At the risk of blowing my own trumpet (risk is the wrong word; I am indeed blowing my own trumpet), today's papers take their lead from the extract from my biography of David Blunkett published yesterday in the Mail (and not, I'm afraid, on line). I am unable to reprint my story here, but if you read some of the links you'll get the gist of it.

The Sunday Telegraph is the most interesting of all. As the Quinn camp's favoured outlet, I expected an attempted demolition job on my revelations. The only thing they take exception to, however, is my story that her son shares the same middle name as Blunkett's grandfather:

One of her friends said that his insistence that he would not talk about his private life also seemed at odds with yesterday's edition of The Daily Mail, which contained a detailed account of the intimate relationship between Mr Blunkett and Mrs Quinn written by his approved biographer Stephen Pollard, who referred to "hours of candid interviews with him".

Meanwhile a confidant of Mrs Quinn rejected a claim in Mr Pollard's account emanating from the Blunkett camp that her son's middle-name, Sanders, was given to him because it is a Blunkett family name. "William was named after Kimberly's grandfather, Charles Sanders," said the confidant, adding that Mrs Quinn discovered only after the event that Mr Blunkett's paternal grandfather was called Sanders Blunkett.

That's not, however, what I wrote. I chose my words carefully, and in this increasingly murky saga, it's important that words retain their proper meaning. The fact is that they share the same name, regardless of competing accounts of how that name was arrived at.

But it's fascinating that that's the only matter of fact which the Quinn camp can find to criticise in my account (especially given that, as a statement of fact, I am right in asserting that the two have the same name). Fascinating, but not surprising, since I know that my account is entirely correct.

A further story in the Sunday Telegraph also makes reference to my book:

The saga dragged on painfully through the week until, yesterday, Mr Blunkett's fightback began in earnest. Using a friendly journalist, Stephen Pollard, who is writing the Home Secretary's biography, and a friendly newspaper, the Daily Mail, Mr Blunkett's camp came out with a clearly authorised account of his relationship with Mrs Quinn and the terrible effects of its breakdown. Mr Blunkett, it was claimed, spent five days at Mrs Quinn's bedside at the time of William's birth. There had been not one but two DNA tests, both of which had established that Mr Blunkett was William's father, it was alleged. Furthermore, the Home Secretary's side claimed, Mr Blunkett was not the only night phone pest in the relationship. Mrs Quinn, they said, called Mr Blunkett up to seven times a day as recently as August 2004, "constantly seeking reassurance" about the future.

I should point out that nothing I write on this, or on any aspect of Mr Blunkett's life, is 'authorised'. I have made my own enquiries and chosen my own words, under no one else's control.

The Observer also draws heavily on my account, here and here:

Friends disclosed this weekend that the Home Secretary had ignored pleas from colleagues to defer his battle for access - and had been preparing to discuss his love life in public for the first time next month, when a biography is due to be published.

Biographer Stephen Pollard has had extensive conversations with Blunkett and his friends and - following the original revelation of the affair with Kimberly Fortier in the summer - has added a detailed account of the affair. One source close to the Home Secretary said he had already been booked for chatshows at the end of January, accepting there would be 'interest' after the publication of the book.

Quinn said his wife had no access to a TV or radio and had not read the newspapers. He denied claims the couple's friends were spinning against Blunkett.

The Sunday Times also takes much of its focus from my account - which it mangles. It manages not to read properly two very straightforward sentences about how Blunkett first encountered Fortier. The Sunday Times says that he heard her on Poetry Please on Radio 4. He did not, and I did not write that he did. It's a relatively trivial matter, but it is indicative of the errors and misstatements which bedevil reporting of the broader story.

Watch this space...