Forum menu
ransos - Member
The child's suffering is the result of their illicit union.
No it isn't.
Explain.
It's great how politicians are so in love with their own egos that they actually think the public care if they have an affair and therefore feel they must resign.
I think you are forgetting this happened in 1983 and not today, social views and norms have changed dramatically over that time.
I've read the article. Can't say I'm particularly upset to see the back of that particular cockstand.
the daughter's home and school were not made public due to the IRA bombing that happened in the same period - at the time the MP was seen as a "star" performer with the consequence that by extension any attack on his daughter and the mother would have represented a major publicity coup.
Two problems with that:
1. His wife and other children were not kept from public view.
2. The Good Friday agreement happened long before the expiry of the injunction.
Unnecessary suffering created by two adults who could not restraint themselves that's my view. 😮
Portillo singing his praises on the radio yesterday. How could you associate with such a hideous man?
And how could such an injunction be passed. Someone should be held culpable for it!
Thanks for that cheddarchallenged. It was difficult to believe that the info really wouldn't have got out unless there was some back story
Doesn't make him less of a **** for not contacting the daughter but helps makes sense a bit
[i]Explain.[/i]
Clearly the birth of the Child was the result of the illicit union, but it doesn't follow that a Man should then abandon the Child for the rest of his life. People make mistakes, but its how they deal with them that paints the whole picture.
According to reports in the press, over the many years of their affair, Cecil repeatedly promised to marry Sarah Keays and leave his wife. Once she was pregnant, he dumped her pronto. Utter sleazeball, in spite of being from Lancashire.
ctk - MemberPortillo singing his praises on the radio yesterday. How could you associate with such a hideous man?
He doesn't have any choice in who sings his praises, he's dead.
Portillo singing his praises on the radio yesterday. How could you associate with such a hideous man?
Is everyone in your work whiter than white?
Wasn't the initial injunction "silencing the mother" because she did a kiss and tell expose to the times in return for a large wedge of cash, and then later tried to go on TV in another 'expose'?
Also the court case many years later when things came out revealed that despite not seeing her, he had always contributed financially.
Is everyone in your work whiter than white?
I'm sure we've all done things of which we are not proud. What's your point?
Wasn't the initial injunction "silencing the mother" because she did a kiss and tell expose to the times in return for a large wedge of cash, and then later tried to go on TV in another 'expose'?Also the court case many years later when things came out revealed that despite not seeing her, he had always contributed financially.
Who was asking about the Tory apologists?
Guess he's a Tory scumbag so it's OK, in this instance, for all of us to be on our judgmental high horses
But....
What if your wife said ... "Do one ,me and your other 3 daughter are off !! WE will never to be contact YOU again, if you continue to have this other woman and the child in your life .... There's not enough room for all of us"
What would you choose ??
Course that could just have been the story at the time ... or by the wife association with our Hero scumbag in this thread... I guess we can keep on being judgemental and have her down for being just as bad ...??
Of course ... that my have just been the story told at the time or that makes his wife just as horrid as he is ... ?
Here comes another one...
Not me
I just got accused of being judgemental once.
But that was against a northern rugby league player not a Tory ... so STW was probably right
🙂
I just got accused of being judgemental once.
Parkinson behaved despicably. If you choose to characterize that as being judgemental, that's fine with me.
Of course he behaved despicably - but, as so often in life, there appears to have been more than one side to this story, that doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article.
Of course he behaved despicably - but, as so often in life, there appears to have been more than one side to this story, that doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article.
I don't think anything happened that justified his behaviour, do you?
And they're here...
Having not known either of them personally, nor been there to know the ongoing so that led to them having an affair and getting pregnant, I would find it impossible to comment. There were certianly suggestions over the years that she had got pregnant knowingly and demanded he left his wife, then gone to the newspapers when he didn't, but I could only put that in the 'rumours' bracket.
Having not known either of them personally, nor been there to know the ongoing so that led to them having an affair and getting pregnant, I would find it impossible to comment. There were certianly suggestions over the years that she had got pregnant knowingly and demanded he left his wife, then gone to the newspapers when he didn't, but I could only put that in the 'rumours' bracket.
And there were suggestions that he promised to leave his wife and marry his secretary. There were also suggestions that he tried to make her have an abortion, and haggled over every penny of maintenance.
As you say, these are all rumours. What we know is that he took out an injunction against his disabled daughter, and never, ever saw her. Anyone with an ounce of humanity would find that to be beyond the pale.
Of course he behaved despicably - but, as so often in life, there appears to have been more than one side to this story, that doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article.
