Report: U.K. Video Game Critic Keith Vaz Caught Up in Sleazy Scandal
Report: U.K. Video Game Critic Keith Vaz Caught Up in Sleazy Scandal
September 22, 2008
Labor MP Keith Vaz, a frequent critic of violent video games, is currently under the glare of an ethical inquiry in the U.K.
As reported by a lengthy expose in the Daily Mail:
[Vaz] is facing demands for a sleaze inquiry after intervening in a court case on behalf of a party donor... Vaz, chairman of the influential home affairs select committee, urged the High Court to delay proceedings involving a friend from whom he and his family had received lavish hospitality...
At a critical point in the case, 51-year-old Mr Vaz wrote to the High Court asking the presiding judge to adjourn proceedings pending the outcome of complaints by [Vaz's friend] about how the case had been previously handled, involving hotly contested allegations of racism and bias.
Legal sources said the judge was furious at what he perceived to be 'political interference'.
Nor is this the first time that Vaz has come under fire for allegations of an ethical lapse, as this BBC report indicates. On that score, in April of this year GamePolitics readers voted Vaz the fourth biggest political hypocrite in regard to video game issues. Vaz was beaten out for that dubious honor by disgraced New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.
GP: Thanks to GP reader GusTavToo for the tip!
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3043139/Keith-Vaz-wi...
There's some more info here.
Good,
That little chipmunk cheeked lard ass lay about needs to have his high and mighty moral ass kicked every now and then to remind him that he's a hypocrite.
To no ones surprise, video game critics can't practice what they preach.
The "morally superior" always write their own rules. That way, they can never be wrong.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
... That does sound like someone we all know and loathe, actually. :P
-- "Jack and listen are two words that don't go together...just like Jack and sanity, Jack and truth, Jack and proof, Jack and win..." -- sortableturnip | http://www.orangeloungeradio.com/
You must be Joking Tremendously
Oh, I c wht u did thar, but yeah, that does sound like him, very much like him.
The "morally superior" always write their own rules. That way, they can never be wrong.
Yeah, that always happens when I beat someone fair and square in Soul Calibur IV online by mixing up my tactics, and I still get called "cheap".
Isn't it ironic that those who shout loudest for rules for other people are the ones who have the hardest time obeying the rules that already exist?
I feel sorry for this people whom were born without opposable thumbs
Dude, if you're gonna write a comment about people being under-evolved, at least employ proper grammar - otherwise you make us *all* look bad.
x x x
I humbly beg your pardon
YES!!
In your fucking face, Vaz! In your fucking face! Let's see you go cry to your beloved Daily Mail readership now, you arrogant prick!
Thanks for this Dennis - today is now an officially good day :)
Don't hold back, tell us how you really fell about it
There is a saying that goes "sinners pray loudest". However, I imagine Keith Vaz is more interested in drumming up a moral panic for political gain than actually solving problems.
Not quite as good as the former NY gov. using tax-payer money to buy hookers, but still pretty entertaining nonetheless.
tax-payer money? Do you mean he was using city funds?
LOL.
I am reminded of my HARD-ON Collider joke, especially as this proves that Keith Vaz is, in fact, a complete dick.
Ha ha . . . I love it when people pick on the media abour morales, and yet, they do not have theirs in check!
Let me guest, Vza was attacking video games just to cover up his own flith!
To be honest, I genuinely think he believed himself to be 'superior' to his voters, and that he had a right to interfere with things when they inconvenienced his friends. I think a lot of MP's in the UK have forgotten what the phrase 'public servant' actually means.
I'll also admit that I'm a bit concerned about this lawyer buying meals etc for ethnic minority MP's only, I'm concerned about a double-standard rising in the UK that could cause problems later.
Though, on consideration, this IS the Daily Mail, who are a pretty iffy paper anyway, so I'll hold my opinions purely as a 'concern' until more information is available.
People in glass houses...
What really, really irks me about these moral crusaders is that practically all of them think they have some sort of mandate (from God or wherever it may be) to tell everyone else what we should do, how we should behave and what we can't do or say. And yet practically all of them, behind closed doors, act as if the morality rules they're trying to force on others don't apply to them. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, my dear hypocrite across the pond.
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/
You can trust a good Tory to get caught up in something like this. I’m just surprised it wasn’t a sex act.
Involving suspenders and oranges, iirc
Though, I should point out that Vaz is Labour, not that it's easy to tell the difference these days.
He's Labour :)
Hmmm...it's from the Daily Mail though...they lied about games, so what makes everyone think they're telling the truth now...?
-Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers! For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007) Just to name a few...
Hmm...I one corner, I have my willingness to believe that an idiotic, anti-gaming asshole has done something bad. In the other, I have my unwillingess to believe things written in the Daily Mail.
I suppose waiting until a reputable news source picks this up is best in this case.
According to the Telegraph, the actual investigation was launched at Vaz's request, after the accusation was made, though, that means nothing in and of itself, it does prove that the Mail is sensationalising again.
Now it needs to happen to a certain someone stateside
Oh, wait....
Hehe, karma's a bitch.
I must have missed the expose here on ECA's hypocrisy. When did that run? Jack Thompson
Oh Jack, you're so amusing...
What are you going to do next, pur custard down your trousers?
But then, I suppose birds of feather flock together, you've got no more idea of what professional conduct is than Vaz has.
You moron. Vaz was, in no way, associated with the ECA (I think). He was a game critic. Remember: game critic, not ECA 'stooge'. Now go play by yourself and wait for your disbarment's final verdict to pass.
------------------------------------
Modified Sarge quote: "My favorite part is the part where you failed. Encore! Bravo."
Please don't feed the troll. I don't think that is Jack.
Well gee they were going to fax over a copy of it but it appears it broke in the sea of court filings from one Jack Thompson.
I´m still waiting for "Jack Thompson Sexual Scandal: caught on tape soliciting minors in a bathroom. He lured them with copies of GTA4 and other games ".
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
Bear in mind this is ANOTHER sleaze investigation. This isn't the first time. The other time he was suspended from the House of Commons. Whilst certain charges weren't proven, he was suspended for hindering investigation I believe.
Nice to see that those who try to find moral agendas are merely deflecting. "Simple sword of truth" anyone? (UK people only will probably get that reference)
Hypocrisy seems to be quite trendy amongst those that condemn this industry.
Ah,I love hypocrisy when it happens to people who tell you how to live your life.It's simply................hilarious.
Do any of you lot think Fox News will have this guy along with Jackie boy as a "First Amendment expert"?
PWNED, thats all i have to say