Blunktw@tt fcuked!

#1
BBC:

Blunkett denies visa 'fast-track'

Mr Blunkett denies helping speed the visa application through
The home secretary has denied helping to fast-track a visa application for his ex-lover's former nanny.
The allegation is one of several made in the Sunday Telegraph and while any impropriety has been denied, Tory leaders want an independent inquiry.

David Blunkett is alleged to have used his position to help Filipina Leoncia Casalme, who worked for Kimberley Quinn, get permanent residency.

Prime Minister Tony Blair says he has "full confidence" in Mr Blunkett.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has called for a judge to carry out an independent inquiry into the newspaper allegations surrounding his relationship with Mrs Quinn, who is publisher of The Spectator magazine.

As well as the visa claims, reportedly made by Mrs Quinn in an e-mail, the Sunday Telegraph says Mr Blunkett, 57, also shared confidential security information with her.

This included telling her parents to avoid Newark Airport near New York hours before a security scare.

The nanny at the centre of the story worked for Kimberly Quinn
Other claims include giving Mrs Quinn, 43, a first-class train ticket which had been assigned to him.

Mr Blunkett's spokesman, addressing the visa application allegation, said the home secretary did check the application form.

But he denied that it was processed through Mr Blunkett's office.

The spokesman said that information about the New York security scare was already in the public domain.

And he said that the train ticket was for MPs' spouses and Mr Blunkett and Mrs Quinn were in a "close relationship" at the time.

Mr Blunkett is quoted as saying that he was "very saddened that someone I cared so deeply for should seek quite erroneously, to damage my public position".

"This cannot be in the interests of any of us. I shall continue to keep my private life private and separate from my public duties," he added.

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said: "The key issue is the one surrounding these visa allegations. This is the real killer - that would be an abuse of his position if he did that.

"Merely to get involved in that kind of thing - it seems to me that the alarm bells should have been ringing loud and clear especially with his lover's nanny.

"Will it damage his image and his reputation? Possibly."
Torygraph:
Blunkett's ex-lover accuses him of 'fast-tracking' visa for foreign nanny
(Filed: 28/11/2004)

David Blunkett has been accused of "fast-tracking" a visa for his lover's Filipina nanny in order to allow her to stay in Britain indefinitely, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Home Secretary allegedly used his position to facilitate the granting of permanent residency for Leoncia "Luz" Casalme, a 36-year-old nanny working for Kimberly Quinn, the married woman with whom he had a secret three-year affair.


Kimberly Quinn
The accusation is contained in an e-mail written by Mrs Quinn, a copy of which has been obtained by this newspaper. It charges that Mr Blunkett personally intervened to help Ms Casalme, and accuses him of being "paranoid" and of wanting to "nail me".

According to a friend of Mrs Quinn, Mr Blunkett even sent his official government driver to pick up the nanny's passport. Last night, Mr Blunkett strongly denied the allegations, saying that he had examined Ms Casalme's application forms to check that they were correct but had played no role in processing or approving the application.

Mr Blunkett said of Mrs Quinn's allegations: "I am very saddened that someone I cared so deeply for should seek, quite erroneously, to damage my public position. This cannot be in the interests of any of us. I shall continue to keep my private life private and separate from my public duties."

In a separate and equally remarkable development, The Telegraph has discovered that a DNA test has been taken which confirms that the father of Mrs Quinn's two-year-old son, William, is Mr Blunkett, rather than her husband, Stephen.


David Blunkett: 'I shall continue to keep my private life private'
Mrs Quinn is seven months pregnant with her second child, which may also be Mr Blunkett's. The test, which was conducted with the help of one of the Home Secretary's adult sons from his former marriage, was made last year using samples from William and Mr Blunkett. It was sent to a private laboratory and the results, which confirmed a match, were returned to Mrs Quinn, who read them out to Mr Blunkett, who is blind.

