does one define "a lot of nuns" anyway?), yes there is a lot of singing, and they only escape from the Nazis at the end. Hardly a "theme" is it. "Stop singing, children, the bloody Nazis have turned up again! Leg it!"
So you don't really know much about "The Sound of Music" do you, and by your analogy Vaz doesn't really know much about "Fitna".
Mr Boothroyd - that's like saying that the Oscar panel didn't need to see the film before awarding all those little statues.
Mr Vaz is Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. How on earth can he say that he supports the decision to ban this elected European politician on the basis of a film review by someone else?
For me the highlight of Mr Vaz's career was the shameless self-puffing in support of Shilpa Shetty. What a pillock.
David Boothroyd said...
You don't have to actually see something to find out about it. Kirsty Wark made herself look an idiot for her overreaction.
Oh really? So the next time a Judge is trying a case, it'll be ok for him to say, don't bother with the evidence....have 18 years on me.
Regarding Kirsty, a lady for whom I have little time, she was as surprised as many others were that the odious Vaz was in favour of banning someone for making a film he hadn't seen.
Don't be so ridiculous!
Its probably racist stereo-type (yawn) but Vaz always reminds me of a Harem Eunuch , its that girlish smirk and whinnying giggle , perhaps the oily folds of his rather fat face and neck ? I can see his spending a life on a cushion surrounded with Turkish delight sweet cordials and rose petals jingling with golden bells about his ankles .
If he had any balls he might be dangerous but I wonder how you can take him seriously enough to worry.
Vaz is an idiot for doing this - I can see someone getting him back big style: Prediction Mr Vaz will soon have a foot in his mouth!
He looks like an overweight snake. He's a lubricious, oligeanous snake who slithers his way around the truth with ambivalent remarks and those stupid glasses
Any chance of a Vazectomy?
Jonathan Cook said... “Personally for me, Keith Vaz is 'the' most odious politician.”
Ooh. Stiff competition there: Nadine Dorres (eeeeugh ghastly), Fraser Kemp (as in, “Oh dear, I’ve just trodden in some Fraser Kemp”), the horribly pious Stuart Bell etc, etc.
Vaz has his work cut out to head the most odious politician stakes.
David Boothroyd said... “I have never ever seen 'The Sound of Music'. However I know that it's got a lot of nuns in it, there's a lot of singing, and there's a theme of escaping the Nazis.”
Oh come, come David. If you were going on TV to defend the Government’s position you’d have troubled to actually watch the film in question, now wouldn’t you? You wouldn’t want to look a complete tit (as Vaz did). Don’t be disingenuous.
Oh and I can barely believe you haven’t seen ‘The Sound of Music’.
“You don't have to actually see something to find out about it.”
Oh yes you do - particularly in a case like this. Kirsty’s reaction was entirely appropriate; I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone actually boggle before.
*I confess I have no intention of seeing it - far too squeamish.
Vaz had no answers to anything. He evens says to Nawaz that if he wants to debate with Wilders he can go to Holland! WTF?
............................
DC's crowd still quiet l see ;-)
Comrade Boothroyd and his peoples courts eh?
No need to see the evidence, no need to weigh the facts, GUILTY screams the peoples commissar, when its a commissar approved crime, its instant peoples justice, just like a kangaroo court only minus the in depth analysis eh?
In the new workers paradise, there will be no need to find out the facts, all thats needed is the word of a commissar and its case closed and off to the re educations camps, who needs wasteful trials, it only confuses the masses, oh no, what the people want is instant justice, mob rule and hey presto the people enemies just vanish, no need for them to have a defence is there? Oh no when the crime is the right crime then why should the guilty peoples enemy get a chance to spew out counter revolutionary lies!
Suddenly the leftists love of juris prudence and innocence untill proven guilty seems to vanish like their voter appeal.
@ David Boothroyd
"Kirsty Wark made herself look an idiot for her overreaction"
How should she have reacted then? Care to stage-direct? And what about La Vaz and his reaction - attempting to shout people down?
Is that really your only contribution to the debate?
"Kirsty Wark made herself look an idiot for her overreaction."
I disagree, but you have made a good effort at making an idiot of yourself with that comment.
