UKC

How will he be remembered, do we think?

Nothing but a sh*t who abandoned his child, or will there be anything else?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A chartered accountant by training, he entered Parliament in 1970 and was appointed a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s first government in 1979. He successfully managed the Conservative Party's 1983 election campaign, and was rewarded with an appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Parkinson subsequently served as Secretary of State for Energy, and later Transport. He resigned that office in 1990, on the same day that Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister. He was created Baron Parkinson in 1992 and served in the House of Lords until his retirement in September 2015.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Just another Tory tosser.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


That's about it for me. Vile tory hypocrite.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Well, I must admit I'd forgotten about that element of his career/life till you mentioned it.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Margaret Thatcher regarded him as a fellow working class hero.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I always associate his name with Piper Alpha

In reply to deepsoup: yes. Self serving shit who cast his disabled child off like dead skin. I'm not mourning

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A man for whom the word "bounder" was coined.

A role for which Edward Fox was made.

But a person who almost certainly had a good side.

In reply to Fraser:

How? Having a child after and 10-year relationship and then acting like an utter shit was his greatest achievement. And it amused me no end that the BBC radio journalists had cracked by 7pm yesterday when they led the story of his death with his horrendous behaviour rather than the other mighty deeds.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think the treatment of his daughter by Sarah Keays was the measure of the man.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


were there any ? all I can remember is the stuff related to Sarah Keays & his smarmy appearance on the TV as one of Thatcher's henchmen

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


If only he had just abandoned her, that Mary Bell Order was a massive abuse of power and a pretty sick way to treat any human being.

In reply to Doug:

I suspect he was one of Thatcher's more competent henchmen, but I'm not sure tha qualifies as great deeds.

In reply to The New NickB:


It was dreadful

In reply to Doug:

Say what you like but at least we know that he liked grass on the pitch.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Shortly after her birth, Flora developed serious health problems and Parkinson applied for and won a court injunction that was almost unprecedented in British law.

It forbade anyone, including Sara, from speaking of Flora publicly or doing almost anything that could lead to her identity being revealed. It prevented even Flora talking of her life.

So far-reaching were its powers that Flora's schools have had to go to extreme lengths to conceal her identity - thus she has never been photographed alongside her classmates or been allowed to take part in any school activity."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12120477/The-only-pro...

I honestly did not know about this (I know, sheltered life and all that) and now wish that was still the case! I am not surprised that a person could be like this, but I am appalled the law supported him. It is just so sad.

In reply to mountainbagger:

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to the legal grounds on which he got such an abhorrent injunction ?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I noticed that alongside the Telegraph article outlining his odious behaviour towards Flora, his obituary listed three daughters - and still omitted Flora.

In reply to mountainbagger:


Really?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Sleep with Secretary 15 years younger, promise to marry her, get her pregnant, suggest an abortion, cast her and the child adrift even when the child has overwhelming health issues......
Emerge (relatively) unscathed, go back to forgiving wife and lead comfortable life of a millionaire in the Lords.

What sort of values did this odious creep have?

I hope that Sarah and Flora can breathe a little easier now that he's gone and enjoy precious time together away from media intrusion

Revolting man

In reply to Tall Clare:

The Telegraph article is from 2002, note Flora is 18 there.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Ah - well observed. I missed that bit.

In reply to Babika:

>What sort of values did this odious creep have?

Tory values.
There was a thread, not so log ago, entitled "What is so evil about the Conservatives?" There are many of us who grew up under thatcher. We not only saw the tories doing bad things, but taking an almost sadistic pleasure in them. It seemed to be one long gravy train for the rich, inept and corrupt.

I wonder if, on his death bed, he saw the error of his ways and bunged a few quid her way in his will? Or if instead, he bounced his millions through off shore companies and other vehicles to minimise the tax paid. One last chance to hurt his daughter and screw over the country, for old times sake.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Mates in High places

In reply to Mike Highbury:


No longer subject to the Mary Bell at 18.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


bloody hell. I wasnt really aware of that since it was in the headlines when i was young.
Having read that telegraph article only real thought is utter and complete contempt

In reply to KevinD:

Ditto, well said.

For chairman of a party that bangs on about individual responsibility he was pretty good at shirking his own.

In reply to KevinD:

And how the hell did he get such a court ruling!?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

They lived not far from my aunt. I think I met her at least once.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I used to work in civil engineering with a guy called Roger, who apropos of nothing, was both incredibly well-spoken and incredibly racist. Anyway, he was one a few members of staff chosen to line up and dutifully shake the visiting dignitary's hand and bow deferentially when said dignitary came to open the latest major project. Chosen dignitary on this occasion was none other than the now late Cecil Parkinson. As he approached racist Rog, he was greeted with a cheery "Hello Cecil, how's the baby?"

I don't think Roger was selected again...

In reply to MG:


As someone said up thread I guess it comes down to friends in high places. Completely appalling.
Seems to make super injunctions appear lightweight.

In reply to mountainbagger:


You'll be telling us you only know the certified liar and cheat Neil Hamilton from chatshow appearances next!

In reply to dread-i:



Beat me too it!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Anyone else noticed that although there are two or three articles about Cecil on the Guardian website, its impossible to view the few comments apparently made, or to make a comment.

In reply to Doug:

yes, I noticed that, however I had a peek at the mail which did have comments, and they weren't all that impressed with him, but the Guardian are quite risk averse, surprisingly.

In reply to toad:
But why note e.g. '5 comments' at the top of the page but then hide them ?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/top-10-most-shocking-labour-party-scandals/7527.article
"Let him who is without sin..."

In reply to NamelessCwm:

I see what you did there, Mr Shapps.
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/10-most-controver...

In reply to MG:


The main basis for that kind of injunction is protection of the minor. It's not surprising one was obtained, though of course the press didn't like it. It was after all obtained with SK's consent; I think her later objections to it probably coincided with the publication of her book, though I might be wrong.

Contrary to the opinion of some of the more tinfoil posters, having friends in high places doesn't do you much good in law courts. That's why the Government so often loses, and the Duke of Westminster. Having money, on the other hand, is obviously helpful. It's a mistake to confuse the two.

jcm

In reply to Doug:


probably because the comments were switched on to begin with and then the moderators said "are you having a f*cking laugh" and disabled them after only a couple of comments were left.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Child protection order then, seeing as the kid was vulnerable.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Ah! That does seem a rather important point, and not mentioned in the articles linked above. So CP was not a *total* shit?

In reply to MG:


No, I think he still was.

In reply to nastyned:

Seems that most of us have agreed on the noun? It looks as though we only need to settle the adjective?... I'll plump for 'utter'.

In reply to MG:

Sure he was. The main reason for an injunction like that might usually be the protection of a minor, but the reason CP wanted one was for the protection of (what was left of) his political career.

Same as the reason for his abrupt about-face on abortion when he found out Keays was pregnant - after years of campaigning against abortion in general to suddenly being strongly in favour of the one specific one.

In reply to MG:


It wasn't done to protect Flora, it was done to protect Cecil. It actually made life much more difficult for Flora and her mum. It's so transparent that even the Telegragh, don't even try and make a case for him trying to protect Flora.

The Mary Bell Order, is what distinguishes him from run of the mill shits.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




I disliked his face. I will remember him as someone who looked very unpleasant.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


That would be the Duke of Westminster who is ninth of the richest Britons list? So ticks both wealthy and well connected.

In reply to NamelessCwm:

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they now?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

My main memory of the man was someone pointing out his name is an anagram of "no prick is clean" seemed appropriate.