A Very British Sex Scandal

sluttygran and your opinion of the mistress?

Annie perhaps a woman who was emotionally/socially naive and gullible ,maybe he told her his marriage was a front and he'd leave when the children grew up .I know one woman exactly like that and I know she believed every word the lying toad told her .Doesn't your bible say Judge not lest you be judged?

Horrible man
I remember the whole sordid thing .My husband and I were on holiday with my Mother in Wales , I stood outside the local Post Office for so long rifling through the papers the owner stepped outside and told me to buy them not just read them !🤣

We have our own sex scandal / fraud trial going on here right now. The former “head cheese” is playing the victim as hard as he can. He’s always the victim - he can do no wrong. Except switch our democracy to fascism, which he is striving for.

But if elected in November (you have to wonder about his dim-witted supporters!) then I’m moving to England… Canada doesn’t want us… too many threatening to move there.

Quote paddyann54 Mon 06-May-24 14:01:22
Annie perhaps a woman who was emotionally/socially naive and gullible ,maybe he told her his marriage was a front and he'd leave when the children grew up .I know one woman exactly like that and I know she believed every word the lying toad told her .Doesn't your bible say Judge not lest you be judged?

.

Yes the bible say ‘judge not lest you be judged’ , and
‘Thou shall not commit adultery’ . One does a murderer
‘Thou shall not kill’

She was free to make the choice was she not

I knew Cecil Parkinson’s wife Ann. We studied. at Hatfield together for our first degreees. She was a kind, charming woman and I have always felt so sorry for what she endured. I agree that Cecil Parkinson was a dreadful self centred man. I will watch the programme.

Anne Parkinson married in 1957, nearly 70 years ago, she is being judged by some who seem to think married life was the
same as today.

Anniebach

Anne Parkinson married in 1957, nearly 70 years ago, she is being judged by some who seem to think married life was the
same as today.

I don’t judge her. It would have so terribly hard for her in many levels to start again with young children.

You are so right Annie, marriage and women’s lives then were so much different to that of today. She, her children and Sarah’s daughter, imo, are the only “victims”

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, which was the case with Sarah Keays.
Mrs. Parkinson honoured her marriage vows and is castigated for it.
I don't recall Mrs. Profumo receiving the same criticism.

What a sleezebag he was, he was having his cake and eating it, wife at home doing all the wide work and looking after the children and someone at work for when he couldn't get home.
No one should blame his wife, some of us do not know that affairs are going on. I don't know if his wife worked, suspect not, so many women couldn't keep their employment if they were married, I bet that he would have been difficult to persuade to pay alimony, she risked descending into poverty, and there was the stigma back then if you divorced, and the stories demonized single mothers
Anyone who father's a child either inside or outside of marriage/relationship should support that child until 18 or when they leave full time education whichever is the latest.
There is an episode which is all about John Major too, thank heavens there were no children from that relstiinship

Very little regarding human relationships shocks me now. What struck me was how the Tory party welcomed him back to the fold as though he was the hurt party.

Parkinson was a good looking man in a position of power with a much younger secretary who obviously liked him and was prepared to have an affair with him for over 10 years, even though Parkinson was married with children. He wouldn't be the first or the last to do this, but the treatment of his daughter was terrible and Sarah Keays has a right to be angry.

Wow, your story sounds more salacious than ours. The Brits have had some doozies!

A few facts.
A maintenance order for Flora Keays was finally agreed in 1993.
At the time of his death in 2016 Parkinson was paying £20,000 a year for Flora's maintenance.

Payments ceased a few months after his death, and Flora was not mentioned in his will. Sara Keays was preparing to sue his estate but a separate provision had been made for Flora, a £350,000 Life Insurance policy with her as sole beneficiary.

Watched it today what a horrible man .

eazybee

A few facts.
A maintenance order for Flora Keays was finally agreed in 1993.
At the time of his death in 2016 Parkinson was paying £20,000 a year for Flora's maintenance.

Payments ceased a few months after his death, and Flora was not mentioned in his will. Sara Keays was preparing to sue his estate but a separate provision had been made for Flora, a £350,000 Life Insurance policy with her as sole beneficiary.

Was that Life Insurance paid to Flora? I understood it was up to "trustees" to administer it and they paid some ad hoc sums, but not all of it.

The Life Insurance is for the benefit of Flora and administered by Trustees, throughout her lifetime.
Sarah Keays was attempting to claim money for mortgage repayments, but whether from the Trust or from Parkinson's estate I am not sure.

eazybee

The Life Insurance is for the benefit of Flora and administered by Trustees, throughout her lifetime.
Sarah Keays was attempting to claim money for mortgage repayments, but whether from the Trust or from Parkinson's estate I am not sure.

Or "not" administered by the Trustees.

This report is likely more factual than Wikipedia. CP's abhorrent disregard for Flora continues after his death. I have every sympathy for the woman.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44044168.amp

My information did not come from Wikipedia but from interviews given by Sara Keays to the Guardian and the Independent, plus reports of the hearing and the financial matters.
I am not sure how Cecil Parkinson's abhorrent disregard for Flora is able to continue after his death. He provided for her all his life, and made provision for her after he had died. He did not wish for personal relationship, and I think he was wise; you may not. This is a child who would not, because of her disabilities, been aware or interested in, the circumstances of her parentage unless her mother had specifically told her.
The more I read about Sara Keays the less respect I have for her. She was a willing partner in the affair despite knowing Parkinson was married and had young children, and in the conception of her child; both were equally to blame, and both paid for it. Parkinson supported Flora financially, all his life, far more than many divorced fathers do.

Keays has wreaked vengeance on him and tried to wreck his marriage and his career, neither succeeded. I feel she has suffered more, because she cannot let go.

Sorry eazybee but your statements about children with disabilities are not ones I can agree with. I work with children with the most profound disabilities, all have the capacity for relationships with their parents. We dont do things to young children just because they may not be 'aware of them'.
Providing money was the absolute minimum he could do.
I dont think it is wise for men to abandon their children, it is one of the causes of many of society's problems, particularly in relation to the welfare of children and women.

Contact with the child would mean contact with the mistress

Parkinson said at the very beginning that he would have no contact with his daughter; he did not abandon her because he paid maintenance. It was Keays who made so much, publicly, of his absence; she knew from the beginning but in exactly the same way she thought she could force him to marry her she thought she could shame him into a relationship with his child.
I am not convinced of how much of the situation Flora is capable of understanding. The journalists who interviewed her mother felt Flora was simply repeating what her mother told her, but I wasn't there so I don't know.
Until one has come up against one of these implacable women it is difficult to comprehend the lengths they will go to to achieve their objective, usually someone else's husband.

Again shaming men into having relationships with their children is a good thing.

If he didn't want a child he could have prevented a pregnancy ,he did ask her to marry him which to most women would mean he was serious about a future.It takes two ,you cant "steal" someones husband...he was more than willing ...he should have acted like a grown up and seen his child.
Seems he still has fans on here ...you wouldn't be saying he could walk away from his child if it was your daughter and grandaughter.Different rules...eh?

Wouldn’t want a reluctant father near