On the whole, one sympathises with those sections of the media that do not rush to reveal the sex lives of public figures, rather than the tabloids which bellow about the public’s ‘right to know’. But there does come a point when those of us who say things like, ‘A politician’s private life is just that — private’, and jut our jaws righteously, do look a bit silly. It happened, for example, when it turned out that Diana had passed her secrets to Andrew Morton. A similar point has surely been reached in the case of David Blunkett. Even if it is proved that Mr Blunkett did no wrong in the business of Kimberly Quinn’s nanny’s visa, there are other questions. When the story of his affair, told in an oddly polite way, broke in the News of the World in August, why did it appear at that time, in that form and in a newspaper from the Murdoch stable? Did Mr Blunkett have nothing whatever to do with any of this? And why would a man determined to avoid public attention in these matters file court papers detailing his meetings with Mrs Quinn in order to establish his paternity of the children, particularly when it now appears he probably knew the paternity anyway? Privacy, here, has become a tool, not a principle.
Charles Moore
The Spectator’s Notes | 4 December 2004
It is depressing that the Conservatives are putting up a feeble resistance to identity cards
issue 04 December 2004
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in