Category: News and Views
The british home secretary, David Blunkett, who is admired for being the only blind politician to make it into parliament and become one of the most important ministers in government, is responsible for anti-terrorism measures, crime and home security in Britain. Now, recently it was revealed that Mr blunkett had taken as his mistress a married woman, Kimberley Quinn, and had an affair with her for three years. The relationship broke up and now Mr Blunkett is taking Mrs Quinn to court, demanding access to the two children it has emerged he fathered during the affair but which, until recently, were thought to be the children of Mrs Quinn's husband. come now, Lawlord, what possible problem could you have with that? You ask. Surely the man's facing up to his responsibilities? Well, dear reader, of course that would be all very fine if the motive behind Mr Blunkett's actions was indeed to see his children, but it isn't. On the contrary, this chapter in the saga is the latest attempt of a desperate obsessed man to win back the attentions of his meretricious lover who really treated the relationship, by her own admission, as an extended fling. David blunkett has already started using the children as pawns in his row with Mrs Quinn: on her ending the relationship last year to try and save her marriage, Mr Blunkett threatened her with the removal of the children saying, 'The law's on my side, and I know because I made the law'. Yes, he made the law all right, but that does nothing to support his case. Quite the opposite, it prompts further probing into this man's obvious obsession and oh, what secrets we do find as a result! Mr Blunkett, it seems, knew or suspected that two-year-old William Quinn was his child at the child's birth, and yet he allowed Mr Quinn to be registered as the father, triggering the legal presumption of paternity resting in the husband. Does this not consstitute the crime of purgery, and even if it doesn't, why challenge the paternity two years after it should have been challenged? Additionally, Mr Blunkett is also facing serious questions over whether he fast-tracked a visa application in the name of Mrs Quinn's Philipino au pair: the average application takes a few months to process, but Mr Blunkett allegedly engineered the processing of this one in nineteen days! coincidence, maybe, but far more serious is the allegation that Mr Blunkett has used this as a bargaining counter in his stormy trist with Mrs Quinn, saying in effect that what he can give with one hand, he can take away with the other. these allegations are yet to be substantiated, and if they are then of course he will have to resign immediately, but Mr Blunkett does not deny that words were said along these lines in a heat of passion. What does this tell us for the moment? My view is that it confirms once again that Mr Blunkett, driven by his obsession, was prepared to contemplate stripping the children of their loving au pair, as well as barging in two-footed to disrupt the family unit two years after he should have asserted his paternal rights, all with one aim in mind: persuading Mrs Quinn to leavve her husband and join him. As a result, the children are relegated to pawns in Mr blunkett's game of love chess, and such is the determination of the man, say his colleagues, that he will take the matter to the highest courts in an attempt to drive the Quinns into submission. For the moment I'm prepared not to comment on the serious allegations of tampering with the legislative agenda to get his own way; the improper conduct over passport applications; the potential purgery; the potentially criminal alleged professional misconduct - such things are for a later time. For the moment, however, my message is this: the same man who proposed to commit the children of asylum seekers into care and split the families if their parents' applications were turned down and they could not return home, is now prepared to use anything, even young children, to get Mrs quinn back. That is his only motivation and that, I say, is why he should not be allowed to progress this litigation one step further. any thoughts?
Aren't we proud of our blindie minister in the UK? Yes, this is pretty sad and I feel he should resign. Sure a politicians personal life should not necessarily be perceived as having anything to do with his merits as a politician but I feel those who are chosen to lead the country must display integrity and this is a very serious breach of such a conduct. I read that these applications take anywhere from 8 months to 2 years and one day David said that the nanny would have to wait for such a long time and 5 days later he told her this was taken care of and, indeed, 19 days later that turned out to be the case. Now this could be partly rumours, but regardless, I feel a politician in such a high profile position should resign if it is discovered he is having an extra merital affair (whether he be married or his partner).
I can't say I give mr Blunket very high marks on this one.
Hmmm the statement you made "What he can give with 1 hand he take away with the other" that sounds to me like the cruellest form of emotional blackmail, if so, his position is clearly untenable. Id say he is a hypochrit of the highest order and should have the courage to admit his deceit,its well known that Blunkett can be categorically ruthless when the situation calls for it, and I think Blair quite admires that side of his personality also you can bet that he's prepared to protect this creature at all costs.
I'd say Integrity is the 1 quality they all lack and the 1 they most need to be a politician
Indeed, I think that integrity is desirable, but I wouldn't have him resign because merely of an affair, though of course if these allegations are found to be true then he must surely resign. Do I take it you agree with me that he should not be allowed to see his children? if not, why not?
LL, well, it's a tough call, but I feel a serious lack of integrity should be considered a possible cause for resignation, although it really wouldn't be fair to politicians since that practice is not really exercised in the private sector either.
