By Man of Kent
In researching top Muslims you quickly realise that as well as all being involved in scandal they are all closely connected, that their allegiance to Islam transcends all other allegiances.
Baroness Warsi, a Tory, is a close chum of Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham (whose scandals are mostly over him inappropriately supporting Islam but include as well a term in jail for killing someone while simultaneously driving and texting).
And the Right Honourable Keith Vaz MP, head of a powerful Commons home affairs select committee that has an important voice in issues of law, as well as being a notorious ducker and diver himself is also a mate of high-level crooked lawyer Shahrokh Mireskandari and top corrupt cop Ali Dizaei.
Keith Vaz was born in 1956 in Aden, Yemen, to Indian Muslim parents. They fetched him to England with them when he was nine.
In 1987 he became MP for Leicester East, elected by 16,000 Muslim voters.
In 1989 he led a protest in Leicester against Anglo-Indian author Salman Rushdie when Rushdie published his fantasy novel The Satanic Verses.
Addressing 3,000 Muslim demonstrators, Vaz said, ‘Today we celebrate one of the great days in the history of Islam and Great Britain.’ This great day for Great Britain included the act of book-burning. He predictably accused Rushdie of Islamophobia.
After the alpha males of Islam told their herds a passage in the book was blasphemous, The Satanic Verses was banned in India and was the subject of a violent riot in Pakistan.
A fatwa issued in Iran called on all good Muslims to kill or help kill Rushdie and his publishers, after which he was put under police protection.
Thirty-eight people were killed in violence against those connected with the book, including a translator in Japan. Among the supporters of the murderous Muslims was Prince Charles.
He said, ‘I’m sorry but when someone insults the profound beliefs of a people...’
(The heir to the throne has a scandalous record of supporting Muslim murderers.
He is matey with Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, one of England’s most important Muslim leaders who is being charged with 18 murders by a war crimes tribunal in his native Bangladesh.
Mueen-Uddin, who has a senior role in the NHS, is accused of abducting, torturing and killing 18 journalists, academics and doctors in Bangladesh’s 1971 bloody war of independence with Pakistan.
His tortures included gouging out the eyes of an eye doctor, cutting out the heart of a cardiologist and cutting off the breasts of a woman journalist.
He is now director of Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS and is also chairman of the Multi-Faith Group for Healthcare Chaplaincy.
And Charles also aided the building of the Finsbury Park mosque that became a centre of al-Qaeda.)
Vaz wrote in the Guardian urging Rushdie not to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback, maintaining, like all the other Muslims who have reached positions of power in our liberal, open society, that ‘there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech’.
In that same month, Vaz caused outrage when he suggested that an IRA bomb detonated at Leicester Army Recruitment Office might have been planted by the British army.
And in May 2012, after eight Pakistanis and an Afghan were jailed for sex-grooming under-age English girls in Rochdale, the latest in a long string of such cases, all concerning gangs of Muslims, he said fatuously, ‘I don’t think it is a particular group of people.’ Many of the girls were repeatedly raped on a bare mattress above a kebab shop.
This immigrant from a hellish country once said he was ‘glad that Britain had been transformed’.
Britain now more closely resembles the hellish countries the transformers left. Mass immigration is like mass tourism in that it destroys the original attraction.
The serial corruption charges against him began when parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin opened an investigation after allegations that he had accepted several thousand pounds from a solicitor named Sarosh Zaiwalla that he had failed to declare.
Both men of course denied the allegations. Additional allegations were made that Vaz had accepted money from other businessmen (all ethnic and all rich).
Mrs Filkin also wrote to Vaz asking how many properties he owned, and he replied three. But BBC Radio 4’s Today programme revealed that he owned four.
It was also discovered that he had transferred the ownership of a fifth property to his mother eight days after Mrs Filkin had requested details of all his properties. Vaz said the timing was a coincidence.
The property was put on the market by Mummy Vaz six months after the transfer. Land Registry documents showed that Baby Vaz had become the owner of the property on August 5th 1988, and the Electoral Register showed that it had been his address in 1988 and 1990.
Between 1992 and 1996 the property was the address of another ethnic, called Reza Shahbandeh, an Iranian by the sound of his name, who Vaz denied all knowledge of when asked.
The Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 28 allegations of various financial wrongdoings but Elizabeth Filkin accused him of blocking her investigation into 18 of the allegations.
He was censured for a single allegation, that he had failed to register two payments worth £4,500 in total from Zaiwalla - whom he later recommended for a peerage.
Mrs Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry that would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by corrupt arms dealers the Hinduja brothers, Indian billionaire tycoons seeking British passports.
Two months before, immigration minister Barbara Roche had revealed in a written Commons reply that Vaz, along with Peter Mandelson and other MPs, had contacted the Home Office about these brothers.
She said that Vaz had made inquiries about when a decision on their application for British citizenship could be expected.
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 through 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, at which Mrs Blair wore an Indian costume and a jewel on her forehead.
On January 26th 2001 PM Tony Blair was accused of prejudicing the independent inquiry into the Hinduja passport affair, after he said that the Foreign Office minister Keith Vaz had not done ‘anything wrong’.
