On page one I thought this thread would die a death due to universal agreement that this man was an utter c***. Sadly the usual suspects didn’t disappoint in their ability to defend the indefensible. Jamba’s absence is notable though. Either he hasn’t seen it yet or he doesn’t want to be stained by association. Hopefully the latter.

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.

oh please, is that the best you’ve got, lawyer non-committal, pathetic.

dazh – Member
On page one I thought this thread would die a death due to universal agreement that this man was an utter c***. Sadly the usual suspects didn’t disappoint in their ability to defend the indefensible.

He is but so is the woman that got pregnant by him then to bring a child into this world that way. 😮

Here’s a thought…

Maybe the detail is irrelevant, as it is a grey area, and thus open to interpretation. And the school, or anyone else’s interpretation would be open to legal challenge by a very rich, powerful man with a taste for litigation and some very expensive legal representation, and who also seems to be an vindictive, uncaring sociopath, who operates in a moral vacuum. Or to put it another way…. a total and complete ****!!!

On page one I thought this thread would die a death due to universal agreement that this man was an utter c***. Sadly the usual suspects didn’t disappoint in their ability to define the story along party political lines

An alternative interpretation.

Jamba’s absence is notable though

Missing him?? The chief’s absence is also noteworthy – a coincidence?

I am definitely sure there are plenty of Lefty-bashers here too … 😆

Where is Junkyard? Hello!

defend the indefensible

The two legal decisions are pretty easy to defend. Nobody’s going to argue this girl should have had her face all over the Daily Mail before she was 18.

What about the rest of his kids? Other famous peoples kids?

Sadly the usual suspects didn’t disappoint in their ability to define the story along party political lines

Nothing much to do with political affiliation. Unless of course you think the prime minister and chancellor of the day and a host of other tory ex-politicians singing his praises is irrelevant?

No really 😀

And the school, or anyone else’s interpretation would be open to legal challenge by a very rich, powerful man with a taste for litigation and some very expensive legal representation, and who also seems to be an vindictive, uncaring sociopath, who operates in a moral vacuum.

So, Parkinson, who chose to have nothing to do with his daughter, was so interested in stopping his daughter having a laugh that he put pressure on the school to stop his daughter doing school activities and having her photo taken out of sheer vindictiveness.

…and he also managed to convince two different judges that they should also be vindictive towards a handicapped child.

Then when she reached 18 he suddenly stopped being vindictive and let her do and say whatever she liked without taking any action whatsoever.

Interesting theory.

I’m not defending Cecil Parkinson’s behaviour as a father, but if you read both Telegraph articles referenced earlier in the thread, the claims made in the first one don’t actually seem to be consistent with the legal analysis presented in the second article.

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.

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.

What about the rest of his kids? Other famous peoples kids?

Yup, if the press were after a famous person’s under 18yo kid they’d be able to get an injunction too – that’s what they’re for.

Jack Straw’s son had similar IIRC.

Loads here:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/08/privacy.medialaw

Jamba’s absence is notable though

In Cambodia, leaving for Southern Laos on Thursday, 7 hours by bus as it happens – not an stw forum contribution friendly trip. More to see and do here than waste time on the web. Can’t get back to sleep after being woken by Swiss mate calling to offer me a rest of ski season apartment rental in Morzine for £1300. Anyway there’s the personal update

Lots going on last week eh ? EU minsiter said today 60% of asylum seekers are inelligable as thry are economic migrants piggy backing on the flow through turkey. Aid worker stabbed to death by 15yr old asylum seeker in Sweden. Rumours that Schengen will be suspended for 2 years and/or Greeks excluded as they aren’t doing enough to Police their borders. Many strike in France today complete with tear gas against taxi drivers.

Must get back to sleep, guide arrives at 7am

BTW @chew akways wins as he doesn’t pick any atguments with me 😆

Couldn’t resist it

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 – see here.

One doesn’t trump the other.

jambalaya – Member

BTW @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.