David Blunkett affair

[Tinker]

Sad lonely man? None of our business? Discuss?

Must say, it would be more believable if she were the blind partner

Blunkett and Kimberley Quinn are equally as bad as each other. Feel sorry for Stephen Quinn, although perhaps he knew what was going on and condoned it for some reason. Feel sorriest, obviously for the children - and dont' think it serves their interests in any way for Blunkett to have access to them, certainly at this stage. He knew she was married. As far as I am concerned the father of her children is her husband and the children will be happiest if that is what they think too, until they are older enough to be told the truth (if indeed Bunkett is the biological father).

I agree with you about Blunkett and Fourtiers behaviour. However the biological father should be able to have access to his children and its easier if this takes place right from the start, its more natural for the children then rather than facing up to an unpleasant surprise later on. From what I hear the Courts will support Blunket in this (if it turns out he is the biological father).

Yes, I know the courts will support Blunkett - but personally don't agree that a 2 year old benefits from that level of contact with someone who is not his "daddy".

but hang on, it sounds like blunkett had quite a relationship with the 2-yr-old. holidays etc.

why should he/they have to give this up because of nutty mrs quinn and her evil powerplay?

I am not an expert in this area but don't you think it would be easier for a child to accept his natural father and "home" father if he had access to both right from the start?

Agree if he's the father kids should be aware of him from as early a stage as possible. Woudl be a terrible deception to reveal this later when Quinns knew about it.

i am with bakedpotato on this one

And Blunko was under the impression for quite a long time that she was going to divorce Mr Q and marry him. He and the little boy do have a close relationship. That's why I feel sorry for him.

I wonder what effect all this will have on the Fathers for (4?) Justice campaign?

Tinker, I hadn't heard that about the reversed vasectomy - god, I hope you're wrong - what an evil conniving cow she must be if you're right! (And certainly current events point to her being one...)

Not sorry for Blunkett at all - he knew she was married - and only for 3 months when it first started. It makes no sense at all for the unborn baby to have a relationship with him. For the 2 year old it would be very confusing and unsettling. For the parents a constant reminder of the past. And for Stephen Quinn, who has done no wrong, the ultimate insult.

Hey, Tinker - came across this in a Guardian piece today - "Just as the glossy, superficially dizzy Fortier turned out to have a passion for civic virtue and a remarkably practical, belt-and-braces approach when it came to assisted reproduction;"

!!!!!

(Whole thing here. )

I used to have a lot of respect for DB

I agree with whoever said that he had a close relationship with his little boy (as it seems, otherwise why would the wicked Ms Fortier be trying so hard to get him to go away?). They went on holiday together, spent many weekends together, and now she's dumped him she's saying that he can never have any contact with his son or unborn baby ever again. I wonder how many of us would just put up and shut up about never seeing our kids again? I don't like Blunkett. I don't like his political views, I think he's repressive and I think he's anti-democratic - I don't know, maybe he's been getting his latest wheezes from sleeping with a far right Tory - but that doesn't mean it is best for anyone that he never sees his children again and they are brought up in a lie that their biological father is Stephen Quinn. She wants it all her own way - nice marriage to sophisticated, doting businessman in £3million Chelsea house, affair on the side to provide her with two perfect kids...and then acts like a wounded bird when it all blows up in her face. Like, duh! Feel very sorry for the children, and quite sorry for Quinn, though I do wonder how he could have been quite so oblivious to three years of holidays, children fathering and weekends away. Hardly a one-night stand.

And she is clearly trying to intimidate Blunkett as much as she possibly can, via leaked letters & emails, so have limited sympathy for her alleged horror of publicity.

Hmm, interesting Jan.. They do a particularly unlikeable couple though

"Or another, about her £11,000 Birkin bag, for which she was lucky enough to skip the nine-month waiting list, hanging on rather longer than 19 days. "Her husband moved heaven and earth to get her a Birkin within two months," the Observer reported, "sneaking her into the shop one night after closing to allow her to examine the bag, only to have her say: 'It's the wrong one. It's light brown. I want the dark brown one." You gather that Mr Quinn, who toils at the high end himself, would have understood. He once crisply explained why Vogue would never accept ads for Superdrug: "We have no wish to become a weekend colour supplement full of undistinguished advertisements suggesting an impoverished middle-class readership."

Agree that if the child/ren are DB's it is nonsense that they should be brought up as Mr Quinn's. Think that could only ever be vaguely acceptable with the consnet of all the adults involved. And even then I think it's wrong. She made her bed, she has to lie in it with all the awkward difficult consequences that means. Can you imagine a woman posting on here saying "I have known my child since babyhood but now the father is insisting that the child is brought up by the stepmother and I'm to be completely excluded from the picture. They think it's for the best" There woudl be outrage on here and quite rightly.

'...do sound a...'

yes, would it be preferable if DB just did a cecil parkinson and tried to evade his parental responsibilities?

Yes, I thought the bag and Superdrug touches were rather charming too, Tinker.

She has just USED him, hasn't she? Dumped him as soon as she was safely past 13 weeks with 2nd baby. What a calculating callous cow. Disgusting.

Strikes me it's just a big human mess that we all get to watch and comment on (me included)I do wonder why people get involved in such potentially disastrous relationships - especially if they have ambitions for even higher office. I've met Blunkett and he came across as a sophisticated, highly intelligent bloke who was very clever with his image and his language. Turns out he feels human passion like the rest of us. I don't think his private life is any of my business but I'll still read it all and make my judgements. Glad it's not me.

Tim Lott in yesterday's Evening Standard summarises my views quite well.

And whilst I totally agree that "She made her bed, she has to lie in it with all the awkward difficult consequences that means" I don't think the children or Stephen Quinn should have to suffer the consequences of her and DB's selfish behaviour.

But how can you prevent it?

am thinking DB should join Fathers for Justice - LOL

I'm wondering if he's a member already!

Wouldn't surprise me - they've received lots of publicity on his watch, and he does have a bloody big axe to grind as regards legislation around contact/ access issues, doesn't he?!

Message withdrawn

This was what was in the Spectator (where she is the editor!!!)
"Neither of the principal actors comes out of this drama very well but neither do they emerge particularly badly," said commentator Stephen Glover in the magazine. "Like all tragedies, though, it seems bound to end in tears."

Sorry -I do think SHE comes out quite badly!