It is the allegations that he used his powers as Home Secretary to do favours for his mistress, however, that will cause a political storm. Our investigation can reveal that, in addition to his help for the nanny, the Home Secretary allegedly:
• Shared confidential security information with Mrs Quinn, in what a friend of hers described as "pillow talk". This included advice to her parents to avoid Newark airport, in New York, hours before a security scare and giving Mrs Quinn advance knowledge of police raids in Manchester that led to the death of an officer in January, 2003;
• Ordered a policeman to stand outside Mrs Quinn's Mayfair home to safeguard her against anti-capitalist rioting that had been expected during a May Day demonstration;
• Gave her first-class rail tickets in August 2002 which are thought to have been assigned to him for his work as an MP;
• Put pressure on the American embassy to issue a temporary passport for William Quinn in May 2003, so that Mrs Quinn and her son could join him on holiday in France;
• Used his government chauffeur to drive Mrs Quinn to his home in Derbyshire for weekend trysts;
• Took Mrs Quinn, the publisher of The Spectator, to Spain for a wedding, accompanied by four security men and a driver, with much of the cost allegedly met by the taxpayer.

The most serious allegation against Mr Blunkett centres on his assistance for Mrs Quinn's nanny. Her e-mail, which was sent to a friend last Thursday, followed an apparent approach by a newspaper to Ms Casalme. It was sent from Mrs Quinn's private Hotmail account and reads: "I have had Luz on the phone very tearful, saying that she had been contacted about the passport [visa] application that David fast-tracked for her . . . he's so paranoid he'll think it's me and try and nail me."

The main question concerning Mr Blunkett's involvement centres on the timing of permanant residency being issued to Ms Casalme.

She entered the country in late July or early August, 1999, with another British family who had been living in Jordan. Under strict Home Office rules on visas for immigrants working in Britain as domestic workers in private households, she would not have become entitled to a permanent visa until four years later, in late July, 2003, at the earliest.

Mrs Quinn has told friends that Mr Blunkett's assistance occurred in "the spring of 2003". If that proves correct, he would face serious accusations of abuse of power, of bending his department's rules in order to help his mistress.

Friends of Mrs Quinn said that although she had been in Britain for significantly less than four years, Ms Casalme, who started work with Mrs Quinn in 2002 on the birth of her son, asked her to help her to obtain permanent residency.

Mrs Quinn asked her lover to help, and Mr Blunkett sent his driver to collect Miss Casalme's passport, promising to deal with the problem.

After a few weeks, Ms Casalme put pressure on Mrs Quinn to find out when she was going to get her passport back.

According to friends, Mrs Quinn rang Mr Blunkett, who allegedly told her: "Look, she would never have got it if it hadn't been for me, so she should just shut up."

The passport was later returned to Miss Casalme, with the permanent visa approved.

Last night a spokesman for Mr Blunkett denied that the Home Secretary had fast-tracked Miss Casalme's application through his office, or that his driver had been involved.

He admitted, however, that Mrs Quinn had asked Mr Blunkett for advice on whether the application was "in good order" and that Mr Blunkett had said that it was.

The spokesman denied that Mr Blunkett had authorised the placing of a policeman outside Mrs Quinn's house during May Day riots.

The spokesman said that Mr Blunkett had not provided to Mrs Quinn any information "not already in the public domain" about security alerts at Newark airport.

Mr Blunkett's spokesman admitted that the Home Secretary had given Mrs Quinn the use of a spouse's rail ticket and that she and William had taken trips to Derbyshire in his official car, although he said the journeys would have been made anyway on government business.

Ms Casalme, who left Mrs Quinn's employ two months ago and now lives in Dagenham, Essex, declined to comment on the help that she received from the Home Secretary. "I love her [Mrs Quinn] very much," she said. "She is a wonderful mother."

The fallout from the affair between Mr Blunkett, 57, and Mrs Quinn, 43, showed no signs of abating last night, a week after The Telegraph reported that he had hired lawyers to contest the paternity of both William Quinn and the child that is due in February. The fact that a private DNA test has already confirmed Mr Blunkett as William's father was what was driving him on, friends of the politician said last night.

One friend, who has spoken to Mr Blunkett recently, said: "The point is that David already knows that William is his son. There has already been a paternity test and he and Kimberly took elaborate measures to ensure that they opened the envelope together. The test was quite clear.

"What David is trying to do now is get Kimberly to acknowledge what they both already know to be the case. All that stuff about evidence that Quinn is the father is the precise opposite of the truth."