Well, it's a tirkcy one. He needs to be treated just like any other person would in this case, the main problem being that I can't imagine there are many presidents for this case. If you've done your rigorous research and all this is true then I would have to agree with you, he does not seem to love his hildren and is merely using them to get back with the woman. However they are his children genetically speaking and he has not hurt them directly or tried to eliminate any of their rights so on that ground I can't see how he could be forbidden access to them (if indeed he wants anything to do with them).
I should explain that the law relating to children has a stated aim of minimising bitterness. It is the duty of all parties to any cause relating to children to minimise bitterness and the effect of litigation on children. Failure to do so will result in sanctions against the defaulting party or parties. I rest my case. he doesn't care about these children, or else he would have asserted his paternity at the right and proper time to do so. Further, they are currently in a loving family structure, although this hasn't stopped him before - as I mentioned, last year the home office proposed taking the children of asylum seekers away from their children and putting them into care as a possible sanction. This was condemned in parliament and Michael Howard was right when he said that in suggesting such a thing, and I quote, 'The prime minister, and the home secretary, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves'. No, I'm sorry, but even if he were able to look after the children adequately were he to gain custody which i doubt given his age (57), the pressures of his job and the increased effort he has to put in to do his job tue to his blindness, the idea of his portraying himself as the good old family man is ridiculous.
Id say NO! Blunkett has abused his position and in turn betrayed the woman he claims to love! The man clearly has no understanding of the word,so how can he be expected to act as a loving caring father,also I wonder at his real motives for this affair when he must have known every sordid detail would become public.
...........................................................
I just feel bad for William an innocent pawn-child caught up in his "Father's" game of emotional chess.
Absolutely, Goblin, the children should be the number 1 concern for all adults involved in this situation. I don't expect our politicians to be superhuman, and as normal people have affairs, including the very straight-laced former prime minister John Major, and good old Borris Johnson of course, the fact that Mr Blunkett has had an affair doesn't of itself, in my view, mean he can't be a good father. However, the circumstances detailed above, plus the fact that he has once again admitted to abusing his position by giving Mrs quinn a first-class rail ticket meant for members' spouses so that she could spend time with him in Derbyshire, lead me to the conclusions that he shouldln't see his children, and his obsession is I'm afraid influencing his political agenda, so he should resign.
And the vultures gather still closer: new information tells us today that on 13 August of this year, Kimberley Quinn and some home office civil servants met at the offices of a well-known solicitors firm in London which, for reasons of ethics, I won't name. Whilst there, however, Kimberley quinn was pressed to make a statement to the effect that her marriage was over in everything but name - a statement which, of course, could be used in subsequent proceedings for custody of hte children by Mr Blunkett. In addition, we also hear that although at the time of the fast-tracking of Mrs Quinn's au pair's visa application, the department of imigration were supposedly fast-tracking all applications, this appears not to have been true, meaning that the home secretary has again lied. A canadian war veteran, who has lived in this country for over 60 years, it has emerged, was being pursued by the home office at this time, and his case still hasn't been resolved. wE also hear that the supposed inquiry into the conduct of Mr Blunkett wasn't even going to hear evidence from Mrs Quinn, until she protested publicly about this, forcing them into an embarrassing u-turn. In light of this, surely it's onlya matter of time before he has to resign, and I once again state that such conduct as this should really make a court wonder whether he is the appropriate person to be a father to two young children whose family structure is currently entirely functional.
And hot off the press from today's papers, david Blunkett is reported to have had another five-month fling with a married civil servant in his department, which again is improper conduct on his part. Dear oh dear oh dear!
Round 1 to Blunkett as far as the kids are concerned. Mr Justice Rider failed to adjourn the hearing of the contact and parental responsibility applications made by Mr Blunkett. Mrs quinn submitted that as she was too ill to attend, the hearing should be adjourned until April 2005. However, Mr Justice Rider, whilst eccepting her reasons for non-attendance, concluded that it did not affect her right to make representations and give instructions. The good news, though, is that Mr Blunkett faces an uphill battle particularly with the parental responsibility application in my opinion.
an egregious spelling error in my last post..... it should have read accepted of course.
What Blunket has done isn't right obviously. I think he might have abused his position by geting someone from the Philipines into the contry quickly, but I'm sure he's not the only minister who's done that. I don't think that he should have to resign or face any action from his party as a consequence of his actions, unless they violate any policies he is obliged to adhere to as a labour party member.
Hmm, an interesting paradox emerged from your post, Wainderful Wangel. You say, first of all, that what Blunkett has done isn't right obviously, by fast-tracking a visa. You then say that he shouldn't have to face any action unless he has violated any policies. What contradiction is this? Don't you think that fast-tracking a visa is one of the most fundamental violations of policy, as well as the duty of keeping your private interests and the public interest separate? As for your suggestion that others do it so it shouldn't be a problem, that just doesn't follow: many people assault others, commit murder, discriminate against others in the job market, but we don't say 'oh well, so many people do it anyway that you shouldn't face any action' do we?
