Forgiving famous wrongdoers

I’ve some sympathy for your views - especially given that the examples you give are all well documented liars- I wouldn’t believe them if they told me today was Wednesday.

Sad individuals who try to justify in their own words their terms in prison. A " feel sorry for me " attitude doesn't wash with most including myself.

I think it's more a case of 'Should I believe anything this person says?'

However, having served their sentences I see no reason why they shouldn't return to the type of work that they did previously, certain careers being prohibited I think. If Archer is giving a strictly factual and historical talk about joining the EEC then I think it could be quite interesting. I wouldn't be interested in any views he may have on the referendum result and Brexit though.

I wouldn't describe Archer as 'a public figure' any more.

More important - is he still a Baron?

Why not? They have paid for their crimes, most of which were personal, and now resume their lives. I do not think that this invalidates them from them having opinions on other subjects and, if asked airing them. Several are experts in their specialist field.

I cannot see how allowing them to return as 'public' figures encourages the 'it doesn't matter what I do' turn of mind. They have been convicted of their crime and served prison sentences, which I would have thought proves quite conclusively that it does matter what they did.

I think that once people have served their sentence, unless there is reason to believe they may be a danger to the public, that should be the end of it.

I agree with M0nica.

He has served his time and hopefully come out a more enlightened honest person. Should he be shunned for life?

I don't particularly like him. For those annoyed that he is given air time, perhaps we should remember that mud sticks.

His name will always be synonymous with his dishonesty and prison term.

If I were him I'd go away and lie low, avoiding the public eye, but I daresay in this strange world in which we live, publicity is precious to him, and maybe lucrative?

The point is surely why Archer - he’s hardly an intellectual giant - it makes you wonder what on Earth he had to offer that 100s more couldn’t do better. Just another form of mates helping each other out.

For ex-con Joe Bloggs in the street have you any idea how hollow the statement is that ‘he’s served his time’? Funny how hypocrisy so often benefits the well connected isn’t it ?

There is a difference between picking up 'normal' life and re-positioning oneself in the public eye. I think most of us remember John Profumo, who worked quietly in a low profile public service job after his downfall.
All 3 of the examples above have huge egos, and I expect would have no idea of how to do an ordinary low-key job (let alone any idea of how to live on minimum wage)

maryeliza54 Jeffrey Archer is a very successful author over many years. He may not be to our taste, . But there is no reason to dismiss him as of no account just because we do not read his books.

Nannarose, you are making assumptions without checking. Jeffrey Archar came from a non-privileged home and made money quickly in his 20s and became an MP. He then made a disastrous financial investment, which left him bankrupt and he had to start again and reinvented himself as a novelist. I suspect he could turn his hand to anything if he had to, including managing on a small income. I say that as someone who is no fan of Jeffrey Archer, but can see that he is a remarkablly resilient man.

I made no assumptions about Jeffrey Archer's background, and I made no comment on his books (some of which I have read & enjoyed).
I said that he had a huge ego, based on radio interviews I have heard. He has said that the way he chose to manage his life was to try to make a lot of money - I suppose you could call that 'managing on a small income'!
I have no admiration for someone whose 'resilience' includes lying and cheating over very many years.

No I have no admiration for someone who lies and cheats, but this is the nub of this thread, just because someone has some bad aspects to their character they are not being allowed to have anything good about them.

I have no admiration for the lying and cheating aspect of Jeffrey Archer's personality, but I can admire the resilience with which, having seen his life collapse around him and being made bankrupt he turned his life around and from nothing made himself a successful author.

Nor does the fact that he wanted to be rich and achieved it, mean that if he was faced with having to live on a small income he would not achieve that as well.

Jeffrey Archar came from a non-privileged home

Well, whilst they were not wealthy they weren't exactly in the poorhouse, although his father was allegedly a conman and bigamist.

Jeffrey did win a scholarship to Wellington School, which is a minor public school producing good results these days (I don't know about when Archer was there).
Wellington’s curriculum reflects the School’s belief that education is about sowing seeds – intellectual, cultural, physical, social, moral, spiritual – and knowing that pupils will bloom at different times and in different colours.

They must have missed sowing any moral seeds in that one case - but perhaps nature overcame nurture.

Being an author of best selling books does not equal automatically being an intellectual giant. He is a liar and a cheat ( and his books are awful)

Nobody suggested he was an intellectual giant, nor I am I commending his books but many people, especially those in the public eye are deeply flawed, and not to accept that deeply flawed people can also have admirable qualities, is where prejudice starts.

Yes, not everything is red or blue, there are 1,000 shades of purple in between.