Category: News and Views
well folks ... yesterday Kimberley Quinn finally gave birth by elective caesarean section to a healthy baby boy, question remains ... whose is it! grin
And that question will be answered when the court directs the DNA testing, unless Kimberley registers the name of Mr Quinn on the birth certificate as the father. Then, it's bad news for our Mr Blunkett, because that creates an irrebuttable presumption of paternity resting in Mr Quinn.....at least I believe it is irrebuttable, will check and let you all know.
Probably not her husband's....Frey.
well apparently the DNA tests are being carried out to see whether it is Steven Quinn's, or David blunkett's, i guess any other contenders will have to volunteer if they wanna know.
I can imagine old blunkers is beside himself with anticipation and impatience ...I just feel concerned for the child, with her for a mother and who knows for a father.
Well if it is Mr Blunkett's then I have little doubt that he will be awarded access.
I doubt our friend whom I shall now rename as Alphabet soup knows who David Blunkett is.
I call him alphabettie spaghettie.
Alpha Shmalpha! lol. Love the names ... lol well thanks to LawLord, I now know who David Blunkit is, and want to know if this child proves to be his.
The best outcome for the child I.E.Blunket emigrates to some remote corner with no internet access ect,where he would be safely out of reach of this innocent child,so rthe wee soul could grow up without becoming embroiled in a painful and very damaging paternity case,sadly, the selfish article is unlikely to put the child's needs before his own.
I totally agree Goblin. I really pity this child.
okay, I'm lost, did I miss an article? I thought Sugarbaby was talking about a soap apera. Inform me please Goblin or Lar Lord.
Yes Texas Red, this is indeed quite a newsmaking story here in britain about the former home secretary and you can learn more by consulting various topics on this board and on the rant board. Now, I'm going to disagree with both Goblin and Caitlin: the best outcome for this child is that he knows the truth, either way. If David blunkett is the biological father, it is imperative that this child knows it, and that is the attitude of the courts in this country. I refer you to article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that it is the right of a child to know his genetic origins. Think what trouble there might be if the child's origins were kept secret, and Mr Blunkett were later found to have genetically inherited a serious illness. What would we do about the dark secret then? Don't get me wrong, there might be reasons for not allowing him to see the child, and his willingness to do everything he could to wreck a marriage might be one of those. However, seeing the child and being proved the biological father of the child are two distinct points, and with the latter, it is absolutely right that these tests are carried out.
I would like to kind of come out in Mr Blunkett's defence to a degree here. The fact that he is a public figure, and a politician no less, would, of course, cause people to have certain views on what he should, and shouldn't be entitled to. And in fact, some of you might be of certain political persuasions and that might cause you to see Mr Blunkett in a different light than you would have otherwise. Let's put aside the reasons for him resigning, because I actually think those are separate from the actual issue of his relationship with Kimberley Quinn. Let's not forget here, that it was Kimberley Quinn who was the one who was married, and in actual fact she does not have the greatest history. she had only been divorced from a previous husband for a year before marrying Steven Quinn, and she had only been married to him for three months before becoming involved with David Blunkett. And she then left her husband during this relationship. in my view, aside from the political errors which I don't think we should go into here, the only thing David Blunkett did wrong was to fall in love with the wrong woman. Kimberley Quinn on the other hand, put it about here there and everywhere, and this child, whom by the way has been named Larcon, could have any one of three different fathers. so who is in the wrong, a man who fell in love with a woman who he believed loved him? yeah morally he should have known better, but it still happened, and we can't always help who we fall in love with, or a woman who was sleeping with at least three men on the same occasion and took no precautions to ensure she did not fall pregnant
oh of course the attitude of the courts??...Hmm the same courts who allow ruthless uncaring selfish fathers access to their traumatised children...at the expense of their welfare and feelings towards the creature.
