Blunkett - should we give a t*ss?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Ive often used my position to gain favours for friends
What says the forum??

---

Disgraceful behaviour, you should be flogged.


Real news just isn't interesting enough for the "average man in the street". This celebrity gossip style stuff is said to be - patronising isn't it.

I guess the real concern is that by helping with this minor matter he might set a precedent and be bending the rules left right and centre? Politicians need to be whiter than white in this sort of area and most are a dirty grey imho.


>Will add something funny when I think of it.<

quote:

---

Ive often used my position to gain favours for friends, nothing in the political arena i might add though.. but im sure many do the same..

---

NB says, all politicians are bent

Regards


NB

The answer is to have USA style politicians where we are not bothered about their abilities to do their jobs, but are pre-occupied with how squeeky clean they are and whether they ever got drunk as a student or had a parking ticket.
We complain that MP's are not human, and then complain when they behave as though they are.
The thought that all MP's would be right wing bible thumping dictators on morals sounds like Big Brother to me. We'll all have to have ID cards next!

Re the affair:

I favour strong legislation to prevent the media from reporting on people's private lives except when it is in the public interest.

Clearly, IMO, if politicians behave dishonourably in their private lives then we have a right to know, so that we can judge for ourselves what relevance it has to their political lives.

Re the accusations:

There is a big difference between giving advice, which can be wholly acceptable, and using improper influence. A Home Secretary who tries to influence improperly the outcome of a Visa application should be sacked, at least.

Much as I dislike Blunkett, I find it hard to believe that he is corrupt - or that if he was he would be stupid enough to do such a thing.

In a way I almost hope, for Blunkett's sake, that he is guilty, because otherwise it will not surprise me if those who prefer to invent their own truth will have a wonderful six months of endlessly insinuating that he is...

I have always held the view that having sexual affairs is a person's own buisness and not needing public disclosure.
However, an affair nearly always involves significant dishonesty, usually to a trusting spouse, and probably others. I think that proven dishonest behaviour and lying in a senior politian is a significant matter. To ignore dishonesty just because the the only victims were women (and possibly children), seems odd.
None the less, this is the begining of a Tory smear campaign which will gather momentum as the months go by.

Must be a good topic as this has one star.

I never have liked the 'Cut of his Jib'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
I have always held the view that having sexual affairs is a person's own buisness and not needing public disclosure.

---

Whether or not he had an affair is irrelevant. Whether he abused his position is.

If Blunkett abused the system or misused public property (e.g. using a government car & driver to chauffeur his girlfriend about) then he should be disciplined in the same way a civil servant would have been under similar circumstances.

Abuse of his position will never be proven, but his dishonesty is admitted.

The conservatives have One Charismatic person.

Good Old Boris.

He gets caught out and is almost cosigned to a quiet Political Death.

The Labour bunch on the other hand manage to stay in positions of influence no matter what they have alleged to have done.

Mr Blunkett has by his own admission given advice from a postion of influence which may be considered INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT. If he has behaved improperly he should be dealt with in the proper manner.

But it seems that it is rules for one and another set of rules for another.

regards David

as a P.S. Do we know what role his dog has played in this AFFAIR ?

regards David

quote:

---

as a P.S. Do we know what role his dog has played in this AFFAIR ?

---

I believe the dog to be innocent. Not so sure about it's master though.

How are the speakers?

Regards...George.

"I'm the Home Secretary - Get me out of here !!"

The rules are simple.

If you are a labour politician you can do as you please - it's a private matter.

If you are not a labour politician then you must be hung out to dry - it's a public matter.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:
The Labour bunch on the other hand manage to stay in positions of influence no matter what they have alleged to have done.

---

Indeed. One thing that has impressed me about labour is just how willing to they are to keep people in senior positions (or return them to senior positions) no matter what they've done. Stunning hypocrisy considering the whole anti-sleaze thing which helped get them elected.

I see they are also setting up an inquiry just to look at one allegation they know will be difficult to prove, and ignoring the others which look much harder to wriggle out of.

It's really not hard. If he used his influence improperly he shoudl resign. If he is telling the truth and just checked the application then he has done nothing wrong.

To compare any of this to cash for questions, Aitken's secret arms deals, etc. is ludicrous.

