Dear God, the stupidity

Within hours of the Sunday Mirror’s front page headline – “Labour MP Keith Vaz and the prostitutes at his flat” – hitting the newsstands, campaigners were calling for the committee’s ongoing inquiry into prostitution to be wound up.

Nordic Model Now, which campaigns for the abolition of prostitution, said the committee should immediately scrap it because the MP’s actions were tantamount to a conflict of interests.

The campaign group said that the inquiry should be reconvened with members – 50 per cent of whom should be women – who have no history of sex buying.

Err, hello? This is a democracy?

Different groups should be represented? Different viewpoints?

17 thoughts on “Dear God, the stupidity”

  1. Poor old Keith all he was doing was background research
    In Leicester his “research activities ” have been common knowledge from the day he was first elected I’m amazed it’s taken so long to come out

  2. “Nordic Model Now, which campaigns for the abolition of prostitution”

    I thought Nordic Model Now wanted to /keep/ prostitution, but decriminalise everything related to it. I’m fairly certain no Nodic country has managed to actually /abolish/ prostitution.

  3. The Nordic is –not illegal for women to be a prossie but law for you if you use one.

    The cunts who want the Nordic model might well have engineered the exposure of Vaz at this time to boost their chances.

  4. “The campaign group said that the inquiry should be reconvened with members – 50 per cent of whom should be women – who have no history of sex buying.”
    Entirely sensible.
    Hookers.

  5. Well surely a committee to deliberate on some matter should be formed from people with experience of the matter in hand. Preferably different experience from different people with different points of view.
    Since a major purpose of the law on prostituion is alleged to be the protection of the workers, some proportion of the committee should be workers.
    Otherwise one could conclude that the purpose is different from that which is alleged.

  6. If you allow differing viewpoints, the investigation might not reach the desired outcomes.

    It’s only when you get to the level of insanity demonstrated by the Murphies of this world that, provided you get to select the axioms and the evidence that logic won’t get a bunch of sensible people to reach your conclusion.

  7. That committee is composed of persons subject to an “either / or” question.
    Either they use prostitutes, or they don’t. In the first case they may be biased towards lax legislation; in the second, they will be biased towards restrictions.

    You don’t escape bias; it’s inherent in humans.

  8. “The campaign group said that the inquiry should be reconvened with members – 50 per cent of whom should be women – who have no history of sex buying.”

    And presumably then, no experience or knowledge of the sex industry. Might they work for a particular campaign group though?

  9. They want to scrap an entire committee because one member has an alleged conflict of interest?

    Rob, you seem to be assuming that the committee report has some existential significance of its own? That the report might make a difference?

    This is all about getting publicity, shifting the Overton Window on the executive (not the backbenchers), and then ramming through a change in the law that is grossly out of line with reality-outside-the-lobbying bubble.

    Policy-based evidence making, I believe it is described as.

  10. And presumably then, no experience or knowledge of the sex industry.

    Radio Poland’s English-language service ran a piece a year or two ago on Poland’s hunting laws; specifically, the fact that children are going hunting with their fathers.

    The anti-hunting extremists were aghast at this (how did those delicate children survive a century or two ago seeing farm animals slaughtered?), and especially irritated that there were hunters on the parliamentary committee looking at the laws. I can only imagine how much they’d scream about excluding green activists from environmental committees.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The anti-hunting extremists were aghast at this (how did those delicate children survive a century or two ago seeing farm animals slaughtered?)”

    They’d have had a fit if they’d been to the Dorset show yesterday. Outside the tent where they were judging pigs and piglets was a van selling sausages and pulled pork burgers. They were even giving away free samples on cocktail sticks so you could walk in to the tent eating them.

  12. I was once driving through the Taigetos mountains in Greece with my wife and young daughter. We stopped in a village, outside a baker’s and a butcher’s. A man strode out and slaughtered a young goat on a tree stump beside our car. Minutes later the warm meat was on sale. My wife was disgusted; my daughter was fascinated. I loved the total disregard for EU regulation!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *