Vaz is a lawyer with a big mouth, a crooked MP with crooked mates. He might claim that he is not part of the Asian Mafia.
Keith Vaz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vaz first stood for Parliament in 1983........ For the 1987 election he was chosen to stand for the seat of Leicester East, which had 16,000 British Asian voters. He won the election, defeating the right-wing Conservative candidate Peter Bruinvels, and became a popular constituency MP, the first Asian MP since Shapurji Saklatvala lost his seat in 1929. From 1987 to 1992 he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.......
In February 2000 the Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin began an investigation after allegations that Vaz had accepted several thousand pounds from a solicitor, Sarosh Zaiwalla, which he had failed to declare. The allegations were made by Andrew Milne, a former partner of Zaiwalla and were denied by both Vaz and Zaiwalla. Additional allegations were made that Vaz had accepted money from other businessmen.
Vaz wrote to Filkin on 7 February 2000 to deny the allegations, and Filkin and Vaz went on to exchange letters until April 2000 in which Vaz responded to Filkin's queries. Geoffrey Bindman, who was acting as Vaz's solicitor, wrote to Filkin on 18 May to ask how much longer her inquiry was to take and Filkin produced a list of 48 questions she wanted answered on 29 June.
On 19 October Filkin wrote and asked for details about properties owned by Vaz, who replied that he owned three properties. However, evidence was later found by BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Vaz failed to disclose all his property interests to Filkin, and that documents showed that he owned four rather than three properties at the time. It was also discovered that he had transferred the ownership of a fifth property in London to his mother on 27 October, eight days after Filkin requested details of all his properties. Vaz said that the timing was a coincidence and the property was put on the market by Mrs. Vaz 6 months after the transfer. Land Registry documents showed that Vaz had become the owner of the property on 5 August 1988, and the Electoral Register showed that it had been Vaz's address in 1988 and 1999. Between February 1992 and February 1996 the property was the address of Reza Shahbandeh, who Vaz denied all knowledge of when asked.
On 2 November Geoffrey Bindman warned Filkin that her inquiry could be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Filkin sent a final list of questions for Vaz to answer on 27 November, following which Bindman wrote to Filkin on 4 December that Vaz would not answer any more of her questions, but would co-operate with the Standards and Privileges Committee. Filkin told the Standards and Privileges Committee on 20 December that she had been unable to reach a conclusion on eight of the 18 allegations she had investigated.
On 12 March 2001, the Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 28 allegations of various financial wrongdoings, but Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr. Vaz of blocking her investigation into eighteen of the allegations. He was censured for a single allegation - that he had failed to register two payments worth £4,500 in total from solicitor Sarosh Zaiwalla, whom he recommended for a peerage several years later. Mrs. Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry which would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers.
Filkin was reported on 18 March as angered by the way in which Vaz had "spun" her report, saying that he had been representing the report as clearing him when in fact she failed to reach conclusions on several complaints because he obstructed the inquiry. Filkin declined to comment, saying she felt her position on Vaz was set out in her report.
In January 2001, immigration minister Barbara Roche revealed in a written Commons reply that Vaz, along with Peter Mandelson and other MPs, had contacted the Home Office about the Hinduja brothers. She said that Vaz had made inquiries about when a decision on their application for citizenship could be expected.
On January 25, Vaz had become the focus of Opposition questions about the Hinduja affair and many parliamentary questions were tabled, demanding that he fully disclose his role. Vaz said via a Foreign Office spokesman that he would be "fully prepared" to answer questions put to him by Sir Anthony Hammond QC who had been asked by the Prime Minister to carry out an inquiry into the affair.
Vaz had known the Hinduja brothers for some time; he had been present when the charitable Hinduja Foundation was set up in 1993, and also delivered a speech in 1998 when the brothers invited Tony and Cherie Blair to a Diwali celebration.
