The funny thing is that I BELIEVE in people who are sent to prison being given the chance to REFORM. I believe in prison being better if it is a place to RE-EDUCATE. I believe in people REDEEMING themselves after prison.
What I do NOT believe in is Mr Jonathan Aitkin
, creator of the famous Aitkin's Diet ("Indulge yourself and then lie about it – you're bound to lose pounds!")
You don't put an alcoholic in charge of wine-testing for Threshers and you don't put a Minister who was imprisoned for PERJURY over CORRUPTION in a position of public trust.
Mr Aitkin's-Diet is quite clearly NOT a reformed character, because he can't stop himself from trying to cosy back up to the Conservatory Party.
Remember, this is the gentleman who wanted to try and stand for Parliament again for his old Party in his old seat. Which, of course, would have been slightly AGAINST THE LAW because he is disbarred, having been sent to prison for more than a year. What was he thinking? That the Conservatories would change the law just for him? Maybe he was.
Even this morning, he was refusing to admit what his lies were covering up – dismissing the lost libel lawsuit against the Grauniad as "all in the past".
If it had been Mr Frown offering Mr Aitkin's-Diet a job on prison reform then I would not have minded – reaching out with the fluffy foot of friendship to help a man trying to make a better way and all that. But this just STINKS of the Conservatories finding a nice, cushy job for one of their own.
I realise that this may not seem COMPLETELY fair – Mr Aitkin's-Diet has done his time and that should be that. But the PENALTY for abusing the trust that the public place in you has ALWAYS been MORE than just a time Chez Her Majesty's. (NOT the Paris Hilton courtesy of an Arabian Prince, by the way, the OTHER Chez Her Majesty's.)
The penalty for abusing that trust is that you DO NOT try and get your grubby fingers on the levers of power ever, ever again.
The IRONY is that now, Mr Balloon – or "plumber Dave" – is tooting his dog-whistle with a speech saying that some sentences are just NOT TOUGH ENOUGH.
(Which, in itself is a COMPLETELY USELESS solution to the low success rate in rape convictions – if the problem is that you are not catching and convicting ENOUGH people, then taking it out on the ones that you DO catch is just POSTURING and doesn't help ANYONE, least of all the victims!)
Once again, the Conservatories saying that it is one law for themselves and one law for everybody else.