Kieth Vaz

[Tony C]

That’s some night life imo :clap:

[IUFG]

That’s some night life imo :clap:

"He was said to have posed as a washing machine salesman" :hehe:

[Tony C]

His drink was spiked loooooool

Okay looooool nice try haha

[Burney]

That’s some night life imo :clap:

I strongly recommend a read of the report. Not only is it very funny, it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'interior decoration'.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmselect/cmstandards/93/93.pdf

[Burney]

His drink was spiked loooooool

Okay looooool nice try haha

He first claimed the conversation was nothing like what he remembered. He then claimed he couldn't remember the conversation. He then said his drink had been spiked. Finally he argued that if he did indeed say dem fings, then they would constitute part of his private and personal life and thus be no business of the Commissioner. :hehe:

[IUFG]

I strongly recommend a read of the report. Not only is it very funny, it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'interior decoration'.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmselect/cmstandards/93/93.pdf

"the only date and time at which he could see the prospective decorators of his flat was at 11.30 pm on Saturday 27 August"

:hehe:

[Burney]

I strongly recommend a read of the report. Not only is it very funny, it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'interior decoration'.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmselect/cmstandards/93/93.pdf

Pages 15-16 are especially fun


38. We do not propose to recite the numerous instances in the recording where Mr Vaz
discusses or appears to engage in sexual activity. However, one example may be worth
citing in order to indicate the nature of the relationship between Mr Vaz and his visitors,
as well as the strong evidence for his having prior knowledge of them, both of which
reflect on the credibility of his account. Mr Vaz compliments one of the men for being on
time, and says “You’re always on time, actually. [ … ] Except for that other chap, what was
his name, you brought me the first time? [ … ] He was OK. He forgot the condom though.
I had to f*** him without a condom.”31
39. We began this Report by commenting that “the essential issues in this case are relatively
simple”. The incident which took place in Mr Vaz’s flat in the evening of 27 August 2016 is a
case in point. Despite the many pages of material and multiple arguments produced by
Mr Vaz, no reasonable person who has listened to the audio-recording of that incident
or read the transcript could believe his claim that the purpose of the two men’s visit
was to discuss interior decoration. Not only was that subject not mentioned at any
point in the conversation, but Mr Vaz adopted an assumed name and claimed not to be the owner of the flat but merely the friend of the owner. The supporting evidence
from Mr Vaz in defence of the interior decoration claim (for instance, photographs of
his main house, not the flat) is unconvincing or irrelevant.
40. The actual reason for Mr Vaz’s invitation to the two men is equally clear. We find
the evidence to be compelling that Mr Vaz was previously acquainted with the men,
that he had paid them money to engage in sexual activity with him, that he had paid
money to procure the attendance of a third man also to engage in sexual activity, and
that at the conclusion of the encounter (when those present had finally accepted that
the third man was not going to arrive) he did engage in sexual activity for which he had
paid. We support the conclusions of the Commissioner on this matter, and would add,
on the basis of our own examination of the audio-recording and transcript, that as well
as the evidence she brings forward in support of her interpretation of events, numerous
other instances from the recording and the transcript could also be presented. Mr
Vaz’s claims as to the purpose of the encounter are, frankly, ludicrous.
41. We also support the Commissioner’s conclusion that on the balance of probabilities
it is likely that Mr Vaz had engaged in paid-for sex on previous occasions (though the
details and timing of this probable activity cannot be determined on the basis of the
available evidence).
42. With regard to Mr Vaz’s argument that he was the victim of entrapment, it is,
strictly speaking, not relevant that the covert recording was made by individuals who
were paid by a newspaper to be there. Mr Vaz has not produced cogent or convincing
evidence to show that they coerced or induced him to behave in a way that was out of
character or inconsistent with previous conduct. It is almost certainly true that the
conversation was being “steered” by the two men, but there is no evidence to suggest
that Mr Vaz was being steered in directions he was unwilling to go.
43. The Commissioner has not relied on any testimony from either of the two men,
and therefore it is hard to see the relevance of Mr Vaz’s comments on their characters
and backgrounds.
The claim of amnesia
44. Mr Vaz claims to have suffered memory loss as to the events of 27 August 2016. The
Commissioner notes that Mr Vaz first mentioned his amnesia when interviewed by her
predecessor Kathryn Hudson on 27 April 2017, eight months after the incident, and more
than three months after he wrote a letter to Ms Hudson in which, to use his own words,
he “respond[ed] in full to the allegations made against him”.32 The Commissioner cites
comments made by Mr Vaz earlier in the investigation which implied that he did recollect
what had happened: for instance, his comments to Ms Hudson that the media report
“bore no relation to what actually occurred” and that it was “heavily embellished and
largely inaccurate”.33 She notes numerous occasions prior to April 2017 when he had had
the opportunity to tell Kathryn Hudson that he could not recollect what had happened,
but did not do so. She concludes that “I find it very surprising that he did not say from the
start that he had no memory of the events in question.”34

[Burney]

"the only date and time at which he could see the prospective decorators of his flat was at 11.30 pm on Saturday 27 August"

:hehe:

Presumably, they had to use the tradesman's entrance?

[IUFG]

Presumably, they had to use the tradesman's entrance?

Sounds like he certainly used theirs...