The truth about some of the people who've posted here is that they wouldn't be too bothered about Blunket if he wasn't blind. They should be aware that he wasn't in parliament to represent them or to act on their behalf but to do the job that all sited politicians do. If I ever entered parliament as a blind person I wouldn't do it for the benefit of blind people but of the people in the area I represented. Just like, when a person who's got 2 cats enters parliament, they don't do so to represent people with 2 cats do they?
WW, the fact that a person has two cats is not well known and is not viewed by people as having significant influence on that person's upbringing or career choice and it is not generally thought that all people who own two cats have certain characteristics in common. However a disability is very different, blind people are, for good or bad, always perceived as blind #1 and people #2, it's not about whether this perception is right or not, it really isn't, but it does affect the way we act, especially those amongst us that are considered to have "made it" and to be "big" in communicities and well famous really. I feel it's the role of thse people to act responsibly, even more so than other people in the same position and I think you are wrong in thinking that the only thing that made us take note of this was the fact that this guy was blind, luckily enough the BBC e.g. who covered this extensively did not mention his blindness once in the coverage of the news, something very unusual, and I got all my nfo on this through the BBC, they certainly seemed to think this was a huge deal.
I know if I perfrm badly at my current job it will significantly lower the chances of another blind person to get it, it's sad but this is how people view the world and I try to remember that in everyting that I do, we need to get a more positive image created before we can start separating us out as people.
Cheers
-B
Wainderful wangel, the fact is as wildebrew said. To what he said, though, I should add that David blunkett has done blind people no favours in the things that he has said or done. You hsould take a look at the topic I started on the rant board, the bane of our lives and the worst ambassador the visually impaired could ever have, I think it's called. I speak, WW, as a blind professional myself, and like it or not, the perception is that blind people who achieve what Mr Blunkett has are blind first and politicians second. And yet the news mentioned nothing of his blindness on the day that the inquiry into his conduct found that there had been gross mismanagement of home office affairs, for which he is ulltimately answerable as minister in charge of the department. Not once, I repeat, was his blindness mentioned, and rightly so.
He wasn't there to be an ambasador to blind people. NOw how do these blind people who think that bBlunket was a politician to represent them expect to treated the way sited people are when they're so passionate about their disability. Yes I'm blind, but I don't care, I try to live as normal a life as is possible, but if these people insist on drawing attention to themselves because they're blind or to people who like them are also blind, how can they expect to be considdered normal when they highlight their differences and not their similarities?
Ww, it's not the blind people who think that D.Blunket represented them, it's the sighted people around us who think so and we ultimately will suffer the conseuqnes of their stereo typing. We'll have to face the prejudice, good or bad, eventually, not because of what we think of ourselves as blind people but because others think of us that way. If it were any differen, trust me, I'd much prefer it that way.
This makes me so mad, and sick! How can he use his kids as pawns to obsess and be all possessive over his fling with that already married woman? These poor children need to be put somewhere where they wont' have to deal with all this, and if it's with Mrs. Quin and her husband then maybe that's the best, but if not, they should go to a family who can take good care of them. Gosh! Doesn't this make you mad?
Caitlin
I must confess to not understanding how you can still believe, wainderful wangel, that we see Mr Blunkett as an ambassador. as Wildebrew says it's the sighted people who, if you asked them to name one blidn person and assuming they didn't know anyone, would name David Blunkett. It'll be the same in the US when there is a black president, whenever that may be, and for a long while Margaret Thatcher was known as the first ever woman prime minister, but not because women thought she should be an ambassador for them. caitlyn, my opinion is that even if the court directs DNA tests and they confirm that Mr Blunkett is the father, he will not get custody of them. He is 58, a busy man and yes, I'm going to say it, he is blind and on his own. his resources are limited and he often has to go abroad and is likely to have to again if he returns to government. The court will opt, I am certain, for leaving the children with their natural mother and their stepfather. Mr Blunkett can only hope for access at the most, though he had better conduct himself properly during the litigation if this is what he wants, for the court will bear in mind his behaviour in assessing whether or not it is appropriate that he has rights of access and/or staying contact.
Hi LL, Yeah, you're probably right. But I still pity the kids. Lol. I mean, I pity anyone who is being basically fought over by the parents. That's just horrible, I would die. I'm a person who needs lots of affection and attention, and my parents luckily give me all that! Hehehe. If I didn't have that I'd probably be a lot different than I am today, which might be good or bad, depending on your opinion lol!
Caitlin
I am going to bring this sharply back to the topic if I may, rather than embark on a digression about parental affectiosn towards children - something which I apprehend we are about to do. The question is whether we think that Mr blunkett should be permitted to succeed in his two claism viz. the first for custody, and the second for contact. Any thoughts?