On 26 January 2001, Prime Minister Tony Blair was accused of prejudicing the independent inquiry into the Hinduja passport affair, after he declared that the Foreign Office minister Keith Vaz had not done "anything wrong". On the same day, Vaz told reporters that they would "regret" their behaviour once the facts of the case were revealed. "Some of you are going to look very foolish when this report comes out. Some of the stuff you said about Peter, and about others and me, you'll regret very much when the facts come out," he said. When asked why the passport application of one of the Hinduja brothers had been processed more quickly than normal, being processed and sanctioned in six months when the process can take up to two years, he replied, "It is not unusual."
On 29 January, the government confirmed that the Hinduja Foundation had held a reception for Vaz in September 1999 to celebrate his appointment as the first Asian Minister in recent times. The party was not listed by Vaz in House of Commons register of Members' Interests and John Redwood, then head of the Conservative Parliamentary Campaigns Unit, questioned Vaz's judgement in accepting the hospitality.
In March Vaz was ordered to fully co-operate with a new inquiry launched into his financial affairs by Elizabeth Filkin. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, Vaz's superior, also urged him to fully answer allegations about his links with the Hinduja brothers. Mr. Vaz met Mrs. Filkin on 20 March to discuss a complaint that the Hinduja Foundation had given the sum of £1,200 to Mapesbury Communications, a company run by his wife, in return for helping to organize a Hinduja-sponsored reception at the House of Commons. Vaz had previously denied receiving money from the Hindujas, but insisted that he made no personal gain from the transaction in question.
In June 2001 Vaz said that he had made representations during the Hinduja brothers' applications for British citizenship while a backbench MP. Tony Blair also admitted that Vaz had "made representations" on behalf of other Asians.
On 11 June 2001 Vaz was officially dismissed from his post as Europe Minister, to be replaced by Peter Hain. The Prime Minister's office said that Vaz had written to Tony Blair stating his wish to stand down for health reasons.
In December 2001 Elizabeth Filkin cleared Vaz of failing to register payments to his wife's law firm by the Hinduja brothers, but said that he had colluded with his wife to conceal the payments. Filkin's report said that the payments had been given to his wife for legal advice on immigration issues and concluded that Vaz had gained no direct personal benefit, and that Commons rules did not require him to disclose payments made to his wife. She did, however, criticize him for his secrecy, saying, "It is clear to me there has been deliberate collusion over many months between Mr. Vaz and his wife to conceal this fact and to prevent me from obtaining accurate information about his possible financial relationship with the Hinduja family".
Suspension from House of Commons
In 2002 Vaz was suspended from the House of Commons for one month after a Committee on Standards and Privileges inquiry found that he had made false allegations against Eileen Eggington, a former policewoman. The committee concluded that "Mr. Vaz recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the Commissioner, which was not true, and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility".
Eileen Eggington, a retired police officer who had served 34 years in the Metropolitan Police, including a period as deputy head of Special Branch, wanted to help a friend, Mary Grestny, who had worked as personal assistant to Vaz's wife. After leaving the job in May 2000, Grestny dictated a seven-page statement about Mrs. Vaz to Eggington in March 2001, who sent it to Elizabeth Filkin. Grestny's statement included allegations that Mr. and Mrs. Vaz had employed an illegal immigrant as their nanny and that they had been receiving gifts from Asian businessmen such as Hinduja brothers. The allegations were denied by Mr. Vaz and the Committee found no evidence to support them.
In late 2001, Vaz complained to Leicestershire police that his mother had been upset by a telephone call from "a woman named Mrs. Egginton", who claimed to be a police officer. The accusations led to Ms. Eggington being questioned by police. Vaz also wrote a letter of complaint to Elizabeth Filkin, but when she tried to make inquiries Vaz accused her of interfering with a police inquiry and threatened to report her to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Eggington denied that she had ever telephoned Vaz's mother and offered her home and mobile telephone records as evidence. The Commons committee decided that she was telling the truth. They added: "Mr. Vaz recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington, which was not true and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington and undermined her credibility."