In March Vaz was ordered to fully co-operate with a new inquiry launched into his financial affairs by Mrs Filkin.
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook urged Vaz to fully answer allegations about his links with the Hinduja brothers. Vaz met Mrs Filkin on March 20th to discuss a complaint that the Hinduja Foundation had given £1,200 to a company run by his wife, in return for helping to organise a Hinduja-sponsored reception at the House of Commons.
Hubby Vaz had previously denied receiving money from the Hindujas, but insisted that he made no personal gain from the transaction in question.
In June he said 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 ethnics (all of them filthy rich).
On 11th June Vaz was officially dismissed from his post as Europe Minister.
The Prime Minister’s office said that Vaz had written to Tony Blair stating his wish to stand down for health reasons.
In December Mrs Filkin cleared Vaz of failing to register payments to his wife’s law firm Fernandes Vaz by the Hinduja brothers but said he had colluded with his wife, who works under her maiden name of Maria Fernandes, to conceal the payments.
Mrs Filkin’s report said that the payments had been given to his wife for legal advice on immigration issues. (Mrs Vaz specialises exclusively in immigration and nationality law.) It concluded that Hubby Vaz had gained no direct personal benefit, and that Commons rules did not require him to disclose payments made to his wife.
But Mrs Filkin did criticise him for his secrecy, saying, ‘It is clear to me there has been deliberate collusion over many months between Mr Vaz and his wife and to prevent me from obtaining accurate information about his possible financial relationship with the Hinduja family’.
And now on to the next Vaz scandal.
In 2002 he was suspended from the House of Commons for a month after a standards and privileges committee inquiry found he had made false allegations about a former policewoman, Eileen Eggington.
The committee said that Vaz ‘recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the Commissioner, which was not true, and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermine 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, Mary Grestny dictated a seven-page statement about Mrs Vaz to Miss Eggington in March 2001, who sent it to Mrs Filkin.
The statement included allegations that Mr and Mrs Vaz had employed an illegal immigrant as their nanny and that they had been receiving gifts from rich ethnic businessmen such as the Hinduja brothers.
The allegations were denied by Vaz and the committee found no evidence to support them.
Later that year Vaz complained to the 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 Miss Eggington being questioned by police. Vaz also wrote a letter of complaint to Mrs Filkin, but when she tried to make inquiries he accused her of interfering with a police inquiry and threatened to report her to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Miss Eggington denied that she had ever telephoned Vaz’s mother and offered her home and mobile telephone records as proof. The Commons committee decided she was telling the truth.
A letter to Mrs Filkin from Detective Superintendent Nick Gargan made it plain that the police did not believe that Vaz’s mother ever received the phone call and the person who came closest to being prosecuted was not Miss 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.
The 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 Vaz were that he had given misleading information to the standards and privileges committee and Elizabeth Filkin about his financial relationship to the Hinduja brothers, that he had failed to register his paid employment at the Leicester Law Centre when he first entered Parliament in 1987 and that he had failed to register a donation from the Caparo group in 1993.
It was concluded that he 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.
So - on we go to the next scandal vis-à-vis a Vaz.
In 2001 it was revealed that he had assisted Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi in his attempts to avoid extradition to France.
Opposition MPs called for an investigation. Auchi was wanted for questioning by French police for his role in the notorious Elf Aquitaine fraud scandal that led to the arrest of a former French Foreign Minister.
The warrant issued by French authorities in July 2000 accused 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 both men could be jailed for life.
Vaz was a director of the British arm of Auchi’s corporation, General Mediterranean Holdings, whose previous directors had included Lords Steel and Lamont. 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 23rd April 1999, where Lord Sainsbury presented Auchi with a painting of the House of Commons signed by Tony Blair, Opposition leaders and more than a hundred 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’.
Vaz helped many other rich ethnics as well as the Hinduja brothers to get a British passport. It was becoming clear that he was for sale and that he had only two stipulations - those he helped had to be rich and had to be brown.
Despite this, not only did Vaz remain an MP - he was even promoted after his lying and corruption had been exposed.
He had extended his Labour power when the party’s national executive committee voted to resurrect the defunct Black Socialist Society (BSS) in 2006.
As part of this, the party set up an Ethnic Minority Taskforce. (Thus following the hateful new trend of ethnics ganging up when the only thing they have in common is not being white.) 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 in March 2007.
More power came in July, when he was elected chairman of the home affairs select committee, in unusual circumstances.
Select committee members are usually proposed by the quasi-independent committee of selection, but Vaz was nominated by Commons leader Harriet Harman.
As the select committee has a crucial role in law-and-order issues, appointing the ducker and diver Vaz its head was like entrusting your spare set of house keys with a known burglar.
Suspicions were inevitably soon roused. In September 2008 Vaz faced pressure to explain why he failed to declare an interest when he intervened in a court case on behalf of a ‘very, very dear friend’.
