David Blunkett resigning

Its people like you and the others within this thread that write such stories in the media.. i don't mean that in a nasty way.. He maybe being punished for other things in a way ?. .... but even they have a mocking 'love' for the guy.

Keep feeding people the line that 'politicians can't be trusted'... thats the key message.

 

Better a healthy dose of scepticism than blind faith I'd say. I used to be far more trusting of politicians, but the events of the last few years have changed a lot in my mind. Even if Blunkett is innocent of this, it's a good argument for the existence of karma....

 

I have a healthy dose of scepticism ... i don't have blind faith.. but the actual reason for him going was pointless and un democratic .

From day dot , the media have fed the line that you can't trust this goverment.. i suppose they do it to them all to varying degrees.. I have a healthy scepticism for the media now..

Its almost my world against yours.. and we both think we are right i guess.

 

The reason for him going was that it was revealed that there'd been preferential treatment by his department for a visa application for his lover's nanny. As a minister, his behaviour should be beyond reproach. If it's not, he should go. Period.

Uhhhh.... yeah, there's a reason for that. It's that politicians are generally not to be trusted. In fact, the media were more scathin in their attacks against the previous Tory goverment. Which, oddly enough, was even more untrustworthy.

 

On what grounds do you make such a sweeping personal accusation about me? I think there may be a case that the revelations of Blunkett's wrongdoing might have been at least in part motivated or brought about by those who sought his downfall anyway... but that itself is by no means certain, and the fact remains that he has been accused of wrongdoing and, it appears, is probably guilty of it. I'm happy he has gone, but it's not as if he's the entirely innocent party in this, is it?

What exactly is your point Matthew? Should he have been allowed to get away with giving favours to friends in abuse of his position? For what reasons are you upset about his departure following the revelations of his wrongdoing? Because people wanted him out anyway, therefore he should be allowed to break the rules and get away with it?

Your logic is comparable to that of a small rodent.

 

They were firstly reported as alegations . I think started by the Telegraph and then filtered down into other newspapers.. Were did the claims stem from ? who gave the newspaper their evidence ? . Did this all need to be dragged on for so long ? .

Now after the fact yeah we can all see that he is guilty as charged so it would appear ... but like he said the damage is done whatever way you look at it. Report the fact that this happened , wait for the inquiry , don't call it a whitewash and everything is straightened out. These things only partly happened . He was hung drawn and quartered , for what we all (i think) agree ... prety irelevant reasons .. nobody actualy cares if it is true or not , so saying 'As a minister, his behaviour should be beyond reproach. If it's not, he should go. Period.' does not realy wash ... all a little high and mighty for my liking...just to make it seem like the reasons for his departure are important. When realy the truth is not realy that way at all. Ask Mr Galloway ?.


I read most of the newspaers and all that they had to say (same thing day in day out to be honest), and also some TV coverage. So i witnessed what a pointless exersice the whole thing was (imho). It was quite amazing that it was so ott reported it shoked me. He will always be reported as a wrong doer ... even if its not fundementaly true.... just another 'if you wish'. It is a shame in a lot of ways.

I have more faith in real people and the flaws they might have .. than any media outlet that is just in the business of shifting copies to make money.

The BBC lost a bit of my respect (yeah i had a little bit for them).

 

Ummm.... yeah. So he resigned. And the problem with this would be........ ?

Excuse me? Nobody cares if it's true that he abused his office and position?!? If you say so.....

What, it's "high and mighty" to expect our politicians to maintain high standards of behaviour whilst holding public office? It's "high and mighty" to expect that politicians should behave with integrity in order to help restore our trust and confidence in the positions that they hold? Don't be ridiculous.

I'd have agreed with you right up until the point where the internal email entered the public domain, thus proving that his position had been abused. That's why he went. That's why we didn't wait for an enquiry. And that's why it's entirely right and proper that he left when he did. In fact, it's probably the first time that a Labour minister has actually had the decency to walk the plank rather than waiting to be pushed.

I don't think they'll lose any sleep over it.

 

What exactly are you talking about? He resigned because he was found to have abused his position. That wasn't affected by anything other than his own choices.

That doesn't make sense. Of course people care, or he wouldn't have needed to resign, would he?

What are you talking about? How much clearer can I make it? I think it's important that he should resign if found to have abused his position - which he was, so he did.

Matthew, you're really not making sense. In what way don't I care? What is it that you're accusing me of not caring about?

'We' being those who wished for him to resign.

They won't lose any sleep over you because the license fee system is set to continue. There's no alternative funding model for the BBC that's likely to be adopted any time soon.

 

Have you been keeping up with this story Dok' or did you come to this late ?? Did you hear the result of the inquirey today ? Because this was not officialy resolved until today .. i was trying to say that we have all been working on our biases, from the journalist that broke the story and all the people commentating on this.. including me and you. You have not shown that much bias i don't think because your (imho) working on the high and mighty angle.. When imho you share the same thoughts as every other person within this thread.. but i would never pre empt your thoughts or assume anything Dok' ...