A letter to Elizabeth Filkin from Detective Superintendent Nick Gargan made it plain that the police did not believe Vaz's mother ever received the phone call and the person who came closest to being prosecuted was not Eggington but Vaz. Gargan said that the police had considered a range of possible offences, including wasteful employment of the police, and an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Leicestershire police eventually decided not to prosecute. "We cannot rule out a tactical motivation for Mr. Vaz's contact with Leicestershire Constabulary but the evidence does not support further investigation of any attempt to pervert the course of justice." 
The complaints the committee upheld against Mr. Vaz were:
That he had failed to register his paid employment at the Leicester Law Centre when he first entered Parliament in 1987.
That he had failed to register a donation from the Caparo group in 1993.
It was concluded that Vaz had "committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and showed contempt for the House" and it was recommended that he be suspended from the House of Commons for one month.
In 2001 the revelation that Vaz had assisted Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi in his attempts to avoid extradition to France raised doubts about Vaz's suitability for high office and led to charges that rich businessmen had received privileged access to Labour government Ministers. Opposition MPs called for an investigation into what one dubbed "Hinduja Mark II".
Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi was wanted for questioning by French police for his alleged role in the notorious Elf Aquitaine fraud scandal which led to the arrest of a former French Foreign Minister. The warrant issued by French authorities in July 2000 Auchi of "complicity in the misuse of company assets and receiving embezzled company assets". It also covered Auchi's associate Nasir Abid and stated that if found guilty of the alleged offences both men could face 109 years in jail.
Vaz was a director of the British arm of Auchi's corporation, General Mediterranean Holdings, whose previous directors had included Lords Steel and Lamont, and Jacques Santer. Vaz used his political influence on GMH's behalf; this included a party in the Park Lane Hilton to celebrate the 20th anniversary of GMH on 23 April 1999, where Lord Sainsbury presented Auchi with a painting of the House of Commons signed by Tony Blair, the Opposition leaders, and over 100 other leading British politicians. Lord Sainsbury later told The Observer that he did this "as a favour for Keith Vaz". In May 1999 Vaz resigned his post as a director after he was appointed a Minister. In a statement to The Observer, a GMH spokesman said that Vaz had been invited to become a GMH director in January 1999, yet company accounts showed Vaz as a director for the financial year ending December 1998.
Labour confirmed in May 2001 that Auchi had called Vaz at home about the arrest warrant to ask him for advice. A spokesman said that Vaz "made some factual inquiries to the Home Office about the [extradition] procedure." This included advising Auchi to consult his local MP. The spokesman stressed that Vaz acted properly at all times and was often contacted by members of Britain's ethnic communities for help. In a Commons answer to Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker earlier the same month Vaz confirmed that "details of enquiries by Mr. Auchi have been passed to the Home Office".
Since 2003 he has been a Member of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. In this post, he was criticized for unparliamentary language after he called Alan Milburn a "prick."
42 Day Rule Vote
Keith Vaz was again brought to public attention when the Daily Telegraph printed a hand written letter suggesting that Vaz had, or was due to receive, some sort of reward for voting for the Government under the 42 Day Rule Vote in June 2008. In a letter to Vaz, written on 12 June, a day after the key vote, Geoff Hoon wrote:
“Dear Keith… Just a quick note to thank you for all your help during the period leading up to last Wednesday’s vote. I wanted you to know how much I appreciated all your help. I trust that it will be appropriately rewarded!... With thanks and best wishes, Geoff.”
Vaz was originally against the idea of holding suspects for 42 days without charge, but he changed his mind a few days before the key vote. Although Prime Minister Gordon Brown was accused of offering rebel backbenchers a series of deals in exchange of their votes, Brown denied that any such deals were made.
Black Socialist Society
Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) voted to resurrect the defunct Black Socialist Society (BSS) in 2006. As part of this, the party set up an Ethnic Minority Taskforce. Tony Blair appointed Vaz to chair this taskforce. When membership of the BSS exceeded 2,500 in early 2007, the society qualified for its own seat on the NEC. Vaz was elected to this post on March 10 2007.
