It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


David Blunkett DID father his mistress' infant son

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 11:20 AM
Despite reassurances from her supportive friends to the contrary in the UK press, Blunkett's mistress Fortier has had to admit that DNA tests have shown David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, to be the father of her infant son William.

Blunkett had previously been strongly advised by her friends to stop pressurising for DNA testing to save himself public embarrassment, as it was a 'known fact' that the child's conception had resulted from a successful vasectomy reversal for Fortier's husband, followed by Fortier herself undergoing fertility treatment.

There is a strong suspicion that Fortier will return to her native United States after the birth of her next child, due in February, something which supposedly fills Blunkett with horror as he wishes to play a full part in the upbringing of his son William, and the new child, which is also believed to be his.

Expect now swift new legislation in the UK to protect the rights of fathers whose children are removed overseas by mothers unwilling to allow paternal rights after the breakup of a relationship.

Considering Blair's government's total lack of concern for fathers' rights hitherto, this will undoubtedly cause them to rethink totally their stance, as one of their own is suddenly affected.

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain
Expect now swift new legislation in the UK to protect the rights of fathers whose children are removed overseas by mothers unwilling to allow paternal rights after the breakup of a relationship.

Waitaminute. Are you suggesting that she not be allowed to return to the US because he wants her to stay?

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:43 PM
This is the first i have heard of this.

I cannot find any relevant details about it.

Would it be possible for you to back up this claim with any links i may have missed? I have checked the BBC web site but to no avail. There are lots of details about visa and rail warrant fraud etc, but nothing about facts you describe..

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:51 PM
Firstly, I am not saying she should not be allowed to return to the US once her child is born. What I am saying is that, because one of his own is affected, I predict Blair will enact some legislation to help his pal Blunkett have access to his children, even if they are overseas. My point is that Blair has not cared a jot about fathers' rights before this event, but just watch him change now.

His attitude towards fathers' rights has caused fathers' rights groups in the UK to undertake extreme actions to publicise their cause, including climbing onto Buckingham Palce.

Secondly, as I have only recently joined, I don't think I am yet allowed to post links, but my source for this story is today's Daily Mail.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Englishman_in_Spain]

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:56 PM
No I doubt Blair will step in. Blunkett is under pressure due to the immigration issue recentley in the press, him trying to move a admission through due to personal interests.

You have also linked with fathers rights campaign, which I happen to agree with in terms of what they are wanting.

I do see how you have linked these, good conspiracy, but I doubt it will come true.

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:01 PM
Englishman, would you be so kind as to post a link to this information?

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:08 PM
Not much more than what has already been stated is included in these articles.

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:12 PM

this should take you to the daily mail link. Today's Daily Mail was much more unequivocal in stating the 'facts'.

I would also say that, being a father with a child illegally removed from the UK by my ex-wife, I support fathers 4 justice.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Englishman_in_Spain]

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:53 PM
There is no way Blunkett, Blair or anyone else in this government could possibly rush through the kind of outrageously - and blindingly obviously - self-serving legislation as you are suggesting Englishman_in_Spain.

You must surely know that for something new to either become law or for a significant change to effect existing law then there are several stages this new legislation would be required to pass through; all requiring other people to go along with this.

Including 3 'readings' in the House of Commons, requiring a vote each time and 3 'readings' in the House of Lords, each time requiring a successful ballot too.....and it may also be referred to a committee for further expert scrutiny and advice.

Whatever prejudices you may or may not hold against any particular UK political party or personality you cannot just make these sweeping claims in the face of the facts.

Whatever reforms of the law in this respect that come will be those already announced and not anything that would be of such blatently obvious self interest.
You might think they're stupid but they're not that stupid.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:10 PM
everyone is intitled to a private life
( yes even polititions )

dont see what all the fuss is about

top topics


log in