VIP paedophile ring

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Everyone who works for the Govt is bound by the official secrets act Anna it's not something special to civil servants.

In fact, everyone in the UK is bound by it and every other applicable legislation.

[Anna B]

Nothing to do with whether he's homosexual or not, his private life is his business. Keith Vaz has a very dodgy reputation thanks to a whole series of scandals. He's come close to disaster on a number of occasions for all sorts of dodgy dealings. Look him up on Wikipedia.

Highly unsuitable for the position of pontificating over others I would have said. Heaven knows how he's managed to stay in a position of power for so long.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2016 at 19:09 ----------

 

Now can we get back to the discussion about Justice Lowell's reasons for her resignation.

 

'I felt, as chair, handicapped by not being given a free hand to recruit staff of the type that I judged to be essential.'

 

She also wanted 'the victims to bear witness.' The very thing the establishment have been fighting to avoid from day one.

[Santo]

Nothing to do with whether he's homosexual or not, his private life is his business. Keith Vaz has a very dodgy reputation thanks to a whole series of scandals. He's come close to disaster on a number of occasions for all sorts of dodgy dealings. Look him up on Wikipedia.

Highly unsuitable for the position of pontificating over others I would have said. Heaven knows how he's managed to stay in a position of power for so long.

 

So what does it say about the enquiry then?

 

I'm afraid I don't trust your explanation. Nice try though. I'd buy it if you'd written the above rather than just 'one Keith Vaz...' in the first place.

 

Good to see Jeremy Corbyn considers it a private matter and no reason to resign huh Anna B?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keith-vaz-prostitution-scandal-is-a-private-matter-says-jeremy-corbyn-a3336496.html

Edited September 7, 2016 by Santo

[Anna B]

So what does it say about the enquiry then?

 

I'm afraid I don't trust your explanation. Nice try though. I'd buy it if you'd written the above rather than just 'one Keith Vaz...' in the first place.

 

Good to see Jeremy Corbyn considers it a private matter and no reason to resign huh Anna B?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keith-vaz-prostitution-scandal-is-a-private-matter-says-jeremy-corbyn-a3336496.html

 

I couldn't care less whether you 'trust my explanation' or not. I know I've thought this about Kieth Vaz every time I've watched his pompous performance in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Who does he think he is to pass judgement on others when he has a record like he has?

 

If this latest slip had been the only one, (and it is a private matter after all,) then I doubt he would have felt the need to resign. But others, like his £75,000 expenses claim, the cash for questions scandal and the Hinduja brothers affair, to name a few, are far more important and damming, and call into question his personal integrity and fitness for high office. He should have resigned long ago, in fact with his record I don't know how he ever got the job in the first place.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Anna B

[Santo]

I couldn't care less whether you 'trust my explanation' or not. I know I've thought this about Kieth Vaz every time I've watched his pompous performance in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Who does he think he is to pass judgement on others when he has a record like he has?

 

If this latest slip had been the only one, (and it is a private matter after all,) then I doubt he would have felt the need to resign. But others, like his £75,000 expenses claim, the cash for questions scandal and the Hinduja brothers affair, to name a few, are far more important and damming, and call into question his personal integrity and fitness for high office. He should have resigned long ago, in fact with his record I don't know how he ever got the job in the first place.

 

The job of chair of the committee? He was elected.

[Obelix]

In fact, everyone in the UK is bound by it and every other applicable legislation.

 

But many of the provisions of the Act only apply to say civil servants and government contractors.... it's quite narrow in it's application in many regards...

[apelike]

But many of the provisions of the Act only apply to say civil servants and government contractors.... it's quite narrow in it's application in many regards...

 

As far as I remember its as Jeffrey Shaw states in that all are bound by it and all its provisions. Whether they are Civil Servants and Government contractors does not matter.

[Obelix]

If you read it then it certainly does matter - a lot of the provisions only apply to civil servants and contractors.

[apelike]

If you read it then it certainly does matter - a lot of the provisions only apply to civil servants and contractors.

 

Tailoring parts to fit the above does not alter the general purposes of the ACT which we are all bound by regardless of signing the ACT.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

But many of the provisions of the Act only apply to say civil servants and government contractors.... it's quite narrow in it's application in many regards...

 

As far as I remember its as Jeffrey Shaw states in that all are bound by it and all its provisions. Whether they are Civil Servants and Government contractors does not matter.

Here's the OSA 1920: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-11/75/contents

Its substantive provisions all seem to apply to "...any person..."