It is understoood that Mr Quinn had been completely unaware of the covertly conducted DNA test until very recently. The increasingly acrimonious nature of the dispute was reflected yesterday when Mrs Quinn told one friend that Mr Blunkett had insisted to her that he would win access to his son. She said that the Home Secretary warned her: "The law is on my side. I know because I made the law."
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
#2
sounds about right to me :wink:

Why would a MR B want to see if an application was alright if not going to do anything to help, cos let's face it mr B could not read it himself could he?unless it was in braille of cse...

all government cars go to Derbys at the weekend..seems he is implying it does..


Cynical? me? yeh ok then, I am :wink:
 
#4
the level of corruption and sleaze in this government is astonishing - Mandelson, Vaz etc

What Blunkett has done is wrong, end of story

1. On the one hand we have Margaret Hodge telling us that the state ( see Labour Party) will instruct us how to bring up our children, on the other, we have Blunkett trying to destroy a marriage to satisfy his own ego.This pr*ck has the gall to tell us how to behave. I read a junior Minister describe Blunkett as 'honest' - unbelievable, I think these people actualy believe their own lies.

2. Misaapropriation of public funds - the trip she went on, use of the ministers car and the amazing revalation that a copper was posted outside her door to protect her !! So the police are used to beat up protestors in Parliament Sqaure, to the point where 18 plod have been charged with assault or GBH, in most parts of the country it is impossible to get police to attend anything but a murder in progress, open running gunfights in central London and yet there are still police resources available to stand outside the house of a ministers mistress???

Frankly, I'm beyond the point of being suprised by these people anymore, they have made corruption and spin a regular part of political life.

I have no respect for any of these people.
 
#5
Hopefully it is all true. Add this to so called Lord Watson’s alleged fire raising Neue Arbeit should be on the ropes.
 
#6
Hootch said:
What Blunkett has done is wrong, end of story

2. Misaapropriation of public funds - the trip she went on, use of the ministers car and the amazing revalation that a copper was posted outside her door to protect her !! So the police are used to beat up protestors in Parliament Sqaure, to the point where 18 plod have been charged with assault or GBH, in most parts of the country it is impossible to get police to attend anything but a murder in progress, open running gunfights in central London and yet there are still police resources available to stand outside the house of a ministers mistress???

quote]

Firstly no officers have been charged as a result of the parliment square riot, 18 (of several hundred present) have been served with notices of complaint, a drearly frequent event in an officers life and not the grand devlopment Hootch paints it to be,

Secondly I cannot see why we would post a single officer to protect any premises during a riot. A PSU at least would be used for Health and Safety reasons and I don't see that even Mr Blunkett has the pull to deploy 15 coppers to protect his friend. This leads me to suspect that either she lives near where a serial was posted for another purpose or more likely this story is rubbish. Which also puts the rest of this little news item in doubt.

Thirdly what does Hootch mean by "open running gunfights in central london" unless i have missed something (and this is my weekend off) there have not been any of those for quite a while.............



Trotsky
 
#7
Trosky,

Even if these officers have been served with 'notices of complaint' it is still significant.

On the open gun battles, I was refering to the recent incident in the City of London where a young office worker on her way home, was hit in the crossfire between two gangs after a music industry awards night. Ok - so a drive by shooting, rather than a running gun battle, but either way, not acceptable. Thankfully the police arrested some of the crims and found one of them was wearing body armour.


My point being that this government is fostering an elite based on the types of behaviour indulged in by David Blunkett i.e. 'Do as I say, not as I do' .

My gripe is that this 'elite' appears to be missusing the police to protect themselves, whilst ordinary citizens like me suffer from failing levels of service. For the record, I have had intruders IN my propoerty and the police failed to respond after 3 hours , so I had to go and sort them out myself. One of them threatened to come back and kill me, which was concerning as he knew where I lived.

Not having a crack at the Police, more the senior echelons.

So can you understand how hacked off ordinary people become, when I read that the Home Secretaries bit on the side gets a police presence outside her house, just because she is sh*gging the Home Secretary?
 