Home Affairs Select Committee
Vaz was elected Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, replacing John Denham, on 26 July 2007. He was unusually nominated to the Committee by the Government, rather than by the quasi-independent Committee of Selection which, under the Standing Orders of the House, nominates members to select committees. The Leader of the House argued that this was because there was not sufficient time to go through the usual procedure before the impending summer recess. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection told the House that the Committee had been ready to meet earlier that week, but had been advised by the Government that there was no business for it to transact.
Conflict of interest
In September 2008 Vaz faced pressure to explain why he failed to declare an interest when he intervened in an official investigation into the business dealings of a close friend, solicitor Shahrokh Mireskandari, who has played a role in several racial discrimination cases against the Metropolitan Police, and who was representing Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur in his racial discrimination case against Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority began an investigation into Mireskandari's legal firm, Dean and Dean, in January 2008 after a number of complaints about its conduct. Vaz wrote a joint letter with fellow Labour MP Virendra Sharma to the authority's chief executive, Anthony Townsend, in February 2008 on official House of Commons stationery. He cited a complaint he had received from Mireskandari and alleged "discriminatory conduct" in its investigation into Dean and Dean. The Authority was forced to set up an independent working party to look into whether it had disproportionately targeted non-white lawyers for investigation.
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Vince Cable said that Vaz should make a public statement to clear up his role in the affair. "It is quite unreasonable that an independent regulator should have been undermined in this way. I would hope that the chairman of the home affairs select committee will give a full public statement."
28 day query
In July 2007 Vaz was appointed chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. The appointment caused an outcry at the time since select committee members are usually proposed by the committee of selection, but Vaz was the only nomination made by Commons leader Harriet Harman.
In September 2008 Vaz came under pressure when it was revealed that he had sought the private views of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in connection with the Committee's independent report into government plans to extend the detention of terror suspects beyond 28 days. The Guardian reported that emails suggested that Vaz had secretly contacted the Prime Minister about the committee's draft report and proposed a meeting because "we need to get his [Brown's] suggestions". An email was sent in November 2007 to Ian Austin, Gordon Brown's parliamentary private secretary, and copied to Fiona Gordon, at the time Brown's political adviser. Another leaked email showed that Vaz had also sent extracts of the committee's draft report to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, for his comments; according to Parliament's standing orders, the chairman of the Select Committee cannot take evidence from a witness without at least two other committee members being present.
The disclosure caused concern both among committee members and civil liberties campaigners, as the Select Committee's reports are supposed to be compiled independently of government influence. Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, compared it to a judge deciding a case privately emailing one of the parties to seek their suggestions.
Vaz denied that he invited Brown to contribute, except as a witness to the committee.
Parliamentary Expenses Scandal
Mr. Vaz was implicated in the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. As reported by the Daily Telegraph, Vaz claimed £75,000 in expenses for a second home just 12 miles from his main home. His main home is declared to be in the North-west London suburb of Stanmore, and was purchased with his wife Maria for £1.15 million in 2005, and is around 40 minutes from Westminster by Tube, raising questions as to whether billing for a second home (a £545,000 Westminster flat) was essential for his work as an MP. He also flipped property: claiming for the Westminster flat's service charge and council tax (£2,073, and £1,022), then renting this flat out, switching his second home to a house in his Leicester East constituency, fitting it with around £16,000 of furniture and soft furnishings, as well as £600 month of un-receipted cleaning, service, and repair bills, then flipping back to the Westminster flat again, allowing mortgage interest to be claimed on the flat once more
Lawyer, Islamic, sound on Rushdie, light fingers, mouthy, got away with it too often.
Vaz And Corruption - A Nigerian Comments
Last year, a Telegraph's investigation called The Expenses Files, into how politicians from Gordon Brown's Cabinet to backbenchers of all parties exploited the system of parliamentary allowances to subsidise their lifestyles and multiple homes claimed about 21 casualties........