I am talking about the people within this thread . I was also asking if you cared ?. Their is no discusion if you don't actualy care like other posters don't ??. I was asking you your opinion on the matter.

I was trying to figure out if you were caring what happened or just being high and mighty about it (just to be continualy pedantic about the whole thing) ... when ultimatly like everyone else in this thread was just glad he was gone .

The fact that he resigned and the circumstances in wich he did.. replying to me when ultimatly you are glad he is gone because of other reasons aside from the visa and him having a affair plus the train ticket..is going to be a huge waste of our time don't you think .

So you did wish for him to resign ... why ? and please if it has something to do with his current situation say so.. if not then also say so , this would be very helpful as to stop this conversation going around in circles.

Ok they won't lose any sleep over me ... your right.

 

Stop being a fuckwit, matthew. There as an email leaked before the enquiry reported that implicated Blunkett in the fast-tracking of the visa application. Which is why he resigned. Try reading the papers.

The 'high and mighty angle' being to expect some integrity from people holding public office? Guilty as charged.

Well that's exactly what you just did. You don't have a clue what I think matthew, so don't waste your time trying to figure it out.

I'm glad he's gone, because I think he was a poor home secretary. I wouldn't support him being drummed out of office on the basis of flimsy accusations that weren't substantiated. Right up until the email came to light, it was my opinion that he should stay until the enquiry reported, as there was insuffcient evidence to condemn him.

 

I have been reading the papers, if you have read my posts in both threads , you may see that i am actualy pissed of with the way the whole thing was reported .

No, just a debating tool i suppose (i was trying to say).. sometimes it seems you hold a particular line just because it suits the debate.. or because a lot of the time you come in after i have posted a few things.. and just respond to my posts , i can't figure out straight the way what you think about something ...and then sometimes ultimatly you do think the way i initialy think you do... this is why i was asking what you thought about it all (before responding)

See what i said prev' ?.

How the email related to this was complete speculation , before all the facts were put into the public domain.. The media used this to make the story 'work' . The particular email was barely mentioned today and it did not ultimatly condemn Mr Blunkett anyway . So now that you have listened to what Mr Budd had to say .. i suppose your still going to say that he deserved to go because of the email.....??.


earlier un-answered point:

He went because ..

'However wether or not i asked for any action to be taken is irelevant to the inferance that can be drawn'

Media spin will go on for days, maybe weeks .. probably up untill the election , thinking about it .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/21/uquestion.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/21/ixportaltop.html

 

Well there's not much I can do about it if you want to hold some deluded notion that the opinions that I put forward are actually not my opinions at all. If you're going to argue with me, you might at least argue with me over opinions that I actually hold rather than arguing over opinions that you speculate that I hold. You sound a bit paranoid.

Yup. The email made it clear that preferential treatment was given to a visa application on the grounds of the person's connection with the home secretary. Fairly damning, don't you think? David Blunkett certainly seemed to think so.

 

Nagh i am not paranoid anymore ... i did speculate but still asked you to clarify ... you have, so thanks.

like i keep quoting

'However wether or not i asked for any action to be taken is irelevant to the inferance that can be drawn'


this is why I think he left.... we both read the papers and know how they work ...

 

So you think Blunkett's the most reliable source of information on this issu? LOL!!!

 

So you think Newspapers are the most reliable source of information on this issue ? LOL...


wich bit did you just wish to believe Dok'

'Sorted'

'..a bit quicker'

I wished to believe

'No special favours, only what they would normaly do...'

 

Are you retarded? Where did I quote a newspaper?

Explain your question in English and in a way that makes sense, and I'll answer it.

 

merry christmas Dok and a happy new year.. i can't be arsed to reply any more your not even trying that hard anymore..

 

You're right. I lost interest as your argument became less and less cohesive.

 

Thats funny , i did not realise we were having a arguement ?. Well i suppose we were claryifing if you gave a toss about the given alegations ... you purport to care about, we got that sorted. You 'arguement' was i suppose the email , this in your opinion proved his guilt. I have just been trying to say that the newspapers and the media have had a bit of a unwarranted frenzy on the man .. and i agree with Mr Blunketts assesment ...

'However wether or not i asked for any action to be taken is irelevant to the inferance that can be drawn'


You waffled on about putting forward your opinions ... where were they then ?? . All i have realy read is that you had read the email had and come to a conclusion (pre ordained imho).. This point we could argue..but we have not realy ?? my prequel post was pointing out what part of the email our biases might pick up and believe or how they support our biases .. it was not a question realy, just a statement .

Your not realy trying are you ?.

Thanks for making more of an effort than most anyway , i apreciate it.