David Blunkett is NOT the father shock!

[Tinker]

Will find a linkin a bit.

Wonder who is then? Not her husband surely? Wonder how many other men are now thinking "Oh s*"

selfish to the extreme.... what about the kids ???????? why have children... in what way can she expect to have no problem/reprecussion when you are shagging people in the public domain.... sorry she is beyond silly and selfish !

I have no sympathy for DB. He had an affair with a woman whom he knew to be married. He pursued his legal case wrt the elder child even when she was heavily pregnant with second child and continued with his campaign even when she was admitted to hospital through stress.

Dreadful lack of judgement on his part, and indicative of extreme selfishness, and not someone I want deciding matters which impact on my life.

Freckle, did "they" not say at the time that DB thought KQ was to leave her husband for him . Do I remember this correctly????
Also he wouldn't have t go to court if she hadn't changed his acces to his little boy.
As my own DB is going trhough a nasty divorce.... I can see women sometimes being extremly upset at their ex and making lives very hard on their kids, ex-p and themselves ultimatey !!!!

my own "DB" Dear Brother.... not David Blunket LOL

Are you saying that that makes it alright? You reap what you sow. If you behave in an immoral and selfish way, somewhere along the line there is a payment to be made.

Gosh, I sound like a right prig, don't I??

Well said Freckle. Both of them behaved very badly - but Blunkett's persecution of a heavily pregnant woman, to the point where she was admitted to hospital, was as selfish as you can get, cruel and dangerous. He apparently believed the baby was his, yet was prepared to put the baby's life at risk (ie premature birth) in the pursuit of his own aims. Clearly a control freak. Nasty attitude to women too, according to the gossip in Sheffield (his constituency, where he was leader of the council for many years).

Wasn't the case for his first child though ? Don't get me wrong - not a fan of blunkett at all but if she had not changed the access to his 1st child than he might not have needed the courts ?

His pursuit of the matter through the courts may or may not have been justified, but there is a way of dealing with these things and pushing the issue to the point where he endangered both the mother's and child's lives is really beyond the pale.

Is it Velcrobott???? what is her son think later on?

Is it Sobernow .... I meant

Still -she is not a winner... she has had a stressful pregnancy, a premature baby and a caesarean (not having a go at that caesarean at all - just describing) in what way does this make her a winner... I doubt she would have opted for 2 of the 3 (or maybe all 3)?

Still can't believe she could not have been smarter about this... she does have a court case, a media circus and a lot of people who are judging her on this.... again not sure but feel she has badly calculated her stuff!

Message withdrawn