David Blunkett: Blind To Justice, Threat To Freedom


I don't like Blunkett, who seems to me to make Mussolini look like a soft hearted liberal, and who is possibly the most right wing, fascist Home Secretary Britain has ever had. He has taken away both our freedom and our security. He is, I believe, the most oppressive Home Secretary Britain has ever had.

(I'm sure Blunkett won't mind my being honest about him. He can be extremely undiplomatic himself. When he heard that Dr Harold Shipman had committed suicide in hospital Blunkett's response was to feel like cracking open a bottle of champagne. `You wake up and you receive a call telling you Shipman has topped himself and you think, is it too early to open a bottle?' he told journalists during a lunch. This hardly seemed to me to be the sort of tone one would expect from a Home Secretary responsible for the safe keeping of prison inmates. We do not hang prisoners in the UK at the moment and as far as I know we do not encourage them to hang themselves. An offer of resignation might have been more appropriate. Shipman may have been a mass murderer but he did leave a grieving family.)

Naturally, I admire Blunkett's ambition and determination (though to be fair, Dr Harold Shipman had both those qualities too) but I can't help suppress my concern at the thought of a blind man taking a leading part in running Britain.

It is politically incorrect to mention Blunkett's blindness (though I do sometimes wonder whether he was made Home Secretary because of it rather than despite it) but Blunkett's blindness does matter and is relevant.

My fear is that Blunkett must rely for information on the people around him. How can he study books, pamphlets and articles which aren't in braille or read to him? I often send copies of my books to all MPs. I know from the mail I receive that many of them read the books and benefit from them. I have never received an acknowledgement from Blunkett but then he won't have been able to read the book will he?

Because he is blind Blunkett must rely on his aides to tell him what is happening and to give him information. He can listen to the radio. But he can't watch the TV. He is denied the opportunity to study body language. He can't look into people's eyes. When he signs official papers someone else has to tell him what he is signing and show him where to sign. He cannot possibly know what he is signing unless they are in braille.

Now that we have a blind Home Secretary, there are plans to introduce blind magistrates too.

If we have blind magistrates, why not deaf ones? And dumb ones. Where do we draw the line? The extra cost of providing evidence in different formats will be prohibitive. How can defendants possibly get a fair trial when magistrates cannot possibly examine the evidence thoroughly?

The politically correct argue that anyone must be allowed to do any job - regardless of any handicap or disability.

I disagree. I think there are some jobs that people with handicaps cannot do fairly and independently.

Appointing blind Ministers and magistrates may be politically correct but I think it's as daft as having blind firemen, surgeons or pilots.

Would an advocate of political correctness be prepared to sit in a plane being flown by a blind pilot? Would you allow a blind surgeon or a spastic to operate on your brain? Should doctors suffering from Alzheimer's Disease be allowed to practice? Would the advocates of political correctness sit in a bus driven by someone with an IQ of 60?

The trouble is that no one will dare even to discuss this issue because to do so is politically incorrect.


Taken from Why Everything Is Going To Get Worse Before It Gets Better (And What You Can Do About It) by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books. Available at the webshop on this site, at other web based bookshops and at all good terrestial bookshops.


Copyright Vernon Coleman 2004