In February 2002, Yemen born, Keith Vaz MP, the former Europe Minister was rebuked by a powerful committee of MPs for "recklessly" making an untrue and damaging allegation to the police against a witness who made a complaint against him. He had consistently enjoyed the support of Tony Blair, and was found guilty of "contempt" of the Commons by "wrongfully interfering with the House's investigative process." Mr. Vaz was also rebuked for failing to answer MPs' questions about his business affairs, and misleading the inquiry with inaccurate information. Today, he is the Chairman of the Committee charged with the task of examining the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and public bodies. So you see, Parliament isn't corrupt, just mediocre by Steve Richards is an excellent reference and insight into British politics today.
Nigerians are honest people, honest about corruption, experts in corruption. They do not need involved explanations of Vaz or Sarosh Zaiwalla. They know that crime is tax free.
Vaz Claims That He Did Not Take A Bung From Sarosh Zaiwallah
Zaiwalla has a track record too.
Vaz And The Unanswered Questions
The Grauniad does not quite say that he is a lying crook but it seems clear enough that they think just that. Who am I to argue with the wonderful people who were there on the day?
Perhaps he does not have an unwholesome interest in boys.
Vaz Led Islamic March Against Satanic Verses [ 11 June 2006 ]
On the contrary, they seemed to be not only accepted but even endorsed by certain members of the British establishment. Far from universal condemnation of this murderous expression of religious fanaticism, various people used their public position to jump prematurely upon Rushdie's grave. Eminent historian Lord Dacre said he 'would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie's manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them'. In Leicester, Labour MP Keith Vaz led a 3,000-strong demonstration intent on burning an effigy of Rushdie and carried a banner showing Rushdie's head, complete with horns and fangs, superimposed on a dog.
Islamic or just a chancer on the make?
PS This was written by Melanie Philips, a gobby Jew.
Vaz Took £500 Thousand In Bribes Or Not As The Case May Be [ 4 October 2012 ]
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen writes to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to demand an inquiry and says Mr. Vaz should to stand down as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Mr. Vaz denies any wrongdoing and says the money is from property deals
Keith Vaz could face a Commons investigation over the revelation that he held almost £500,000 in mystery bank accounts. Scotland Yard detectives found the money during a secret investigation and regarded it as being of a ‘suspicious nature’....... As chairman of the home affairs select committee, Mr. Vaz holds police to account on operational matters and was scathing in his criticism of Scotland Yard over the phone hacking affair..... In 2000, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards launched an inquiry into Mr. Vaz over allegations he received money from businessmen in his Leicester constituency. The following year he was investigated for allegedly helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers to obtain British passports........ In 2002 he was suspended from the House of Commons after falsely claiming a former policewoman, a friend of Mrs. Vaz’s former personal assistant, had made intimidating phone call to his mother.
In further controversy it emerged he helped Nadhmi Auchi, an Anglo-Iraqi billionaire, in trying to avoid extradition to France.
Despite his reputation having been seemingly tarnished, he bounced back and was appointed chairman of the home affairs select committee in 2007......... Four months ago one of Mr. Vaz’s former friends was booted out of the legal profession and ordered to pay £1.4million in costs.
Shahrokh Mireskandari, 51, had faked his legal qualifications and hid his criminal convictions while representing celebrity clients..
How does a crooked Pakistani get away with it? By having a face that fits and enough criminal friends in high places. Such is life for the Asian Mafia.
Vaz Tried To Protect Janner [ 18 April 2015 ]
Keith Vaz, the senior Labour politician, praised Greville Janner as a “great survivor” as he and other MPs campaigned for a change in the law to protect him from child abuse accusations made in court.
Mr Vaz, currently the Labour candidate for Leicester East, which he has represented since 1987, said in 1991 that Lord Janner had been “the victim of a cowardly and wicked attack by people who simply did not care what damage they did to him or to anyone else”.