I also remind the readers that the last Labour politician who, despite rigourous denials of any ipropriatry, resigned over a dubious passport/visa application turned out to be telling the truth and he had indeed done nothing wrong.

Matthew

Rockingdoc

quote:

---

posted Mon 29 November 04 16:02
I have always held the view that having sexual affairs is a person's own buisness and not needing public disclosure.
However, an affair nearly always involves significant dishonesty, usually to a trusting spouse, and probably others. I think that proven dishonest behaviour and lying in a senior politian is a significant matter. To ignore dishonesty just because the the only victims were women (and possibly children), seems odd.

---

I couldn`t have put it better myself. Lying to family (which is almost inevitable in an affair) represents a serious stain on that person`s integrity, and , imo, makes it highly questionable whether said individual is fit for office

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC:
The rules are simple.

If you are a labour politician you can do as you please - it's a private matter.

If you are not a labour politician then you must be hung out to dry - it's a public matter.

Mike

---

Not true. Mandy was sacked for much less. Michael Howard as Home Secretary never went even after several cock-ups, and always managed to name the assistants and civil servants that had to take the blame for him.
Funny how short our memories are sometimes.

quote:

---

I couldn`t have put it better myself. Lying to family (which is almost inevitable in an affair)

---

As far as I can tell he never lied about his affair, after all he was a divorced man and had nothing to hide as such. I've not even seen any speculation that he lied about anything.

As to the allegations even if the worst allegations are true we are talking about him asking someone to speed up the process ('Oi john, mind if this applications jumps to the top of the pile') There is no suggestion (as far as I can tell) that he tried to get an application through that might have otherwise failed. Let's face it, I suspect this type of thing goes on all the time, in every walk of life.

I didn't know the DPM had two Jags ?

quote:

---

I couldn`t have put it better myself. Lying to family (which is almost inevitable in an affair) represents a serious stain on that person`s integrity, and , imo, makes it highly questionable whether said individual is fit for office

---

This is as dodgy and as tenuous a link between integrity and keeping one's dick in his trousers as the one between driving a car and smoking tabs.

Squeaky-clean politicians usually turn out to be complete arseholes.

Like Bush, Blair, Hitler etc.

The gifted visionary statesmen usually have a human flaw.

Think of Kennedy, Clinton, Churchill, etc.

However, the fact that Blunkett has had an affair doesn't make him any more or less of an arsehole than he was, and is, anyway.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
I also remind the readers that the last Labour politician who, despite rigourous denials of any ipropriatry, resigned over a dubious passport/visa application turned out to be telling the truth and he had indeed done nothing wrong.

---

Said labour politician was already on his comeback over previous issues he'd had to resign over and while he'd done nothing illegal in that case he'd certainly been very stupid (or at least stupidly arrogant).

quote:

---

Originally posted by greeny:
As to the allegations even if the worst allegations are true we are talking about him asking someone to speed up the process

---

That allegation is the one that most of the focus is own, but it's also the least likely to be true and the most difficult to prove - hence why the "inquiry" will only consider it.

The other issues have more or less been admitted but brushed off.

If he (Blunkett) has used his position for inappropriate purposes then he should be sacked or at least reprimanded.

I think it will be difficult to make anything stick, and the "crimes" seem a bit piffling compared to Aitken/Archer etc.

Personally, I don't think he's fit to hold public office anyway - he's a bully, an opportunist and a hypocrite with a really unpleasant authoritarian streak - and the sooner the country is rid of him the better. I must admit that I'm enjoying seeing the fucker squirm.

He must be a bit naive as well - I met Kimberly Fortier (as she then was) a couple of times when she was communications director at Condé Nast, and it was obvious to anyone with half a brain what kind of person she was (ie ruthless, spolit, keep her at arm's length, and for gawd's sake don't get on the wwrong side of her).

Kevin

quote:

---

Squeaky-clean politicians usually turn out to be complete arseholes.

---

Are you suggesting that dishonesty is creditworthy in a politician?

quote:

---

This is as dodgy and as tenuous a link between integrity and keeping one's dick in his trousers as the one between driving a car and smoking tabs.

---

Your comments are off target

Having sex outside of marriage is not what I have a problem with.

It`s lying that is the issue.



laurie S

Was that a rhetorical question?

Regards,

Steve.