From sinner to saint, quite a transformation.

Tuliptree

Given he was bankrupt when he went to prison, he is certainly living a gilded life. Someone paid for him to study at Oxford, he married very well again and lives in an upmarket mansion block in London. He does a few hours a week as a prison chaplain . Profumo scrubbed floors and kept completely out of any limelight. I gave the example of PV because being ordained in the Cof E seems a pretty low bar if you know the right people.

He is 83. Maybe don't expect him to be scrubbing floors or working the hours that working -age people do.

Maws - it’s a pity on a thread as serious as this that you think anybody cares about spelling that vile person’s name correctly.

Tuliptree

MawsRosie

Why do so many people get this name wrong?

Who cares?

Possibly Jonathans or , family of Jonathans?

Statement at the time fro the Guardian editor
"This case was about more than Jonathan Aitken. It was about the dishonest misuse of our libel laws to close down legitimate scrutiny of the people we elect to govern us.

"If Mr Aitken had won he would have dishonestly taken up to £2 million from the Guardian by way of costs and aggravated damages. The case should serve as a warning to future litigants who may be set on stifling scrutiny. Libel is not a game: it is too often used by the rich, the powerful and the crooked to suppress proper reporting and fair comment.

"No-one using the law against others can complain if the law is, in turn, used against them. We can only hope that this case may, unwittingly, have served the cause of free speech after all."

Witzend

Hmm. I don’t think leopards change their spots so easily.

I first heard of Jonathan Aitken in the 70s, around the time Maggie Thatcher was elected leader of the Tories. He was for some reason visiting the Gulf (we were in Abu Dhabi) and according to the local English paper (The Khaleej Times) he was asked his opinion of Mrs T ( a chemistry degree IIRC) and did he think she understood the Middle East situation.

He replied, ‘She probably thinks Sinai is the plural of sinus.’
Thus pandering to what he assumed would be general misogyny.

I thought he was a shit then, and nothing has since changed my mind.

I would also add re the MT quote that it was more than misogyny but linked to her grammar school/ grocers daughter background.
JA was very ‘grand’ and well connected and thought the truth was something only the little people should bother their cloth capped heads with. This thread has really reminded me of his vile he was. Reminding myself of the full story just shows what a puff piece the. interview with the DT is. I see nothing since his release from prison that gives any evidence of making amends in any meaningful way His whole post release ‘career’ has been because of his connections, his well heeled friends, a well chosen wife and an easily fooled C of E and countless interviews with right wing newspapers that always mention a few hours a week as a prison chaplain.

Hmm. I don’t think leopards change their spots so easily.

I first heard of Jonathan Aitken in the 70s, around the time Maggie Thatcher was elected leader of the Tories. He was for some reason visiting the Gulf (we were in Abu Dhabi) and according to the local English paper (The Khaleej Times) he was asked his opinion of Mrs T ( a chemistry degree IIRC) and did he think she understood the Middle East situation.

He replied, ‘She probably thinks Sinai is the plural of sinus.’
Thus pandering to what he assumed would be general misogyny.

I thought he was a shit then, and nothing has since changed my mind.

Thanks for the info. Tuliptree .

Smileless2012

I didn't think a spouse could be compelled to give evidence against their husband/wife FGT's so surely divorcing prior to the trial wasn't necessarily in his favour.

During the libel trial they were still married - she was going to give evidence to back up his lies ( that wasn’t actually true- a sworn affidavit) but was saved from that because the Guardian produced evidence that proved she couldn’t have been where she was prepared to lie she was. Nice. Good job things like lying in court don’t matter much. He ( and her) were prepared to fleece the Guardian and whoever made the TV programme to protect themselves for libel damages. ( and the associated huge legal costs) all based on lies. But then the rules don’t apply to people like them - except of course this time they did. The Guardian played an absolute blinder and worked incredibly hard to unearth the truth. The actual documents that proved their case the journalists found in the basement of a Swiss hotel. And he only served 7 months because - well seems the CJS and lying to a court isn’t taken too seriously by anyone in fact. Even when it could have bankrupted the Guardian.

I didn't think a spouse could be compelled to give evidence against their husband/wife FGT's so surely divorcing prior to the trial wasn't necessarily in his favour.

Magenta8

Jonathan Aitken* has received a pension of £50,000 per annum since 2002.

*I hope I spelt his name correctly.

And I guess that’s not his only income/capital. And help from his well connected friends -especially the Saudis. But tbf in the world he inhabits £50k is not much is it?

Jonathan Aitken* has received a pension of £50,000 per annum since 2002.


*I hope I spelt his name correctly.

MawsRosie

Jonathan

Oh here we go.

M0nica

What a nasty lot of responses. Yes, of course, people can behave really badly and realise later what they were and change.

Isn't the whole story of St Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus, just such a story? he was persecuting christians , had his conversion moment, and went on to lead them and die for his religion.

Being educated and articulate didn't stop Jonathan Aitken going to prison and serving time. I think that experience was his road to Damascus. He may well have faced up to what he did to his daughter and shown his sorrow and rebuilt his relationship with her. Since then he has tried to live a good life. Why shouldn't he.

People like Jeffrey Donaldson?

I suppose it is similar to the Peter Morrell case, in terms of the damage to people, the dishonesty, the covering up, etc.

MawsRosie

Why do so many people get this name wrong?

Who cares?

Why do so many people get this name wrong?

Jonathan

Christians go off ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ apparently so 🤷‍♀️

I’m a Humanist.
I’d go by ‘actions speak louder than words’. He tried to rope his then 18 year old daughter into perjury which h ‘regrets’. Yeh right.

His first wife divorced him before the trial so that she didn’t have to testify in Court. Convenient eh? Nice and tidy as they are still friends.

Sounds like a lot of covering up was attempted. I’d not trust him as far as I could throw him. Even now when he’s 83.

fancythat

MissAdventure

As a non christian, who would I need redemption from?

God

Ok, so why would I need redemption from someone I don't believe even exists?

MissAdventure

So is this man trying his best?
Paying back what he owes?
Working hard to do so?

No idea.

What would anyone consider as redemption for their own wrongdoings?

To say sorry to God, and believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

After that, 10.27am post

MissAdventure

As a non christian, who would I need redemption from?

God

Yes ViceVersa spot on - the two recent Peter Murrell threads are good examples.

ronib

Must be amazing to be such perfect people to stand in judgement like this. I guess it’s proving superiority… or not?

What's superiority got to do with it? We all judge people - whether you care to admit it or not. Is everyone capable of redemption? No, I don't think some are.

fancythat

Magenta8

Would it be possible for Andrew MW to redeem himself?

Definitely.

but unlikely