Maybe less a whitewash, than a failure to go the extra mile.

Blunkett was found to have done either one of two things: either he fast tracked a visa application of the nanny of his mistress, or he simply brought it in as an example of the failings of the immigration service. Flip a coin and you decide which is the most likely scenario.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302891.html
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4112109.stm
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4115161.stm

When the story first broke, Blunkett and his aides were all of one view. The documentation which forced Blunkett to resign showed this collective view to be false. Were they all suffering from collective amnesia, or was there a conspiracy at the heart of government?

We don't know, as no attempt was made to find out.

Where are the missing e-mails? No attempt has been made to analyse computer systems and backups to unearth deleted files.

If the boss ask questions of a job, is it left to languish in the queue? Of course not. Thus Blunkett did not have to ask for the visa application to be fast tracked. An inquiry from his office would have been sufficient to ensure it jumped to the front of the queue.

The mistress of Blunkett was parting her legs for more than Blunkett. Was this merely for a few favours, for Blunkett to be cast aside when he was of no more worth? It increasingly looks that way.

Michael Hesseltine not so long ago said that when government launches an inquiry it does so knowing what the result will be and a chairman is appointed to achieve that result.

Why did Blunkett resign? Did he not understand the purpose of a government inquiry?

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302891.html

Blunkett has the reputation for being thick. Is he really that thick?