Ex-convict Jonathan Aitken has been asked by the Centre for Social Justice to serve on a policy review commission on prison reform.
Adam Boulton’s blog reports the following reaction from Government Whip, Tom Watson:
This is a return to the disgraced, scandal-ridden Tory past.
What can we expect next from the Tories?
David Cameron should go all the way, bring in Jeffrey Archer to run a truth and reconciliation committee, draft Neil Hamilton in to advise him on parliamentary modernisation and scrutiny, and bring in Shirley Porter to overhaul his housing policy.
Hmm. Interesting. And here I was thinking that the Labour Party was into rehabilitation of wrongdoers and all that.
This is my view: Jonathan Aitken committed a very serious offence. He was duly punished, and he served his sentence. He has also publicly repented of his crime. As such, he should be free to contribute to society in any way that he can. If he has something to contribute to prison reform policy, then by all means, let’s hear it.
This issue reminded me of something that happened on this blog some months ago. I was taken to task by some people for allowing John Hirst, otherwise known as the Jailhouse Lawyer, to comment on my blog. The argument was that he had committed a very serious crime, had shown no public remorse, and so should not be permitted space on any decent weblog. Some people threatened to boycott my blog until I barred him. I refused. Part of my reasoning was that he had been punished for his crime, and that if he had something useful to say, I was interested in hearing it. I must say that almost all the supportive comments and emails I received were from people on the Left of the political divide. Maybe they understand instinctively the whole rehabilitation thing, I don’t know. However, for many reasons, I was very much cheered by their support.
Back to Jonathan Aitken. I wonder if Tom Watson would be making these comments if a non-Tory ex-offender had been appointed instead. Take the the Jailhouse Lawyer: he was in prison for a very long time, challenged the prison system in court, and is very well-versed in many aspects of prisoners’ rights. He has a lot of interesting insights into prison reform, and would no doubt have so much to offer to the debate, if asked. If the Jailhouse Lawyer had been invited, and had accepted, to serve on the panel, I wonder if Tom Watson would have condemned the appointment.
Of course he wouldn’t have condemned the appointment. The only reason he has criticised Aitken’s appointment is because Aitken is a Tory. That is the simple truth. I wrote a few days ago about principled bloggers, those who praise or criticize policy based on principle, regardless of whether or not the policy in question was advocated by their political allies or opponents. I know that Tom Watson is a party political man who owes much of his career achievement to the Labour Party, but that is no reason to eschew principle. If you believe in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, particularly those that have shown remorse, and indicated a desire to serve, why should that principle change just because the ex-offender in question is from a different political party to yourself? Or maybe Tom Watson does not believe in rehabilitation at all, in which case, his comments are completely consistent. Somehow I doubt that.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Recently, I watched Iain Dale interviewing Jeffery Archer on 1 to 1 on 18DS. I was fully expecting to rip it apart on my blog. The truth is I enjoyed the programme. I was struck by Jeffery Archer’s ” no comment” to the question “Did you think you would be found guilty?”. And later, “What did Mary think and feel about it?” was dodged altogether. I was reminded of someone else who fell from a great height and ended up in prison, and again there was a refusal to accept guilt and address his offence. I make the point because I walked into a police station and confessed. Although I have been criticised in some quarters on blogs for not showing remorse, there are two Court of Appeal decisions which held that self reporting a crime is a strong indication of showing remorse.
I believe that it makes sense in prison reform to use the people who have the most experience in such matters to advise on the issues. Whilst Jonathan Aitken has a little experience, I feel that his appointment as Chairperson by the Centre for Social Justice to serve on a policy review commission on prison reform is more about window dressing than anything else. I note that Erwin James is also to serve as an adviser. I cannot help but think that the Centre for Social Justice and/or the Tory Party is putting the cart before the horse. Erwin James is by far the most experienced, and if they are really going to be serious about prison reform then the right bums need to be on the right seats.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi Jailhouse, thanks for your comments.
As to Aitken’s appointment being window dressing, surely the safest thing to do (from IDS’s point of view) would have been not to appoint him at all? The appointment was bound to be controversial, and to lead to the sort of party political attacks we have seen from Tom, so it’s not as if there was any political capital to be gained from appointing him. For that reason, I believe that it isn’t about window dressing. Aitken is hardly the most popular man in town. It’s not as if people are queuing up to be seen next to him.
I take your wider point about experience. If Erwin James has something to contribute, I am happy to see his advice is being sought. I don’t think it really matters what position he is given in the commission, as long as they listen to what he has to say.
By the way, thanks for that interesting point about the Court of Appeal’s decisions on self-reporting. I didn’t know that.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
As a Labour Party member I welcome this rehabilitation of a clearly repentent Tory minister. Let us try to see the best in people - that’s the essence of socialism.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Amen.
Rehabilitation should be available for everyone, Tories included.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Bel
I think the sort of hypocrisy you’ve highlighted here is one of the many reasons why labour have overstayed their welcome.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Bel
Support you 100% on this one!
Simply playing politics.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I would point out also that, during the time of the last Conservative Government, a minister would resign immediately on behaving with impropriety etc.
It is notable that it takes a lot these days for a minister to resign, so Tom Watson had better shut up.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I can’t stand JA myself but he has served his time so let him try to redeem himself.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Maybe, but it is a statistically significant reason (not sure about causality) for us to assume him completely lacking in principles.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Well I`m glad that all tidied up then….
November 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
John Hirst is a regular commenter on my site. Does that mean I’m abetting a criminal? Hope so - I need a bit of excitement right now.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:47 am
Jonathan Aitken lost his home, his marraige, his job, his reputation, his wealth and his liberty for committing an act of perjury. He has paid for his sins - and more. He has shown apparent genuine remorse backed up by appropriate remedial behaviour since his release. This appointment makes perfect sense given his unusual combination of both prison and political experience.