Talk:Jonathan Aitken

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  LSD 

message: I'm not 100% sure one way or the other about his supposed religious conversion.  
#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.  
#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.  
#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. 
Make of that what you will. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iraq or Iran? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Libel case documentary contents