Race lawyer Shahrokh Mireskandari was a convicted Iranian fraudster, a Labour Party donor who played a role in several racial discrimination cases against the Met Police, including representing Britain’s top ethnic policeman, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, in his £1.2m claim against Met chief Sir Ian Blair.
Mireskandari paralysed Scotland Yard with his campaign of multi-million-pound litigation, even boasting he would ‘destroy Sir Ian and his golden circle’ of white officers.
His accomplice in many of the cases was a fellow Iranian, Met Commander Ali Dizaei, head of the National Black Police Association, who had just been suspended after the Daily Mail revealed disturbing links between the pair and who would shortly be jailed for corruption.
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 ethnic Labour MP Virendra Sharma to a High Court judge, brazenly on official House of Commons stationery, trying to halt proceedings against the firm, which had lavished hospitality on him and his family, including the best seats at Wembley Stadium football matches and pop concerts.
He cited a complaint he had received from Mireskandari and alleged ‘discriminatory conduct’ in the authority’s investigation into Dean and Dean.
The authority was forced to set up an independent working party to look into whether it had disproportionately targeted ethnic lawyers for investigation.
At the time that Vaz wrote to the judge, Mireskandari’s firm was involved in a long-running and costly legal dispute with an airline over a £500,000 legal bill that threatened the solicitor with bankruptcy.
In the letter to the High Court, Vaz wrote, ‘We are deeply concerned about the apparent way in which this ethnic-minority firm of solicitors has been dealt with.’
Mireskandari had convictions in the United States and bogus legal qualifications, and was suspended from practising law in Britain.
Vaz called him the best lawyer in Britain and one of the best in the world; at the Palace of Westminster presented him with the ‘Asian Solicitor of the Year’ award; and was a frequent VIP guest of the bent solicitor.
Mireskandari was finally booted out of the legal profession on June 21st 2012 and ordered to pay £1.4m in costs. He was struck off after it was proved he had faked his legal qualifications and hid his criminal convictions.
The conman was found guilty of an incredible 104 breaches of the rules governing solicitors’ conduct by a central London disciplinary tribunal, which ruled he racked up debts, overcharged clients, conducted improper litigation, failed to keep proper records and used clients’ cash to pay staff salaries.
The decision to kick him out followed a six-week misconduct hearing dogged with attempts by him to halt the proceedings. He managed to get the hearing adjourned for 14 months.
Also 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 select committee’s independent report into government plans to extend the detention of terror suspects.
The Guardian reported that e-mails suggested that Vaz had secretly contacted Brown about the committee’s draft report and proposed a meeting as ‘we need to get his [Brown’s] suggestions’.
An e-mail was sent in November 2007 to Ian Austin, Brown’s parliamentary private secretary, and copied to Fiona Gordon, Brown’s political adviser.
Another leaked e-mail showed that Vaz had also sent extracts of the committee’s draft report to a former Lord Chancellor for his comments, when, 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.
This was compared to a judge deciding a case privately contacting one of the parties to seek their suggestions.
Naturally, Vaz was in on the Great Parliamentary Expenses Scandal.
As reported by the Daily Telegraph, he claimed £75,000 in expenses for a second home just 12 miles from his main home. His main home is declared to be in a north-west London suburb.
Bought with his wife for £1.15m in 2005, it is 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 a 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.
Vaz is clearly odious. And his biography teems with fellow repellent ethnics.
How could all those lords and leading Labour politicians be fooled?
Were they blinded by political correctness or greed or, what seems to be increasingly common, a convenient mixture of both? I was at a meeting on a local issue once with Tory MP Jonathan Aitken shortly before he was jailed in 1999 for perjury and perverting the course of justice, by which time he had enjoyed many years in the top echelons of British politics.
I saw immediately that he should not be trusted or believed. Can a gor-blimey Cockney like me be more perceptive than our lords and masters?
Types like Aitken and Vaz should not fool mature, experienced people.
Vaz apparently has one of the most affected voices in politics.
Daily Mail parliamentary observer Quentin Letts has written that Vaz blatantly uses the home affairs select committee as a publicity vehicle for his own self-grandeur.
‘Most committee chairmen,’ Letts wrote, ‘will talk of witnesses being at the “table”. Mr Vaz talks of it as a “dais”.’ Vaz struts and swaggers at events such as Diversity Night at Labour Party conferences.
Vaz was caught out so many times acting dodgy you wonder how he survived all those years.
His nickname in the Commons is ‘Vazeline’, as nothing sticks. But he not only survived - he prospered. After many charges over many years, Labour still appointed him to chair one of the most powerful select committees in Parliament - where he soon faced yet more accusations of corruption.
Detectives went to court to obtain production orders requiring several high street banks to provide full details of his financial affairs.
They apparently showed huge sums of money for an MP earning less than £100,000 a year being moved in and out of his bank accounts.
The police alleged that the funds were ‘of a suspicious nature’. Vaz said that he was ‘not worried’ and that the sums had come from a house sale and ‘a drawdown of equity’.
At his prayers, rump stuck up in the air, Vaz must daily praise Allah for removing him from Yemen and placing him among the gullible of the Earth.