Talk:Jonathan Aitken

Untitled
Is it true that convicted criminals can't stand for Parliament? If so, why was there so much fuss about Archer and Aitken possibly being let back in? Surely it wouldn't have been an issue otherwise? Someone help! Megawattbulbman 13:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not true. I saw that statement and immediately questioned it in my own mind. First, standing for Parliament and being allowed to take your seat are two very different things. Bobby Sands, for example, stood and was elected while serving a sentence (and undertaking a hunger strike). Second, I suspect that former prisoners are allowed to take their seats. I have no independent source as yet, but the Wiki entry for the House of Commons agrees. Of course that in itself is not sufficient: it would be too circular, though the entry does seem to be reliable.JohnPet 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CONVICTED CRIMINALS - no. PEOPLE UNDER LEGAL INVESTIGATION (e.g. arrested and charged, on bail, awaiting trial, on remand) - yes, but if they are convicted they are thrown out. Those who are convicted while sitting in Parliament are immediately assumed to have forfeited their seat in Parliament, as if, say, they had died, and a by-election is called. It hasn't happened in recent years (but might happen again to Andrew Pelling who has been arrested for assault on his pregnant wife). Archer is a Lord and has not been stripped of his peerage but as such he is ineligible to stand for parliament. He could, should he so wish to, however, stand for Mayor of London. Michael Howard was right to stop Aitken standing, because he was actually convicted. Bobby Sands effectively went against the law in standing for parliament, hence the confusion. Incidentally, where was Aitken held? Surely it should be included in the article. Owlqueen 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He was in Belmarsh Prison (BBC news broadcast, 8 June 1999; article: Thursday, June 10, 1999 Published at 12:52 GMT 13:52 UK: "He is currently in Belmarsh prison, in south east London, where he is being assessed before being moved elsewhere. Aitken is likely to serve the remainder of his sentence in an open jail and, with good behaviour, should be out by Christmas). Which is interesting, I have an article from the Daily Express dated July 1999 that shows Michael Howard visiting him in Standford Prison on the Isle of Sheppey. I'm not sure which I trust less, the BBC or the Express; speaking to colleagues in the legal profession assessment takes rather longer than a month or two. However I can't make a direct claim to the length of time that Aitken was held at Belmarsh before he was transferred to Standford. (This is important; he is a friend of a friend and it occurs to us all that the media have been less than accurate on a number of occasions when dealing with politics in this country.) Owlqueen 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LSD
We need a section on his trying LSD!

"visions of hell. Continents dripping with blood. Black men fighting brown men, fighting yellow men."

Drugs of Liberation, Antonio Melechi, page 45


 * No question we do. Please add asap, this is an essential part of who he is and what the acid culture from that period is. I'm up to help. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Erowid, he took LSD in 1966 in order to review it for the Evening Standard.

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

More info:

He started to have a bad trip, and he had a kind of vision of a war, a really horrific, bloody war, and as far as I remember, it was sort of whites against yellows against blacks. -Maria Aitken remembering the occasion in 1966 when Aitken took LSD as an experiment for an article in The London Evening Standard

Jonathan was a risk-taker. I remember sitting there thinking, 'This guy's got all over the front page because he's taken LSD.' I though at the time it was a hell of a journalistic coup, but he always went one step further than the rule book said was sensible. -Max Hastings, now editor of The London Evening Standard

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/aitken.html

Aitken finding God
I'm not 100% sure one way or the other about his supposed religious conversion.

Make of that what you will. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In terms of psychology the type of stress Aitken suffered can lead to religious conversion or deconversion. People under extreme stress sometimes seek comfort in religion and other times decide that God has failed them.
 * 2) It’s also quite possible that someone with a track record of deceit will fake a religious conversion. Aitken has gained from his supposed conversion, he has status within the Christian community where many Christians believe that God should judge Aitken and humans should give him the benefit of any doubt.  Probably he gets royalties from the religious material that he, a talented writer has produced.
 * 3) Whether or not his conversion is sincere Aitken certainly has not fully overcome the sin of pride. Aitken says he had spiritual experiences in a frugal prison cell when he was forced to be there.  Later Aitken pursued his supposed religious commission in one of the two most prestigious universities in the UK. The architecture and general amenities at Oxford University are what sons of the wealthy expect as students.  Aitken undertook his exercise in penitence in a very comfortable place and later boasted without perceptible humility about his scholastic achievement.  Note: university qualifications prove intelligence, knowledge and understanding of the relevant syllabus; those qualifications prove nothing one way or the other about religious commitment.

Aitkens has reached an agreement with his creditors that he is required to pay only a proportion of his debts and isn't legally obliged to pay more. He could show the depth of his newfound Christian conviction by voluntarily paying more than the legal minimum. Has he done this or offered to do it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * More likely it was a case of the "third man factor", induced by stress.86.42.221.22 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and see the Third Man factor, source of so many conversions.86.42.197.248 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Aitken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922154928/http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php to http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Iraq or Iran?
In the section 'Parliamentary career' it states that 'In 1995, a Commons motion showed that while a Cabinet minister he had signed a controversial Public Interest Immunity Certificate (PIIC) in September 1992 relating to the Matrix Churchill trial, and that the 'gagged' documents included ones relating to the supply of arms to Iraq by BMARC for a period when he was a director of the company.' but then cites a source with no mention of Iraq but repeatedly stating that the weapons were actually being sold to Iran. Would I be correct to change the word 'Iraq' to 'Iran' here?

It's a little confusing because on the BMARC wikipedia page it states that 'In the 1990s, the company was investigated for alleged illegal dealings with Iraq. Jonathan Aitken was a non-executive director of the company from September 1988, and in a libel trial in March 1997, BMARC was accused of selling weapons to Iran.', suggesting that there were at least discussions relating to the possibility that BMARC had supplies weapons to both countries. However, the source cited only mentions Iran, with no mention of Iraq. Can anyone clear up this confusion? --51.9.0.254 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Libel case documentary contents
It seems apparent that Jonathan Aitken was trying to cover up his activities, which were documented in the Jonathan of Arabia documentary. He then lied about an alias and accused the documentary makers of libel. What activities was he trying to cover up? The article currently mentions an "arms deal scam" and "dealings with leading Saudis", but it isn't clear who was being scammed or what organizations might have been involved. This should be added to the article. Daask (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)