Talk:Jonathan Aitken
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
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)
[edit] 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
