[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srehNC66uTc[/video]

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 ‘feckless’ 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 would have protected the daughter 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.

Feckless 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 children of 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.

Parkinson was exposed to the media and had to resign. All the injunction meant was the press couldn’t go after the girl.

I find it very hard to believe he refused to pay maintainance without a court case – maintainance isn’t optional. Perhaps there was a dispute about how much maintainance was appropriate.

Perhaps someone can answer:

How is this different to having her adopted?

Is letting the press go after children a good thing? Would anyone on this thread have made a different decision to the court on identifying the child?

nced 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.

Rosenberg’s a tedious brown noser.

It’s a funny old view from planet Tory

Cripes, you learn something every day on here don’t ya’s.

I’m not going to defend what I think was/is and aborhant situation, handled with what I think is a selfish motive, but..
Well, he may have been acting with the best of reasons for the Girl, his Daughter and possibly the Mistress too..

We all know “justice by media” mantra now, well maybe he wanted to protect them both from all that.. I dunno. just me speculating.

As is, I hope both the Daughter and Mother have some recompense in the finality of it all.

All the injunction meant was the press couldn’t go after the girl.

yeah foremost in his mind was the girl he never acknowledged.

Freedom of speech IMO includes any adult being able to talk to anyone they choose about things that concern them, including their own children.

UK gagging orders go far enough to be a breach of human rights IMO.

Bless him and his courageous quest for justice, to save that poor girl from media intrusion in her life.

Such a thoughtful selfless act. He really is a saint!

Perhaps someone can answer:

How is this different to having her adopted?

Some questions are so silly, they’re just not worth answering.

His apologists are behaving exactly how one would expect.

Humour me, DD. Explain.

How is this different to having her adopted?

not sure Sara Keays would have been too happy had cecil put her daughter up for adoption.

You really need it explaining? Seriously?

The actions of Cecil Parkinson never for a single solitary second took into consideration anything other than the best interests of Cecil Parkinson.

But then if you were looking to find an incident that so completely personified and embodied the ideology him and his party so religiously espoused, this is it.

I’m alright……

In France she would have an equal share of his estate.

The questions:

1. What have we learned from the episode of this bloke called Cecil?

2. What have we learned from having an affair(s) with married or unmarried person(s)?

3. What have we learned about having carnal pleasure without protective measures?

Over to you … answer in that order please.

That there is lots of prejudice around?

How is this different to having her adopted?

Humour me, DD. Explain.

You really need it explaining? Seriously?

Yes, humour me. Explain the difference.

teamhurtmore – Member
That there is lots of prejudice around?

FFS! There are three questions! 😮

You need to number your answer!

If you haven’t got your head round it already, then I think it’d be like trying to deconstruct a joke to explain why it’s funny

An ultimately futile and pointless exercise for everyone involved

Yes, humour me. Explain the difference.

I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think that adopted kids are slapped with any banning orders on what they can say or that they are not allowed to be included in school activities, have photos taken with classmates or have academic achievements ignored. I might be wrong on this. Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s the same.

1) chewkw always wins
2) chewkw always wins
3) chewkw always wins

binners – Member
If you haven’t got your head round it already, then I think it’d be like trying to deconstruct a joke to explain why it’s funny

An ultimately futile and pointless exercise for everyone involved

Not funny at all if you are referring to me that is because I want to understand your rationale and values.

That three questions are to find out how you think.

Answer the questions in that particular order please. 😮

aracer – Member
1) chewkw always wins
2) chewkw always wins
3) chewkw always wins

FFS! 😆

I think the judge got it right, the girl should have been left alone until 18 to decide for herself if she wanted media attention. If the judge wanted to protect Parkinson he left it a bit late all the details except the identity of the child were in the public domain and Parkinson had long since resigned. Hard to have sympathy for Parkinson, but the judge who made this call got it 100pc right.

Nobody can explain why it would have been ok to have an abortion, ok to have the baby adopted, but not ok to leave the baby in the care of its mother.

I doubt people would have been slapping Parkinson on the back if he’d left his family and lived as a proper father to his new daughter. I suspect he’d have been accused of deserting his family for his new woman. (Fair enough – that’s the price of cheating – but let’s not pretend there was an honorable or popular way out of the situation he got himself into.)

What’s it like, being you?

what they can say or that they are not allowed to be included in school activities, have photos taken with classmates or have academic achievements ignored.

Joshua Rosenberg article

Did the court orders prevent Flora from appearing in school photographs, taking part in school shows or having her achievements posted on school notice boards? Miss Keays apparently thinks so – but it is hard to see why.
The first injunction, issued against the world at large, restrained the media from identifying Flora or her school. Simply taking a picture of Flora would not have breached the order, although publishing it in the media with an identifying caption would clearly have done so.
It is also difficult to see how taking part in normal school activities could possibly have broken the law. Information about Flora or semi-public appearances by her might have made it easier for the media to write stories about her, but responsible publishers do not deliberately put themselves in contempt of court.

So this seems to have been an exaggerated interpretation of the combined injunction – obviously if CP had taken some interest in his child he might have able to correct this misinterpretation.

outofbreath – Member

I think the judge got it right, the girl should have been left alone until 18 to decide for herself if she wanted media attention. If the judge wanted to protect Parkinson he left it a bit late all the details except the identity of the child were in the public domain and Parkinson had long since resigned. Hard to have sympathy for Parkinson, but the judge who made this call got it 100pc right.

Nobody can explain why it would have been ok to have an abortion, ok to have the baby adopted, but not ok to leave the baby in the care of its mother.

I doubt people would have been slapping Parkinson on the back if he’d left his family and lived as a proper father to his new daughter. I suspect he’d have been accused of deserting his family for his new woman. (Fair enough – that’s the price of cheating – but let’s not pretend there was an honorable or popular way out of the situation he got himself into.)
Golly! 😯

binners – Member
What’s it like, being you?

Me? Me just trying to understand people. Seriously. 😮

Six billions plus of them each shouting uniqueness so imaging how long will that take me to understand them all … 😯

I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think that adopted kids are slapped with any banning orders on what they can say

Really? I’d think any child of a notorious parent would be given exactly the same protection from public scrutiny as this girl got and rightly so.

or that they are not allowed to be included in school activities, have photos taken with classmates or have academic achievements ignored.

None of these were banned. Yes, her school photos (rightly) couldn’t have gone on the front page of the Sun but there was nothing in the injunction to prevent any of those things. Quite the opposite – press restrictions were to *allow* her to take part in school activities which wouldn’t have been possible with paperazzi all over the place.

Perhaps you could explain why you think it’s the same.

It’s giving away your child and never seeing it. The same as adoption. Now you tell me how it’s worse than adoption.

What’s it like, being you?

Because the mum wanted to keep the child?

Did the court orders prevent Flora from appearing in school photographs, taking part in school shows or having her achievements posted on school notice boards? Miss Keays apparently thinks so – but it is hard to see why.

so he doesn’t actually know for sure then. if he did it would read….

Did the court orders prevent Flora from appearing in school photographs, taking part in school shows or having her achievements posted on school notice boards? Miss Keays apparently thinks so – no it didn’t.

so he doesn’t actually know for sure then. if he did it would read….

It is pretty rare for any lawyer, and Rosenberg is a lawyer by training, to be categorical about their interpretation of a judgement. It is pretty clear what he thinks is the better interpretation.