Sugarbaby you aay that we should keep the political issues separate from the personal ones, but then go on to mention the political issues about three times during your post. You're actually defeating your own aspiration by so doing. That aside, I agree that the political and social questions, if I may refer to the latter thus, are separate. It is not the fact that I am in principle opposed to David Blunkett's political views that has any bearing on the opinion I give as to what should happen vis-a-vis his paternal rights. However, Sugarbaby, when it comes to access rights, the issue of right and wrong is quite simply not germane to the dispute. Whether Mrs Quinn had slept with one man or ten, whether Mr Blunkett had been recently divorced or whether he was still married, all these considerations are of no use at all in determining the outcome of an access or custody and residence dispute. So defending david blunkett on the basis that he was not married and that Mrs Quinn put it about a bit doesn't take us further forward at all. The questions that the court will have regard to are these: first, sholuld we direct DNA tests to determine the true paternity of this child? The answer to that will be undoubtedly yes, and if the tests reveal that Mr quinn is the father then that is an end to it. If no, then we move on to question 2: should Mr blunkett have access and/or custody and/or parental responsibility? In terms of custody first, the answer is likely to be no. The preference is nearly always for stable family units, and whatever our subjective feelings about Mrs Quinn are, she is part of a stable family unit without a doubt. The court will also be influenced by the fact that Mr Blunkett is not young in years, and that he will no doubt be considered for high political office in the future, so the time he will be able to devote to the child or children will be depreciated. So the long and the short of it is that I doubt custody is a serious possibility. Access and parental responsibility, owever, will be awarded in all probability, unless Mr blunkett's worrying obsession and sometimes maniacal desire to ruin Mrs Quinn's marriage at all costs is used to suggest that he is unfit to be a father. I doubt that such argument will succeed though. So the upshot is that I believe that Mr Blunkett will be awarded contact, on terms to be agreed, and perhaps parental responsibility which is a quite separate idea for a definition of which see section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989. I repeat, however, that it's very important not to allow subjective feelings we have about the perceived faults of Mrs Quinn to get in the way of the dispute which concerns, at the end of the day, the children and the children alone.
I should add also that I didn't mean the lat contribution to be taken as lecturing you, sugarbaby. But I wanted to make clear that my political views have no bearing on this matter, nor will any perceived adulteries of Mrs quinn, or any transgressions by Mr blunkett in that regard for that matter, or indeed in any other regard whatsoever including his public office. This dispute is not about politics; it's not about Mr and Mrs Quinn; it's not about Mr Blunkett and he would do well to remember that; it's about the children and nobody else.
But LL, I didn't say the child shouldnt' be told if Blunkit was his father. I think he should totally know! Did I say that? If I did I revoke it now! Lol.
Of course it is about the children ll, I never disputed that. But isn't it fair to say that this kind of situation happens so many times when a relationship breaks down? If there are children involved, it is only natural that an absent parent would like to have access to those children, and it is so often the case that bitter disputes break out and the situation becomes very personal between the adult parties in the relationship. And ultimately it is the children who are the victims. The harsh reality is that most parents find it impossible to separate their own disputes from the needs of their children, and that as a result it is the children who suffer. Now if people were just adult and acted as such in the event of a split, these situations and court battles would not occur.
Yes but Sugarbaby if that is your view, and it is undoubtedly the right gview to take, you have to agree with me that all Mrs Quinn's perceived adulteries, whether they be true or false, and the impression that Mr Blunkett is the victim in that matter, are of no relevance whatsoever, wouldn't you? Let me also suggest that being adult about such difficulties doesn't automatically mean that these disputes would be kept out of court. I do accept that quite often, there are genuine concerns about the care given to the child by one or the other of the parents. Of course there is also the terri ble situation of implacable hostility without justification, which is almost certainly what you have in mind Sugarbaby, and that is the true situation where parents use children as pawns in their dispute.
yes I'll admit that mrs quinn's adulterous ways shouldn't play a part, but then by the same token neither should the fact that Mr Blunkett potentially tried to ruin a marriage. It takes two to make a marriage, the two parties involved, but we'll not go there on this occasion. In actual fact, the only factors which should be taken into consideration is whether the person claiming access is, in fact, a danger to the children should he be given that access. if the answer is no, then it should be a foregone conclusion.
I think that some of you people who are so bothered about this case would be so if David Blunket wasn't blind. I've said this before, but when he was home secretary he was in parliament to represent blind people just as much as a person who keeps parrots is there to represent those people who keep parrots. Point been, some of you are so bothered about this because He's blind and you're passionate about your disability. As a blind person, I think this issue is as important to me as it is to sighted people and people with other disabilities. It doesn't have any implications for me, and therefore I don't think it matters at all really, and by discussing it because you're visually impaired you're only drawing unnecessary attention to your differences from sighted people at the expense of your similarities.
Wangel, I do not necessarily agree with what you said. How many ministers can you name in a westeran country that have been forced to resign due t extra merrital affairs in the last year. If you can name more than 1 high profile case then you certainly know more about what is going on in the world than I do. This is not an every day occurance and also notice that the people most emphatecically discussing this matter are from the UK, the place where the events, took place (pardon the rather repetitive use of the word "place" here).