The comment by Vaz that he had not seen something he wanted banned was pathetic.
Whatever argument he has was completely shot away.
Mr Dale had not seen the film at the time of his first post but then again he was not calling for it to be banned he was talking about the principle of free speech.
I wonder if Kirsty had seen it?
The film is only about 12 minutes long and anyone can see it with internet connection. Vaz has no excuse.
My only surprise is that Wilders wasn't wearing a 'Watch Fitna on youtube' T-shirt.
Nobody mentioned 'Lord' Achmed's threat to have 10,000 Muslims on the street if Wilders came.
The truth is, Wilders doesn't advocate violence. But Islamists in the UK do. Why can noone say this inconvenient truth on British TV?
Jay Smith speaks about the Quran every Sunday at Hyde Park. Lots of talks on youtube as well.
He gets away with it because he plays the minority card & everybody is careful what they say. Or the Labour MP who was caught haning over a pile of fivers in the back of his car & said it was just part of his asian cultural tradition.
Could mention Obama & Harperson. Women aren't a minority group but wimmen are.
@ Chris Paul
"You just don't like Vaz do you?"
Who does? Is 'not liking' someone pertinent? Oh, but maybe you're saying that this is all wicked Conservative bias and nothing to do with freedom of speech?
Actually the original post by Iain was, in my view, to do with the dangers of banning Wilders. Put it this way, the header seemed to say that. How are the bi-focals these days?
"Keith Vaz MP sorted the Racist F*****s out for us all"
Ah, another failure then. He's done no such thing, of course, but he's managed to antagonise quite a few of the whiteys.
This individual is a complete grease monkey.
I am of course speaking about Chris Paul.
That's a bit hard on Brian Sewell
I won't repeat what I think about Vaz 'oline' man.
OK I will.
Vaz is a $%^& ^&^ $%$ %^ $ ^$^$%$%£$£%$ $%$%$%
I feel better for that.
Labour dosn't care. They know they are finished. Not a week goes by without some howler going down. Jacvkboot Jaqui in the trough, James Wotsit having to resign, El Gordo....did he know/didn't he know?
So they are dropping interst rates which the Conservatives will increase eventually. They are tanking the economy big time for the Conservatives to inherit plus massive debts. When they are in opposition, just hope that Harriet Harperson gets elected Labour leader. That will keep them in opposition for a couple of decades. Praise the Lord! It can't happen fast enough.
BTW, agree about Vaz. Bit of an arse I think.
"Everyone in politics knows about Vaz. He's got one of the most affected voices in politics - the political equivalent of Brian Sewell"
This made me smile Iain
I have never met David Boothroyd but I feel confident that we would not get on . Have a look at this delightful portrait . I am amazed he chose politics and being a layabout as a career , when the opportunity to be a screen icon and sex symbol was so clearly before him
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/councillors/cllr.cfm?cllr_id=6
...if you shaved a monkey and stuck a pair of glasses on it ?
When I heard that many of Filkin's misconduct charges against Vaz were dropped through lack of evidence because he obstructed the enquiry I assumed his career as an MP was finished.
Instead he goes from strength to strength, corruption scandal to corruption scandal. Very telling that a crook like Vaz can prosper in the HoC.
@ Newmania
"I have never met David Boothroyd"
Sounds like you're aiming to keep it that way, too. Good move, I think.
No, Chris Paul, Iain doesn't like Vaz very much. Nobody does.
Google Vaz and most entries are about corruption. How he is still in parliament is a mystery to me.
Loved Kirsty's face reaction too, but then Vaz did go on to argue there was no need to see the film; he'd made his judgement on what he knows about Wilders. Reputation. Hearsay. Very dangerous. Sometimes you need to bite into the cherry to know if the stone in the middle is about to hurt you.
Kirsty asked if anti-Christians would be treated in exactly the same way? Vaz said same way. That's probably true. As far as I know, in Britain, Christians do not have any minority factions prepared to demonstrate and threaten security, let alone incite violence.
