From sinner to saint, quits a transformation.

He’s lived a great life after prison. He spent 3 years at Oxford at someone else’s expense, he wrote books, had bits and pieces of work with the church, a few hours a week as prison chaplain, married very well, He was much much more than dishonest. All the things that led upto his libel case against the Guardian. He was Minister of State for Defence Procurement and violated ministerial rules by allowing an Arab businessman to pay his hotel bills at the Paris Ritz. Also whilst a Cabinet Minister he signed a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which gagged documentation being released from a company covering the time he was a director of that company. Then a few years later had to resign as Chief Secretary to the Treasury for breaking more ministerial rules. When the Guardian finally broke their story, it included the procurement of prostitutes for Arab businessmen. Then came his chutzpah in suing the paper and Granada TV for publicising all this. Then the collapse of the trial when evidence proved he was lying plus of course as part of this his attempts to get his wife and daughter to perjure themselves. What exactly has he done to make amends? He went bankrupt owing over £2m in unpaid legal bills What public service has he given, apart from the oft publicised bit of prison chaplain work? What price has he exactly paid? 7 months in prison and then feted thereafter by the C of E and right wing papers who publish multiple interviews with him which provide sanitised versions of his behaviour. Compared with most prisoners, he’s had a great post prison life. Society wedding at upmarket church, upmarket flat, parliamentary pass to Houses of Parliament, pension way above average wage. What’s not to like?

He has taken the route John Profumo took after the Christine Keeler scandal.

Coould someone explain to me why someone who is descrbed as 'rich and entitled' cannot be genuimely penitent after going wromg and want to change their life and expite their wromg doing? presumably had he been poor and unentitled everyone would have been saying what a wonder he was.

remember St Francis, he of the love of animals was rich and entitled when those words really meant something. He gave it up to form an order of monks who walked the streets bare foot and lived at the lowest level with the poor.

If St Francis can do it, I cannot see why Jonathan Aitken cannot do it as well.

grumppa

He comes from a rich and well-connected family (Lord Beaverbrook), which must have reinforced the sense of superiority that persuaded him to be so stupid as to take on The Guardian in the way that he did. His family stood by him and his daughters as far as they could, I am sure.

That does not mean that he could not learn a lesson, regret, and mend his ways.

I agree. tbh I think there are easier ways of living your life after a prison sentence than what Aitken has chosen, particularly as he's so well connected. I believe that people can change and make a contribution to life and society and Aitken seems to be doing that. I'm not minimising his dishonesty, he was guilty and has paid the price but surely he's a right to live a better life after prison?

I think the word ‘entitled’ runs through him like a stick of rock.

The taking on of the Guardian was far from the beginning of his appalling behaviour

He comes from a rich and well-connected family (Lord Beaverbrook), which must have reinforced the sense of superiority that persuaded him to be so stupid as to take on The Guardian in the way that he did. His family stood by him and his daughters as far as they could, I am sure.

That does not mean that he could not learn a lesson, regret, and mend his ways.

So the same would be for a non-believer. Mollygo.

I wonder if Jonathan Aitken thought he was onto a winner after Jeffrey Archer libel case, where Archer had perjured his way successfully to fleecing the Daily Star to the tune of £500,000 in 1987. It took until 1999 for the truth to be known and Archer jailed.

He was 57 - plenty of floor scrubbing left in him

Plevey08

Is it better to believe in God and be a bad person or to be a good person and not believe in God?

It’s better not to be a bad person.
Believing in God is not a prerequisite for either good or bad behaviour.

Valdalj- he wasn’t 83 when he was released

Is it better to believe in God and be a bad person or to be a good person and not believe in God?

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?