From Victor Black Sir: I was surprised to see Matthew Parris (Another voice, 18/25 December), normally so perceptive and original, following other commentators in missing the main point in the ‘Blunkett affair’. It is neither the extramarital sex nor the minor misuse of ministerial influence which is the really appalling aspect of this story.
As a former juvenile court magistrate, I believe that in such situations it is the interests of the child that should be paramount. But they are hardly mentioned in this case. How can a child avoid being damaged by being made to see a relative stranger against the wishes of the people he regards as parents? What is it to be told?
Blunkett’s insistence on having access seems such an incredible example of extreme selfishness that I am quite unable to feel any regret that he has lost his job. That he should then depart with high-flown moral claims is ludicrous.