Forum menu
So Cecil Parkinson may well have behaved reprehensibly by not acknowledging his daughter, but some of the claims about the injunction and its effects simply appear to be wrong.
Which was my only purpose in posting it. I think CP's behaviour was very poor but one can only speculate about the reasons for that, but sadly these political affairs seem to often cause an awful lot of damage to the innocent and the less innocent.
He was however a highly effective politician until his career was blown off course, even the New Statesmen agrees with that - [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/forgotten-cecil-parkinson ]see here[/url].
One doesn't trump the other.
jambalaya - MemberBTW @chew akways wins as he doesn't pick any atguments with me
Couldn't resist it
That is because your logic sounds fine so far (to me) ... 😆
According to the Official Solicitor, the original injunction prevented the press from identifying Flora, and was obtained with the involvement of both parents. Keays subsequently ran into problems with a second injunction which was applied when she wanted to make a television programme about her daughter's medical problems, but that injunction was obtained by the Offical Solicitor, not Cecil Parkinson. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Flora was actually or theoretically prevented from taking part in school activities, etc by the injunctions, but the media were prevented from identifying her by publishing pictures or reports of school activities.
That's my reading of the article. Seems to me the judges had the welfare of the girl in mind and the judgements seem perfectly reasonable and consistent with what I'd want for my child.