The Trial of Christine Keeler.

Alexa

No, I wasn’t being ironic. Just meant I assumed whilst he was inside, he turned to religion, hopefully for the better, not for any ulterior motive. If I had read that he became a postman or suchlike, I would think that was ok also.

Jonathan Aitken had an interest in Christianity before he served 7 months for perjury 20 years ago, whilst he was in prison he helped prisoners to read and write. He continued with this after his release. He was ordained a priest last year .

He is Godfather to Diane Abbott’s son, this when he was an MP.

JA was a nasty piece of work too - he was set to have one of his daughters perjure herself as part of his defence ie he was prepared to risk her being convicted and imprisoned.

For those of you who may be tempted to whitewash this odious man
www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Only 20 years ago !

And your point is annie ?

My point is - can a person ever be allowed to move on and start a new life after serving a prison sentence or are they
‘Odious people for life ‘ ?

The behaviour of both JA and JP was reprehensible. The passage of time does not alter that. Whether or not they rehabilitated is not the point. However, as they were Conservative MPs I do realise that they can do no wrong. Setting up your dd to lie for you and risk her whole future is never acceptable regardless of whether you later found god or not or taught a prisoner to read or write.

Then you do not believe in rehabilitation.

What rubbish to say ‘as they are conservative MP’s they can do no wrong. This thread is not about political parties.

I did not say that - I was commenting on the actual behaviour at the time of these two men. Rehabilitation does not change past behaviour - it is supposed to mean future behaviour is changed.

Oh annie you only ever criticise Labour politicians as we all know. ?????

On any politician who has lied but is defended regardless

If rehabilitation cannot change past behaviour then the guilty
will continue with their past behaviour.

How can past behaviour be changed? If you lied, committed perjury, raped, murdered, stole - those behaviours remain as facts- how could they not? Rehabilitation is about changing your behaviour so you won’t do it again, hopefully it will also make you realise how awful your behaviour was but it doesn’t make it go away. People stay murdered or raped or stolen from or lied to regardless of the future behaviour of the person who committed those acts.

Past behaviour cannot be changed , but if someone commits
a crime , serves a prison sentence and builds a new life then
surely if they are still ‘odious ‘, rehabilitation didn’t work.

Last week's episode was beginning to slow down but it has picked up this week and things are beginning to move. Poor old Stephen Ward, can't help feeling sorry for him (unless it's because he's so adorable being played by James Norton!) His life is falling apart.

If you knew the full facts re JPs disgusting, odious, lying behaviour where he used every connection he had to destroy the lives of others ( including contributing to SW’s death) you might feel differently. The parallels with Peter Ball are quite astonishing although the context is different but basically the mix is sex, vulnerable, young disadvantaged people , powerful, well connected men who lie and an establishment that perverts justice and rushes in to save its own neck. And now the parallels with Andrew. But I digress naughty me,it’s all MM’s fault

It still feels ridiculously strung out. Less is more. A real failure of editing.

Dear me suziewoozie you are full of venom on these threads today. Plenty of vitriol coming out for anyone in power!

Dear me Chestnut you really don’t see anything wrong with the power of the establishment as demonstrated by the PB and JP cases?

I don’t agree Jane I think it’s strength is in the detail and unlike the film, it shows how long it all went on for and the tactics used to try and protect the powerful. It’s a real life story and editing removes some of the truth and the shock of it all which many of the details demonstrate so clearly.

suziewoozie, you are putting words right into my mouth! I never said that.

Well tell me why you do not think it was utterly unacceptable for Carey to keep evidence from the police then and why it wasn’t totally reprehensible?

I’m obviously in the minority I’m watching it with my daughter ( one episode behind) and we really like it. In 1962 I was 9 but I do remember this happening. I thought the actress playing Christine looked very much like I remember her