You are a scoundrel; it would be of benefit to society in general if you remained behind bars indefinitely. You consistently act as if the law is for lesser mortals than yourself.
let’s not talk about your shady business dealings…
You engaged the services of a prostitute, fair enough; you aren’t the first, but then you (successfully) accuse a national tabloid of libel for reporting it.
But wait! it turns out that you asked a friend to provide a false alibi, you faked a diary and presented it as evidence; you get busted for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and your arse lands in prison.
Considered a low escape risk, you are eventually moved to a low-security unit and even allowed home on Sundays (conditions attached), but surely those conditions don’t apply to you, do they? No, of course not, you just do what you want…but it doesn’t work, does it? back to higher security, ho hum.
And now you’ve decided that it’s OK for you to publish your prison journal, explicitly naming other inmates, against prison rules, but hey, the rules aren’t for you are they?
Haven’t politicians learned anything from Bill Clinton? Don’t sue the newspapers, just deny everything then eventually make a sad face and tell everyone that you lied to protect your wife a daughter from the reality that you can’t keep it in your pants. Do this and everyone will love you.
Archer’s entire career is founded on the assumption that he’s extra-special and rules don’t apply to him. A spell in an open prison is unlikely to break down that attitude.
You almost have to admire the man’s sheer brass neck, though. A Thatcherite apparatchik trying to reinvent himself as a selfless martyr in the cause of penal reform? Blimey.
No visits from Michael “prison works” Howard either I see.
Like a lot of others I’ve had plenty of laughs at Archer’s expense, of course, but I’m not sure he deserves to be hated by anyone outside the Tory party (or maybe the Kurds he pinched that charity money from). He lives in a little world of his own where fact and fiction merge together, but surely there’s more in him to pity than to despise? Tories are entitled to hate him 'cos as long as he sticks around they stay smeared by the grease of him - Tory haters, like me, stand to lose nothing. Shadenfreude indeed ;).
I’d agree his books were shite too - if only I’d read one of them.
Mmm. Does anybody else remember that clip of him they showed on Have I Got News For You, snarling “You wait till I’m Mayor!” at some hapless reporter? He may be mostly a buffoon, but there’s a very nasty edge to Archer.
On this very topic, a few years ago I tried to convert them away from the Archer oevre by presenting them with a copy of Captain Correlli’s Mandolin, inscribed with words to the effect of: “We can all see a sunset, and most of us can paint it, but only a good artist can paint it so that it inspires and moves.”
Lucky that they didn’t disown me for my pomposity, they later told me that they enjoyed the book, but Archer’s plots were better.
The reporter was Michael Crick, Jeffrey’s (unauthorised) biographer and Nemesis. Archer has plenty of reasons to dislike Crick, mainly because Crick has made it his business to tell the truth about Archer.
I am also getting somewhat pissed off with the holier than thou attitude displayed by the formerly fragrant Mary Archer. I was overjoyed to see her put in her place by Ian Hislop on Question Time a few months ago.
