Syd Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Patricia - 2009-01-13 11:12 PM Just caught a bit of the news in which Lord Vaz Which planet does he belong on when there are so many more important issues to sort out? Does anyone know the title of his over inflated job description? Hi Patrica Hope this is enough for you, if you want more please let me know. My personal discription is that this man is that he is the slimyest (Spelling) self serving twenty faced scumbag in todays parliament Labour MP for Leicester East Majority: 15,876 votes. — 51st out of 630 MPs. How Keith Vaz voted on key issues since 2001: Voted against a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches Voted strongly for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches Voted strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches Voted strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches Voted strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war. votes, speeches Voted very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches Voted very strongly for the hunting ban. votes, speeches Voted moderately for equal gay rights. votes, speeches Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change. votes, speeches Committees and topics of interest Select Committee membership Member, Liaison Committee (since 8 Sep 2008) Chairman, Home Affairs Committee (since 8 Aug 2007) Asks most questions about Departments: Home Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Health, Constitutional Affairs, Trade and Industry Subjects (based on headings added by Hansard): Public Bodies, Yemen, Bonus Payments, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, BCCI (based on written questions asked by Keith Vaz and answered by departments) Public Bill Committees (sittings attended) Company Law Reform Bill Committee (20 out of 22) Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill Committee (1 out of 1) Numerology Has spoken in 77 debates in the last year — well above average amongst MPs. Has received answers to 251 written questions in the last year — well above average amongst MPs. Is a member of 2 select committees (1 as chair). Replied within 2 or 3 weeks to a medium number of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2007, according to constituents. Has voted in 59% of votes in parliament — well below average amongst MPs. (From Public Whip) People have made 37 comments on this MP's speeches — well above average amongst MPs. This MP's speeches, in Hansard, are readable by an average 17–18 year old, going by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score. Has used three-word alliterative phrases (e.g. "she sells seashells") 395 times in debates — well above average amongst MPs. (Why is this here Expenses Figures in brackets are ranks. Parliament's explanatory notes. Type 2006/07 (ranking out of 670) 2005/06 2004/05 (ranking out of 659) 2003/04 (ranking out of 658) 2002/03 (ranking out of 657) 2001/02 (ranking out of 657) Additional Costs Allowance £22,110 (joint 1st) £21,271 £20,795 (240th) £20,049 (248th) £19,260 (joint 344th) £15,549 (joint 283rd) London Supplement £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £13 (joint 130th) Incidental Expenses Provision £20,616 (271st) £19,451 £19,286 (joint 156th) £18,729 (323rd) £18,234 (joint 1st) £28,639 (37th) Staffing Allowance £87,088 (192nd) £84,624 £76,107 (118th) £74,181 (58th) £65,596 (joint 179th) £24,671 (645th) Members' Travel £9,358 (251st)* £7,756 £13,649 (191st) £17,192 (90th) £15,728 (125th) £12,303 (130th) Members' Staff Travel £834 (151st) £483 £111 (418th) £1,212 (129th) £1,410 (joint 104th) £70 (joint 422nd) Centrally Purchased Stationery £1,533 (153rd) £1,877 £2,097 (103rd) £3,515 (20th) £6,365 (3rd) £3,514 (11th) Stationery: Associated Postage Costs £5,578 (118th) £5,280 £4,607 (157th) £18,894 (6th) N/A N/A Centrally Provided Computer Equipment £1,118 (joint 220th) £1,721 £1,721 (506th) £1,721 (497th) £1,721 (469th) £0 Other Costs £0 £0 £0 £8,772 (10th) £0 £0 Total £148,235 (115th) £142,463 £138,373 (78th) £164,265 (2nd) £128,314 (41st) £84,759 (416th) * Car £8,644 (6th). Rail £714 (451st). Keith VazLeicester East (1987- ) Ask Aristotle about Keith Vaz Andrew Roth guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2001 12.30 GMT Article history Vaz: well connected Keith Vaz, the most ambitious and flexible of politicians, is an ideological weathervane, always ready to track the wind. In a decade he has crossed the political spectrum of his party, from membership of the hard-left Campaign group to ultra loyalism to New Labour. Throughout he has stood out for his energy, style and displays of political double-jointedness that have astounded even fellow politicians. Early in his Commons career he called for Salman Rushdie's novel, Satanic Verses, to be withdrawn while defending the right of minorities to have their say. Later this once arch-Eurosceptic denounced those in his party critical of the European Union. And in 2001 he appeared to survive the controversy over his role in passport applications by two Indian businessmen, the Hinduja brothers, being cleared of wrongdoing by the Hammond report into the episode even as he came under heavy fire for failing to cooperate fully with an inquiry by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Elizabeth Filkin. This tendency towards over-exuberance masks Mr Vaz's real achievements. Elected for Leicester East in 1987, he was the first Asian MP since 1929 and the first ever Asian minister in the Commons. (Baron Sinha of Raipur preceded him in the Lords in 1919 - a fact forgotten by most newspapers.) Mr Vaz is a Goanese Catholic born in 1956 in Aden, where his father was the correspondent for the Times of India. The family moved to Twickenham when he was nine. He went from Latymer upper school in Hammersmith to Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he was a contemporary of the prime minister's spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, the BBC's political editor Andrew Marr and the novelist and Labour ally Robert Harris. Like them he made his mark at the university. He secured first class honours in law, going on to study at the College of Law before practising first as a solicitor and then, from 1991, as a barrister. He also grew up with politics. His widowed mother, Merlyn Lobo, is now a councillor in Leicester and his BBC presenter sister, Valerie Vaz, has frequently sought Labour candidacies as a leftwinger. It was no surprise that Keith Vaz should follow the same route, at first unsuccessfully, coming a poor third in 1983 as Labour's candidate for hopeless Richmond and Barnes, a year later losing Surrey West by 50,000 votes. These disappointments made him an outspoken advocate of "black sections" within the Labour party, then a real cause of controversy. The stance may have helped him win selection for Leicester East - a seat with some 16,000 non-white voters, mostly Gujaratis - but if it did, his supporters must have been disappointed when he turned against black sections on entering parliament. In the 1987 election, Mr Vaz took the Leicester seat from the sitting Conservative, Peter Bruinvels, a flamboyant rightwinger famous for offering to act as public hangman. In parliament, he made his mark as an outspoken