Having seen the film yesterday (which I'd never have done in the absence of the publicity that erupted), I have a tendency to disagree with Maajid Nawaz who claimed that Wilders had "... adopted the Al Qaeda narrative" and "...he's capitulated to the interpretation of Islam that is violent". For me on seeing the film, Wilders drew attention to the links between actions taken by this minority and elements of texts they interpret in that way from the Koran.
It was not just the film's linkages of Koran text to atrocities that existed, but also links to footage of how the text is interpreted in other ways that threaten respect to human life, especially female. The film shows incitement to extreme violence and Kirsty, for one that I have seen to date and good on her and Newsnight, expressed this.
No one else has mentioned that statistics were shown in the short film, exhibiting the rise in Muslim immigrants to the NL in recent years. And also to the EU.
I think this is a movie that wishes to point out risk. If that was its objective, it succeeded because I was left with fear and nothing else emotionally. But I think fear was its key and not incitement to violence.
One of my best friends is Muslim and we were both in Amsterdam "on business" in the early nineties. Outside work, her first port of call was the Anne Frank Huis. I missed it then, but made it last year. The museum attached to the house runs an interactive and ongoing voting loop questioning visitors about prejudice and the developments in our society.
Not far from there, down the roads/canals, you will find a Bibles Museum which explores history and religion in equal measure in respect of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Such is the culture of "tolerance" that has developed in the Netherlands since WWII and before.
We'd do better having a long thought process and seeing the real and factual evidence before making up our minds.
Wilders got a big moment and not just because of his hair, or "fruitcake" origins, if I am to believe Newsnight's guests.
In the UK we have a serious issue to deal with: consistency of application of the law and understanding of our stand. Tonight it's, well, get the gerbils out to feed on the whatever...
Vaz reminds me of a certain character in the Frankie GTH video of 'Relax' .... those old enough to remember will know exactly which character I mean !
Rest assured I'd be using some very colourful language myself if I ever came across the odious Vaz.
So, a devout Christian and and a devout Muslim BOTH more liberal than Oily Vaz, BOTH saying the film should not be banned, BOTH saying that Wilders should not be banned, and BOTH accusing Vaz of trampling on British liberties without even informing himself. Oh, **** off, Vaz. Go and have a nice cuppa with your rabble-rousing friend Lord Ahmed - while he's still on the loose. You're out of your depth. Again. I mean, still.
He stroked my pussy once and I couldn't get the grease out for weeks.
Never again.
Good spot Vervet!
I've blogged similarly about Vaz in the past. I usually get some abusive emails in response. He is really REALLY out of his depth and saved only by his safe seat.
I have seen the film. It has been on you tube for many months.
It could very much have been a BBC production. It does not insight violence. It does nothing more then show what Islamic terrorism does indeed base its thinking or excuses on. No more and no less.
It makes no effort to expose our establishments role in all of this, so as far as I am concerned it is still dangerously dishonest or misguided, but it is however accurate, as far as it goes.
I do not remember the film asking for the banning of the Koran. It may have done but somehow I doubt it.
The film simply reinforces exactly the same reasoning Tony Blair and his government got us involved in Afghanistan in the first place.
If this government wants to ban this film and its maker, it should by all logic ban all UK MP's that voted for this current never ending WAR.
Blogger "Simon Gardner":- "Oh come, come David... ...You wouldn’t want to look a complete tit"
It's never stopped him in the past. Why should he break the habits of a lifetime?
Keith Vaz has shown himself to be what he is. Venal Vaz.
'Vaz' - verb (advb) Vaz, Vazzing, Vazzer as in 'horrible little': 'You've completley Vazzed it up'.'To Vaz', blag, waffle, whine and whinge. Derivation from 'Vazeline' - Slippery, untrustworthy, ignorant, greasy (as in pole), wooden (as in plank). Often used alongside self righteous indignation, hubris and mangled received pronunciation (see gobbeldegook).
Vaz about or around verb (advb) To act in a stupid or aimless manner: Keith, you really do have to stop vazzing about.
Vaz up verb. To damage or bungle: to vaz up a discussion
Vazwit - noun. A fool or an idiot.
Oddly enough, I got here by googling "Odious Keith Vaz". Seems like there are a few like-minded people kicking about.
Post a Comment