And I don't see the example you chose being particularly relevant, looking at a person on the street, can you judge how many parrots they own? Being blind is very different and, of course, they represent us, just like a certain race or gender or nationality is judged by the behavior of their highest profile figures, it's always the case. We have as much in common, I feel, as a race or ethnicity group does, we have a characteristic that affects our lifestyle and the public's perception of us. Those who refuse to see that (pardon the pun) are in denial about it. It's not something that you need to think of evry day but it's something one should be aware of in my opinion. And the reason for this is that sighted people (or the rest of the world if you will) preceive us as one group, it's not our attitude that matters or what wwe believe about what we represent, indeed no one cares whether we feel we're representing a community or are just individuals, they perceive us (well most of them do) as a community and I don't see how that is going to change.
Cheers
-B
Politicians in parliament are there to represent their constituents and do whatever their position in the parliament requires them to. This Blunket affair was discussed in the media when it was relevant, but Blind people come across as been very passionate about it. All visually impaired people have something in common and that's their disability. However, their personalities are just as wide-ranging as those of sighted people. No sighted people give me the impression that they think I'm part of a blind community, I think this is just a perception conveniently adopted by visually impaired people who're passionate about their disability.
..Wangel, absolutely not. I am certainly not passionade in any way about my disability (and it's of course not a politically correct word mind you). And where as I am happy in your case this does not appear to be the case sadly I can't say the same from what I've seen.
Cheers
-B
I am certainly not passionate about my disability, if you can call it that, and I don't consider myself to be part of a "blind community", the reason why I have taken such an interest in this particular situation stems mostly from the fact that I know Mr Blunkett personally. NO he is not a personal friend and we do not have dinner often, but we have met on a few occasions. Also i have great issue with the way that the media treats public figures, blind or otherwise, and i feel very strongly about children being caught up in access disputes of any nature.
WW .. also you fail to answer the question I posed to you above regarding number of politicians that have been caught up in such a scandel recently, if you can name me one or two sighted ones that have resigned over such a public scandal and in such important position I shall rest my case and admit this discussion is influenced by the man's blindness .. but notice we said absolutely nothing about that "disbaility" of his until you brought it up.
Cheers
-B
I agree about the way media treats public figures, I think the Medias perception of what people want to know and the publics perception are slightly different. I met David Blunket once when he visited my school and also I know someone who went to visit him. I have met no other politician though. I can't remember the reason for his visit to my school. I think if such a scandle was to involve a politician it would be talked about by the media and the public, but only when it first happened. I think people by the time the child was born would have got over it.
let's not forget though that Kimberley Quinn is in the media - i.e. she was a publisher for the spectator, so it is only natural that this case would remain in the media even up to this date. I believe it is because of Kimberley quinn, not David Blunkett, that it has remained there - after all there were pictures of her leaving the hospital with the baby - you can't tell me she knew nothing about that.
WW. no, actually BBC had a big news story on the child birth, they hadn't mentioned this for a while but it was a big story the day she gave the birth so, I guess the media needed some gozzip and this at least elluded to a gozzip story so it made it to the head lines indeed. :)
The media likes scandals and gozzip and contravertial stuff, I think that is essentially what sells, I mean, gosh, look at J-Lo and Ben Aflec's relationship e.g. .. it was detailed in the gozzip magazines and I just could not care less really. And I wish there were more positive stories of people doing good things around the world, somehow that just too often falls by the way side.
cheers
-B
the reality is though that if celebrities do good, i.e. things for charity or whatever, and it is too public, then it is seen as them doing it to boost their status. Much better to get into the limelight for being a sleeze, grin
Oh dear me Sugarbaby that assertion is extraordinary! I hate to say this but are your personal ties with Mr Blunkett, however loose, impairing your judgment? What about that nonsense about 'That little lad' when David Blunkett resigned? that kept it in the media for a good deal longer than it needed to be. What about the civil servants whom Mr Blunkett coerced into attending the solicitors offices to force Mrs Quinn to declare that her marriage was over in everything but name? I'm very sorry, Sugarbaby, but Mr Blunkett courts the media as well as the rest of them. we all know that Mr Blunkett had to resign because the Budd inquiry went as close as it could to condemning him. We also know that Mr Blunkett is being lined up for a return to the cabinet, or hopefully shadow cabinet, after the election, so if it was really because of 'That little lad' then why all of a sudden does he have time to resume high office of state? Don't get me wrong, Sugarbaby, I do agree with a great deal of what you say, but I do wonder sometimes whether the fact that you know Mr Blunkett causes you to pass over facts and circumstances that are not in his favour. And for the record, the court would indeed have regard to behaviour that was considered obsessive, and there is substantial evidence of such behaviour existing in this case.
PS: I know that I am a Conservative, but if you can point to anything that I might have said or implied that shows my political colours when discussing this situation pertaining to the access dispute, I will readily withdraw it if it is brought to my attention and proved to be justified.