« Well, that's reassuring! | Main | Cromwell: A great Christian? »
December 03, 2004
New Labour Paternity Patterns
An interesting contrast in the way the Government responds to Fathers for Justice and their demands for a fairer and better system giving them access to their children, and the Home Secretary's response to being ditched by his mistress. On the one hand they mouth platitudes and assure the public that the matter is being addressed - in other words; "we don't intend to do anything!" On the other, the Home Secretary immediately starts claiming paternity of his married mistress's children.
Times change, of that we may be sure, but the response of the mass media has been interesting to say the least. Under the last Tory government, any minister, never mind the most senior Secretary of State after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have been hounded by the BBC, the gutter press, and the entire establishment. The response to Blunkett's revelations has been most informative. Nothing at all on the BBC, barely a mention in the Labour-supporting gutter press, and a very reluctant back of the bottom columns in the Guardian. Only the right wing (and I sometimes wonder about them as well!) Daily Mail and the dear old Torygraph have made an issue of this. It seems that the left wing and Labour Luvvies in the mass media don't feel the same way about "one of theirs" getting caught with his trousers down and in someone else's wife's bed as they did about the three Tory ministers they drove from office. I wonder why? Same "sin", surely?
As for the Secretary of State, if I had any sympathy for him, it is no longer the case. He has proved himself not only to be a thoroughly dishonourable man, but an arrogant one to boot. The decent thing to have done when his mistress indicated an end to the affair would have been to send her flowers or a box of chocolates - and walk away! Not, as this cretin has done, rush into law to try and rip apart a family that is already under the strain of the husband's awareness of the wife's infidelity. The sheer arrogance of trying to claim that the children of this marriage are his beggars belief. This compounds his disgraceful behaviour by considering only his own wants, needs, and desires. To hell with the children who must live with this stigma - and stigma there will be - and to hell with the cuckolded husband. Only the great David Blunkett and his feelings and wishes matter.
Mind you, this is not a new situation for this government of atheists, hypocrites, agnostics, and aging hippies. The spectacle of Robin Cook openly cuckolding his wife with a member of his staff - and refusing to resign over it simply makes one wonder if there are any other "affairs" being carried on under the blanket of "governing honestly" and without the 'sleaze' that the same silent media organs were quick to label the Tories with.
So who are the "sleaze champions" now? And where are the "sleaze-free" media?
I wonder what other sleazy little affairs are being ignored by the Blairite media? I wonder how long it will take for the dupes to actually realise that this bunch of filthy little oiks are only in it for themselves?
Some starry-eyed "anybody is better than the Tories" members of the chattering classes must by now be finding it very difficult to continue supporting this arrogant, ignorant, and sleaze-ridden Party. Some at least must have woken up to the fact that this is a Party which will say anything to retain power. Just don't expect delivery of anything other than even more scandal. In reality, they, like their predecessors, are really only interested in power and the exercise of it. They have it, the media support them in it, and the rest of us pay for it.
C'est la vie! - as our French cousins would say.
Posted by The Gray Monk at December 3, 2004 10:55 AM