Comments on: David Blunkett/Alan Budd Review http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143 Every day the Prime Minister's Spokesman meets a small coterie of political journalists known as 'the lobby' for a topical chat, or 'briefing'. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:29:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Michael Lipton http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2415 Michael Lipton Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:27:14 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2415 Is there some way in which members of the public can communicate, to Sir Alan Budd's enquiry, matters of fact or logic that may be important? (Of course,and the time of the enquiry should not be wasted on them.) My point is purely logical. If what Mrs. Quinn says is partly or wholly true, then she is a wholly untrustworthy witness on matters in dispute with Mr. Blunkett. Here is the reason. On her own account, Mrs. Quinn (a)Repeatedly obtained personal advantage by asking Mr. Blunkett to act improperly, and then (b)Without admitting either impropriety or a crisis of conscience, now exposes Mr. Blunkett to scandal, for helping her as she herself had asked. No person who acts as under (a) repeatedly and without qualms - and then under (b) seeks to harm her helper for acts she had solicited - is trustworthy on any matter concerning her relationship with her helper. Therefore, the truth of her evidence would imply that it cannot be trusted; as in the famous 'Liar Paradox' of Epimenides, her evidence is worthless. Is there some way in which members of the public can communicate, to Sir Alan Budd’s enquiry, matters of fact or logic that may be important? (Of course,and the time of the enquiry should not be wasted on them.)

My point is purely logical. If what Mrs. Quinn says is partly or wholly true, then she is a wholly untrustworthy witness on matters in dispute with Mr. Blunkett. Here is the reason.

On her own account, Mrs. Quinn
(a)Repeatedly obtained personal advantage by asking Mr. Blunkett to act improperly, and then (b)Without admitting either impropriety or a crisis of conscience, now exposes Mr. Blunkett to scandal, for helping her as she herself had asked.

No person who acts as under (a) repeatedly and without qualms - and then under (b) seeks to harm her helper for acts she had solicited - is trustworthy on any matter concerning her relationship with her helper. Therefore, the truth of her evidence would imply that it cannot be trusted; as in the famous ‘Liar Paradox’ of Epimenides, her evidence is worthless.

]]> By: Backword Dave http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2399 Backword Dave Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:19:05 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2399 I love that last bit about the PMOS having to bite his own lip very hard. I love that last bit about the PMOS having to bite his own lip very hard.

]]> By: Mr Pooter http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2398 Mr Pooter Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:08:13 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/11/30/1143#comment-2398 Didn't one of the Guinness defendants offer to repay the \xA35m when he was caught? Didn't he think it was an okay practice? Didn't he go to jail for theft? Is adultery impossible in the PC world? I mean, if your spouse is my spouse where's the problem? Can single people claim married allowances because they are deeply involved with someone else's wife? All those meals out, shiny gifts and afternoon hotel bills do mount up. Didn’t one of the Guinness defendants offer to repay the \xA35m when he was caught? Didn’t he think it was an okay practice? Didn’t he go to jail for theft?

Is adultery impossible in the PC world? I mean, if your spouse is my spouse where’s the problem?

Can single people claim married allowances because they are deeply involved with someone else’s wife? All those meals out, shiny gifts and afternoon hotel bills do mount up.

]]>