Ever since the Parliament's Expense Scandal we know that MPs are a light fingered bunch of rogues. This merely confirms that point. Janner got the benefit of a heavy weight cover up; but then he is a Jew working the Holocaust® Racket
Keith Vaz Is A Pakistani Pervert Allegedly [ 4 September 2016 ]
Keith Vaz reportedly met two Eastern European men for sex at his London flat eight days ago before paying them cash, according to the Sunday Mirror. Mr Vaz, a father of two, is last night said to have made clear that he will step aside from his position as chairman of the committee, which is currently examining prostitution in the UK, after the allegations were made public............
In a bid to hide his identity, Mr Vaz allegedly told the men his name was Jim and said he sold “industrial washing machines” to hotels.
So Vaz is a liar as well. He is a nasty bit of work.
Why Did Vaz Protect Janner, The Paedophile Pervert? [ 5 September 2016 ]
Just as the British Establishment thought it had buried the 'Lord' Greville Janner child abuse story it is coming back to haunt them in the most unexpected ways. For one of Janner’s closest political associates and stoutest defenders has been filmed by a tabloid newspaper hiring young male prostitutes and asking for drugs.
When the news broke this weekend “family man” and father-of-two Keith Vaz MP immediately owned up and resigned from his prominent position as chairman of the House of Common’s most powerful watchdog committee.
As one of Britain’s first Muslim MPs, Vaz was groomed and supported by Lord Janner early in his career. The two were “minority” Labour MPs in neighbouring Leicester constituencies, close political allies and thought to have shared many confidences. They were both enthusiasts of mass Muslim immigration and deprecated the Leicester White community’s angry resistance. Vaz became a community leader for Leicester Muslims while Janner became the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews — the most prominent position in the Anglo-Jewry community.
In 1991 Janner was called to give evidence at the trial of a care worker who was accused of abusing boys in his care (my account of this is here). The Judge in that case had bent over backwards to rule out evidence implicating Janner and ensured the MP did not have to answer any awkward questions. In particular the Judge ruled out the accused’s statement in court that “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner.” Another witness also told the court that Janner “regularly sodomised” him when he was in care, aged 13.
In the House of Commons it was Keith Vaz MP who rose to assure fellow MPs that his old friend was “the victim of a cowardly and wicked attack.” In the same speech Vaz suggested the law be changed so that prominent people could not be accused in open court.
Now, of course, we know very different. The Greville Janner affair was dragged into the open in the face of tremendous official obstruction and indifference. When it finally exploded two years ago one jaw-dropping revelation followed another. It turned out that police investigations had been mysteriously derailed, three chances to prosecute had been missed, there had been love letters from Janner to one boy. A second judge even helped Janner in a cover-up. Dozens of former residents of Leicestershire homes for boys came forward to claim that they had been abused by Janner in a scandal that went back four decades.
This fresh scandal will bring a renewed focus on the accusations that swirled around the former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews because of his connection to Keith Vaz. The only part of the Keith Vaz story that is doubtful is the suggestion that it “will shock Westminster.” In fact lurid stories and rumours around Vaz have been circulating for years and this rent boy episode would be one of the milder ones. No doubt this will be followed by a flood of other revelations. The influential Guido Fawkes website has suggested
It is widely known around Westminster that Vaz — who owes his career to Greville Janner — was the unidentified MP in this Sun front page from last year.
The headline on that Sun front page says “Top Labour MP is paedo” but does not name anyone. It is likely that some journalists will be asking again why Keith Vaz protected Janner. Vaz has refused to respond to inquiries on this.
As one of Britain’s most prominent minority politicians Vaz’s name has never been far from controversy. He is seen as someone who sails close to the wind. He has been accused of expenses abuse, taking undeclared financial donations, helping to fix passports for Indian billionaires and much, much more.
