It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Blunkett Guilty?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
It was recently brought up in the press that David Blunkett, the former home secretary advised his family to buy shares in a DNA testing comany, knowing that they would be asking for government grants in the future and therefore profiting the Blunketts.

Is he guilty?

In my opinion, yes, but he's doing the right thing by selling of the shares right away, and not making a profit. He should have know he would have got stick for going ahead with business meeting and buying shares so it really is beyond me why he went ahead with the deals...




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I don't see any great scandel myself.

There may have been a technical breech of the rules but

1)Blunkett wasn't a Minister when he became involved with this company,
2)he resigned immeadiately upon once again becoming a gov minister,
3)the matter has been made completely public,
4)the shares are to be sold (without personal profit) and as far as I can see that is the end of the matter.

There's a reasonable BBC Q&A page regarding this -
news.bbc.co.uk...

Unlike several prominent tory ex-Ministers Blunkett did not just walk into a hugely paid job with a firm connected with his previous Ministry/job.

This is/was a small company, hardly in the same league as oh, let's pick a lesser known corrupt dodgy tory story, um, say, Douglas Hurd (ex Foreign secretary) who headed to Nat West and arranged the Serb telecommunications deal in 1997.
www.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 1-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
All this Blunket business is simply to take the pressure off Blair and have us focusing somewhere else for a change. I do feel sorry for Blunkett when I see him being hounded by the press.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
He's blind, they get very little on disability.

Let him have his extra money in the company. Yes, he knew they were going to try and get a Goverment grant because he was working with them at the time. He has sold his shares prior to them asking for one.

Case closed.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
On BBC radio 4 tonight they were reporting that this matter had been logged on the register of MP's interests 6mths ago.
(ie at the right and proper time)

If that is the case one can hardly accuse Blunkett of not informing the HOC, even if it might not have been quite the correct proceedure that he followed.

I think some people think they have got him on a technicality but considering the intent and how things have turned out (ie the fact the register was timeously noted, Blunkett's resignation from the board the moment he became a Minister again, the share sale without profit and the small but pertinent fact that he has had no official dealing with this company as a Minister anyway) I think they are wrong.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Blunkett has resigned.


The fact that he didnt consult with the business appointments committee is the only thing he has done wrong, all the other rumours of conflict of interest etc are false. Although it would seem that the papers could have dragged this out for a very long time (various stories concerning the companies, not exactly relevant, but things that would make for a good story etc)

Also, it seems that along with the news of a third company, he had held back information from party members (i.e Tony) concerning this debacle.

I think he has let everyone down. He had another chance in the cabinet and screwed it up.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by squarepusher
Blunkett has resigned.


- Wow; I only joked to my Mrs the other day (I think it was monday night after the PM publicly said he gave Blunkett his full backing) that he would be gone within the week!


I must admit I am surprised.

I suppose once Lord Nolan had stuck the boot in last night it was obvious that it was all fast becoming all too much.
Best dealt with quickly for a lot less trauma in the end.
(I'll say this much for this lot, the days of Ministers clinging on for weeks and months like we saw under the last lot are long behind us, eh?
.....and all, in stark contrast, over such relatively piffling matters nowadays too)


it seems that along with the news of a third company, he had held back information from party members (i.e Tony) concerning this debacle.


- Hmmm, I can't help wondering if his public dispute about sickness and invalidity benefits isn't partly connected, he (or those around him) chose to air the dispute in public, that tends to go down badly and lose friends.


I think he has let everyone down. He had another chance in the cabinet and screwed it up.


- He certainly didn't do himself any favours did he?
After the last fuss (which again amounted to very little) one would think he'd have gone out of his way to be seen as following every proceedure to the letter.

Did anyone catch that drama Channel 4 did on him?
'A very Social Secretary'?
It was meant to be a tragi-comedy; If it was in any way accurate I thought it was just tragic.
Blunkett came across as a very odd, very lonely and sad little man with zero life outside of politics and a talent for attracting trouble.

I don't think they give 3rd chances, maybe he'll end up exiled in Europe with his old pal (
) Mandelson!?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
They cant get rid of him for near fascist policies and attempts to destroy our civil liberites, but forget to fill in the right form and your toast...

I expect that this was partly a result of back bench pressure, there is a serious anti Blunckett feel in the Labour Party, and having him return from disgrace to prominence in a few months was too much for many to handle.

He acted in a highly irregular fashion (joining the board of directors for two weeks? in a company that had many dealings with his old ministry?) and deserves to go.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
He acted in a highly irregular fashion (joining the board of directors for two weeks?


- Er, hang on there Joe.

He, Blunkett, would not have known that he was going to be reappointed to the cabinet when he joined this company so the very short time that he was connected to the company isn't so unusual - in fact it illustrates precisely that things are quite the reverse of it "irregular".


in a company that had many dealings with his old ministry?) and deserves to go.


- The firm had normal gov accreditation for DNA testing on a small scale, long before Blunkett became involved with them.

It is true that they are on record as saying that they had hoped for larger contracts after he became a director but he resigned from the board upon reappointment to the Cabinet and they did not ever get any such contract - and is unlikely ever to as they have lost even their accreditation they, quite properly, once had.

There is nothing "highly irregular" about any of this other than Blunkett did not follow a relatively minor part of the laid down anti-sleeze proceedures brought in by this Labour gov.

(mind you John Major's recent 'they're worse than we ever were' has to be good for a laugh.)

[edit on 7-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Sorry Sminkey i think Blunkett got what he deserved. With the revalations that followed about not registering a £20,000 fee for public speaking that sealed his fate there was no way back. He was corrupt, if only slightly, but when your in the cabinet even slightly is too much.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Sorry Sminkey i think Blunkett got what he deserved.


- Funnily enough and much as I think what he did was very very minor I have to reluctantly agree.
(my point to you was only that there was nothing unusual in what you had cited)

He did indeed burn a lot of boats and upset far too many people, at all levels, in his own party to 'tough' this out especially so soon after the last - again very minor - 'troubles' (his latest public quarrels over policy differences between him and the PM pretty much guaranteed it was all going to end badly for him IMO).

Ultimately I would rather the gov lost umteen individuals to protect the requirement that members of the UK gov have to be and be seen to be 'squeeky clean' and 'whiter than white'.

That's a principle we would do well to sustain and protect (whoever is the party of gov).

[edit on 7-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Wow, consensus on ATS. I've never seen that before!

But theres no arguement here, Blunckett did not commit a major offence, but it was abnormal enough to warrant his resignation after he had already been caught using his power to further his aims.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Wow, consensus on ATS. I've never seen that before!


- It was bound to happen some time or another Joe!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join