Instead of demonstating that he was more of a man by rising above her rumoured behaviour and demands, he made the choices that we can read about here and acted, as you say, despicably.
You're right, he clearly needs defending.
He disowned her not because she was disabled, but because he is a shallow, grasping, sociopathic, heartless, self-absorbed egotistical bastard, who fancied blaming someone else for his own faults, then punishing them!!
What you mean is. He's a Tory
at the time the MP was seen as a "star" performer with the consequence that by extension any attack on his daughter and the mother would have represented a major publicity coup.
what load of old codswallop the injunction was 1993 and he stood down as an MP in 1992.
So who's winning at the moment, chewkw or ninfan?
I imagine all the Tory apologists for Cecil would adopt the same 'we shouldn't judge' philosophy if they were reading about a premiership footballer pulling the same stunt?
Yet here we have someone who's managed to make John Terry look morally upstanding.
And representing a party that never been shy of lofty self-righteous moralising
Do as I say, not as I do
How the hell did the horrible barsteward and his legal team ever get the courts to agree to this injunction?
Unbelievable.
I hope his daughter over time comes to the conclusion that it was her good fortune never to have met the pr*ck!
And there were suggestions that he promised to leave his wife and marry his secretary. There were also suggestions that he tried to make her have an abortion,
Isn't this pretty normal behaviour for blokes having affairs? More recently Prescott's mistress admitted having to take the morning after pill.
How the hell did the horrible barsteward and his legal team ever get the courts to agree to this injunction?
seems to be the same team handling his post death PR, the man's a saint!
[img] 
[/img]
How the hell did the horrible barsteward and his legal team ever get the courts to agree to this injunction?
As often, it seems more nuanced than has been reported, here is an article written by Joshua Rosenberg in 2002 who is probably the preeminent legal journalist and has recently been made an honorary QC.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381755/Keeping-mum-over-Flora-Keays.html ]Article here[/url]
Rockape63 - Member
Explain.
Clearly the birth of the Child was the result of the illicit union, but it doesn't follow that a Man should then abandon the Child for the rest of his life. People make mistakes, but its how they deal with them that paints the whole picture.
You don't sayyy ! That man should not abandon that child ... Ya ... should not. But he did as he did not want to be the father so should the woman be cleared about that before getting pregnant?
He might be the biological father but he is certainly not the "father".
How about those semen donors? They are fathers aren't they and they are abandoning their children aren't they? In fact they knowingly abandon them.
aracer - Member
So who's winning at the moment, chewkw or ninfan?
Me! I always win! Obvious is obvious! 😆
binners - MemberI imagine all the Tory apologists for Cecil ...
I ain't one but rather think it takes two to tango.
Clearly the birth of the Child was the result of the illicit union, but it doesn't follow that a Man should then abandon the Child for the rest of his life.
Why not, people have their kids adopted, this is no different. Or Tom Jones's natural son, or Susan Jameson's natural son.
The injunction would have protected the daughter from press attention.
I'm not sure having nothing to do with offspring is unusual at all. We should feel sorry for these people, none of them want to be in the situation. (Yes, I accept it's their fault.)
I ain't one but rather think it takes two to tango.
Yet apparently only one to deal with the results. I'd imagine if talking about someone on a council estate doing the same, then words like '****less' would be being liberally thrown around by the very same people singing glowing eulogies to 'Lord Parkinson' today
Clare Short...
A court system failed a mother and daughter. Silencing the press is one thing, silencing a mother is quite another. Sexist, misogynistic court decision IMO.
The injunction [s]would have[/s] protected [s]the daughter[/s] cecil from press attention.
fify
Sexist, misogynistic court decision IMO.
Yep.
Same goes for the prick himself and his apologists, though none have surprised me in the slightest.
****less is quite long way from "good riddance" when he died.
I assume CP paid maintainance, I can't see how that would have been avoidable.
Are people saying that children of cheating politicians should be exposed to the media?
Strikes me a media black out until the age of 18 is the right course of action. Of course it upset the Daily Mail - they want to sell the photos!
Are people saying that [s]children of[/s] cheating politicians should be exposed to the media?
yes
I assume CP paid maintainence
Youve not actually read the article then? Because you're crediting him with more morals than he has, I'm aftaid.
He did eventually, only when legally forced to do so
He did eventually, only when legally forced to do so
Again, you can picture the blue-rinsers and red-slacks wearers who are masturbating over his obituaries whip themselves into an equivalent state of tumescence were it somebody on a council estate doing the same thing. His apologists aren't behaving surprisingly in the slightest.