These new revelations will also be embarrassing for another close friend of both Lord Janner and Keith Vaz. As Speaker of the House of Commons, the daintily flamboyant figure of John Bercow is privy to more inside information than most. The Guido Fawkes website has said that a year ago he fully knew that Vaz was under police investigation for drug use and “historic” sex crimes. The website says that Bercow protected Vaz. Not only that, but Speaker Bercow appears to have gone out of his way to do some backstage string-pulling so that Vaz would be appointed to the plum job of chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee; the rum manoeuvering on this can be found here. (Vaz has resigned from this position). Doubtless Bercow will be facing questions as to why he was so eager to get Vaz this job.
This comes at a pretty unfortunate time for those in the political and legal establishment who wanted the Greville Janner affair buried and out of the way. Janner’s death, aged 87, just before Christmas last year seemed to end the proceedings and leave the whole matter conveniently unresolved for good.
But the accusations against the co-founder of the Holocaust Education Trust were so appalling, the stink of an establishment cover-up so overpowering, that some kind of hearing was necessary, to give the 22 accusers an opportunity to state their case in open court. To this end it was decided that a little-used procedure, called a “trial of facts,” would be held to hear the evidence. In this procedure a jury would be asked to decide — without pronouncing whether Janner was guilty — if the abuse had taken place. Not ideal then but, if nothing else, it would also bring closure and create an impression there had been at least some attempt at justice.
There was much institutional resistance from the legal establishment. Prominent Jewish legal figures like Jonathan Caplan QC and David Pannick QC were not alone in being willing to defend the DPP’s original decision not to prosecute.
So, in the end, even this grudging concession was not to be. Instead the “trial of facts” hearing was dropped and instead the Janner case was bundled into the massive and much more wide-ranging nationwide inquiry into historic institutional sexual abuse.
This was bizarre. For this huge UK-wide inquiry was tasked with not only looking at historic sex abuse by Muslim rape gangs preying on children from local authority care homes but it would also investigate the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, National Health Service, schools and so on. And now it will also include the case of Greville Janner.
This melange is totally unwieldy and unmanageable, but perhaps that is no accident. The powers-that-be are keen to nuance sex abuse scandals with the wrong kind of ethnic overtones into a broader caseload. That way, the unmistakable racial contours of say, the Muslim rape gang assaults, could be submerged into a national picture and the authorities will be able to show that, taken overall, it is White men who are responsible for most of Britain’s rape and child sexual abuse.
The insistence that there is no racial component to the child rape epidemic in northern English towns has long been an article of faith for police chiefs and politicians such as in Manchester where an assistant police chief said “the case was not about race,” but “adults preying on vulnerable young children. It just happens that in this particular area and time, the demographics were that these were Asian men.” It is a variation of the strategy adopted by Labour politicians such as Rotherham’s Sarah Champion MP who said that White men were the main sexual offenders in the UK overall.
But still the Greville Janner affair has a long road ahead of it. From the outset this nationwide inquiry has been plagued by bad luck. The first two chairwomen had to resign when it was discovered they were too close to the institutions they would be investigating. (But given the wide-ranging nature, was there any legal figure in Britain who was free of such connections?)
Eventually the government secured the agreement of a New Zealand judge called Lowell Goddard to steer the inquiry on a huge salary. But the hapless Judge Goddard may not have appreciated the disapproval of the legal establishment to the whole affair.
Soon there were newspaper stories that the scope of the Goddard inquiry needed to be reined in. There were complaints about the cost, there were off-the-record briefings to the media that Goddard herself was “autocratic” or that she made too much money and took too much time off. There were rumours that she was clashing with government lawyers and civil servants over exactly how much independence she would have. At the beginning of August she became the third chairwoman to step down — or was fired, depending on which story you read.
Separately, but at the same time as this was happening, the Janner family was stepping up its own campaign to have the Janner proceedings halted.
Lord Janner had always been stoutly defended by his children; Daniel Janner QC, Marion Janner OBE and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. They have promised to spend his entire £2 million estate in the fight to clear his name, if that is what it takes. They are lucky in that, unlike the victims of Rotherham, for example, the media are hanging on their every word.