supporter of people who had lost money in the collapse of BCCI, many of them among his Asian constituents. He has settled down somewhat after his marriage in 1993 to fellow lawyer Maria Fernandes, a Kenyan-born Goanese Catholic. They have a son and a daughter. In 1992 he became a Labour frontbench spokesman, a success which turned to disappointment when he became one of a dozen Labour opposition frontbenchers denied office in Tony Blair's first 1997 government. Instead, he became a parliamentary private secretary serving Tony Blair's close friend Derry Irvine. Then came the magic endorsement: Lord Irvine said his PPS was "utterly brilliant", "the most incredible networker I have ever met". This backing from so well connected a source must have assisted Mr Vaz's rapid ministerial promotion, from parliamentary secretary in Lord Irvine's Lord Chancellor's department to minister for Europe at the Foreign Office. In that job, Mr Vaz has not shone quite as brightly as some of his predecessors, who made the post one of the most important in the government outside the cabinet. But he has coped well enough, showing all the enthusiasm of a recent convert to the European ideal until hit by the passport controversy of early 2001. Ask Aristotle about Keith Vaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patricia Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I remember that initially my mother thought my future husband, as he was then, was Catholic as his relatives were. She was not against him but very worried realising the problems we would almost certainly have faced in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow-Chasers Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 At the end of the day, it is army banter! It is affectionate nick naming and has no racially abusive basis at all! It just sells papers in a world that is getting so engrossed in being 'pc' it forgets what life is all about. These guys fight together as a unit - they don't fight each other! Harry calls Ahmad 'paki', Ahmed calls harry 'Ginge' - i have friends in the forces called all sorts of nick names! One is called 'two hander' because of his aledged size shall we say - another is pretty boy. He isnt efeminate or gay, he wears hair gel! I think these things should be put into perspective. Banter is banter and should be left at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 I take people at face value, I'm not overly bothered whatever their skin colour or religion is as long as they dont abuse me or try to push their religion or way of living on me. I can fully understand someone from the third world trying to get into Britain as a legal or illegal immigrant in order to better their lives. But what I do find wrong is that the government in my opinion has been lacking in its duty in limiting the numbers that they have allowed in. There are no jobs for them and they spend their days aimlessly walking the streets bored out of their heads, what once may have been a dream usually ends up as a nightmare particularly if they are tempted into a life of crime in order to survive and then end up in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hopesy - 2009-01-13 10:20 PM Some of you will know from previous posts what job i do and how politically correct it is. Today at a meal break we were watching the news when the story followed up this story with the Prince Charles calling a friend by his nickname "sooty". So we ahd a dicussion with a collegue from Pakistan, their take on this was how overblown the whole story was. They said that the way the name was called was all important. Any name can be derogitory and most (not all) can be used in a friendly way between friends. If someone found any name offensive they should say so and if this name is still used then it's a problem. Interestingly they didn't find Paki or Sooty offensive and said there are far to many interfering do-gooding white people about. Hopesy, seeing as you mention it, what job do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maryowlgirl Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think its time they found something worthwhile to talk and report about. Wonder how many times Harry has been called ginger nut or copper head? & not moaned about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapido-lass Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 When people become friends and nick-names follow, it is usually a way of identifying them so to speak hence race, looks etc. This is like an informal unspoken agreement between these friends. Hence when these guys are using this nick-name between themselves causing no harm or insult to each other, why do outsiders feel they have the right to eves drop someones private conversation and poke their nose in where it is not wanted. Fame and fortune is probably the driving force behind this, like in other situations it would be to incite trouble where there is none. In my book both these reasons are worse than the nick-name itself as it was used as a nickname not insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patricia Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Syd - 2009-01-13 11:57 PM Patricia - 2009-01-13 11:12 PM Just caught a bit of the news in which Lord Vaz Which planet does he belong on when there are so many more important issues to sort out? Does anyone know the title of his over inflated job description? Hi Patrica Hope this is enough for you, if you want more please let me know. My personal discription is that this man is that he is the slimyest (Spelling) self serving twenty faced scumbag in todays parliament Ask Aristotle about Keith Vaz Syd, sorry I didn't reply to this post before but our posts must have crossed and I needed to read this when I was wide awake; not last night! Thank you for the information: your personal description of the man seems to summarise him very well. Seems to me that Parliament is full of barristers who move with the wind and jump on every bandwagon that they think will earn them votes. He may have chosen the wrong side with this subject if this thread is anywhere near representative of the views of most voters. It also seems that "immigrants" obtain the right to vote and enter into Parliament very quickly. I have held property in France for 16 years and I have no voting rights at all, nor would I expect to have. I believe that you need to understand the ethos and mores of a country in order to represent it and not qualify because you are a certain colour, race, gender, persuasion etc. etc. Still history shows us that causes are only espoused when an ambitious person with excellent oratory skills is persuaded to introduce and support it in Parliament - evein if they don't personally believe in it or understand the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Heard this quote on the BBC Breakfast this morning by a lady who seemed to say she had far less racial names applied to her (she was "black") than prejudicial names that applied to her age and her size! “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt. Seems a great quote that sums up the situation perfectly. Those that want to be offended will be - nowt we can do about that - it is their problem not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.