#10
Hootch said:
Trosky,

Even if these officers have been served with 'notices of complaint' it is still significant.
Not really, as I'm sure Trotsky will testify. It's about the monthly life of a front line Police Officer, to get a complaint of some form or another For a number of reasons, not least because the tw@ts been nicked. Imagine if the Police could actually answer in open forum the critisism levelled at them? Imagine if they could make complaints about the hunt supporters?

Hootch said:
So can you understand how hacked off ordinary people become, when I read that the Home Secretaries bit on the side gets a police presence outside her house, just because she is sh*gging the Home Secretary?
If anybody seriously believes this, they need to step outside and take a quick reality check. It seems to me that she's pissed off (hell hath no fury etc....) and looking to create trouble. It takes two to tango and the fact that both brats may be his leaves her in a far worse position imo.

Not saying that I don't want the self important pontificating arrse to fall. But I want it on something decent, not some jilted trollops trumped up accusations.
 
#12
He admits to rail ticket accusation does he not?

What would be the reaction if it were discovered that serving member of the military gave his warrant to his married mistress for personal use?
 
#13
To be fair though as much as I seethe at this govts every move, if I was in a position to blag stuff like that I would! its just a step up from nicking a ream of paper, or in the old days claiming your travel money and gettin a cabby with a mate!

Although!!!!!

The 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not get caught!

Springs to mind :wink:
 
#14
BBC TV News is reporting that a retired judge will conduct an investigation, the tried and tested New Labour way of avoiding blame or responsibility for anything. Another outing for Hutton or Butler, or will another of the Lord Chancellor's lickspittles be reporting to No 10 for a briefing on his remit, and the required outcome?

The New Labour spin is working two tracks - the risible 'dark forces' theory, and the 'woman scorned blackmailing Blind Pugh' approach. It seems not to have occurred to them that if Pugh had kept his trousers zipped in the first place it wouldn't have happened.
 
#15
ViroBono said:
BBC TV News is reporting that a retired judge will conduct an investigation, the tried and tested New Labour way of avoiding blame or responsibility for anything.
This is a retired Judge that they've recently decided not to tax their £1.5m pension! Going to be a fair hearing then :roll:
 
#16
If he married her, she'd get a parliamentary rail warrant anyway. In fact, MPs who are openly gay can get them for 1 partner, so there's a degree of crap here.

The policeman thing is worse - after all, did she really believe the protestors knew or cared who she was? What is this bollox? Did he really just send her a copper as a present?
 
#17


It would have been far easier for Blind Pew is instead of ID cards he simply ordered every female of childbearing age in the country to wear one of these.............. :twisted:

Do you think they do braille porn mags? :wink:
 
#18
If anybody seriously believes this, they need to step outside and take a quick reality check. It seems to me that she's pissed off (hell hath no fury etc....) and looking to create trouble. It takes two to tango and the fact that both brats may be his leaves her in a far worse position imo.

Not saying that I don't want the self important pontificating arrse to fall. But I want it on something decent, not some jilted trollops trumped up accusations.[/quote]

Actually she ended the relationship - not him. She had possibly decided she wanted family life with husband and two kids rather than to shack up with a politician. They must rank just below estate agents as least trusted people in the UK........... :roll:
 
#19
Even if the allegations turn out to be true..... What's to prevent a diplomatically phrased "so what" from being the only reaction?
 
#20
I don't like the bloke - his politics, his law making or whatever. However, he is entitled to a private life. The visa thing is very close from when she might have been due and when he (maybe) got it. Rail ticket - there's a lot of it about; repay the costs. Trip to wedding or whatever - if he'd gone on his own he'd still have needed the close protection boys. Visa for lad from US Embassy - I've phoned them and got one double double quick for an employee and I'm not H/Sec so nothing out of order there then. I'm sure the lucky few of who have been besotted with a bird (or bloke) understand the warmth that comes from doing some good for them so that does not concern me - I see no sign that his teenager-type angst has made him do his job differently. There is always the possibility that the poor sod was used by her. She and husband wanted kids, she doubted the reversal her old man had, decided to get child from elsewhere and now wants little more to do with Pew. Hubby also wants children and goes along with what she did.
 

Top