On 26 July of this year The Times ran a long story headlined “Janner family snub unfair abuse inquiry” in which “sources close to the Janner family” revealed that they had twice refused to take part in Judge Goddard’s proceedings and branded them as unfair because the accused man was not there to answer for himself. Five days later, The Sunday Times decided there was still enough mileage to run pretty much the same story from the same angle. The result was another big article headlined “Janner’s son hits out at macabre child sex inquiry.” In this article Daniel Janner complained bitterly about being interviewed by the police. Perhaps unwisely, Daniel Janner agreed to do this excruciating interview with Channel 4.
Daniel Janner’s assertion of his father’s innocence seems not to have been dented by evidence that Greville Janner lied about his relationship with a convicted paedophile who was part of a paedophile circle.
The BBC have also been happy to place their resources at the disposal of the Janner family. In a fawning interview last month, the BBC generously devoted time to the emotional objections of Janner’s daughter Marion. A BBC platform was also found for the most prominent Janner daughter, Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. She is a British media personality and can often be found sounding off on BBC outlets on her many causes which include Holocaust remembrance, stamping out anti-Semitism, flooding Britain with refugees and so on. Just over a year ago, at the height of the Janner child abuse scandal, this memorable clip shows how the BBC gave her airtime to celebrate her father’s role in Holocaust remembrance.
It was curious that the BBC should celebrate Janner in this way, given the accusations that continue to swirl around him. The BBC have never seen fit to celebrate the charitable works of their own departed DJ Jimmy Savile in similar fashion. This is despite the fact that Savile also is the subject of sex abuse accusations not much different from those in the Janner case.
The Huffington Post also gave Rabbi Janner-Klausner a huge amount of space in which she seemed to place the blame for the campaign against her father on anti-Semitism.
“It has been dire,” she says, giving a hint of the toll the allegations have taken. “The Janner family has experienced the most putrid, toxic anti-Semitism. It is extreme stuff. It is beyond comprehension. Vile, vile fascist anti-Semitism. This is full on lunacy. And it reminds you that it is there.”
Today, long after the story broke, accusers are still coming forward to tell their stories. They include respectable businessmen and men with their own families. Even a male Jewish historian has given evidence to the police about how he was once propositioned by “respectable family man” Greville Janner when he was in his twenties.
The publication of lurid details of the evidence against Janner, a pillar of the Anglo-Jewish community, a former vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, the Jewish Leadership Council and many other communal organizations, must have been embarrassing for the Jewish community. But there is no danger of a rapid conclusion to this case. At a preliminary hearing it was announced that the beginning of proceedings will be delayed until 2017 — at least.
But if anyone thought the Greville Janner case was going away, the renewed attention on Keith Vaz will have changed that. In the days ahead there will be much interest in Mr Vaz’s history and habits and that is a road that goes back to Leicestershire in the 1980s.
Keith Vaz as always come across as a wrong one, not merely because he is a Pakistani. Now we know that our suspicions were right. Why did he cover up for Janner? The simple answer is that they are all bent. Given The Establishment's enthusiasm for seeing him all right, the answer is pretty convincing. Mr Begbie throws light on some dark corners. Of course the BBC colluded in the 'news management' i.e. suppressing the truth. The Beeb protected Jimmy Savile, the well known Paedophile pervert as well as Ted Heath, Stuart Hall, Cyril Smith, & Mark Trotter. Recall that Janner was running the Holocaust® Racket, where corruption is a way of life, the World Jewish Congress, ditto. Lowell Goddard walked away from the 2014 Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry then Vaz got gobby. Perhaps she realised just how corrupt the whole thing was.
Justice Committee Chairman Carries On Thieving [ 14 November 2016 ]
But then Vaz is a Pakistani or whatever so it's business as usual, SOP [ standard operating procedure ] in various Third World Hellholes. Vaz has plenty of crooked friends among the Asian Mafia. He knew Dizaei, a bent copper who got four years for Perverting The Course Of Justice.
Vaz Gets Away With Buying Cocaine For Catamites [ 10 April 2017 ]
Another politician, another crook, another police failure. Vaz is above the law.