F**king get right in - god bless the jury system :-)

"Disgraced Archer jailed for four years Lord Archer has been jailed for four years after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice and perjury at the Old Bailey. The jury found him guilty of lying and cheating in his 1987 libel case against the Daily Star.

He was convicted on two counts of perverting the course of justice and two of perjury.

Archer was also ordered to pay £175,000 costs within 12 months and was told by the judge he would have to serve at least half of his sentence.

Before sentencing him, the judge Mr Justice Potts told Archer: "These charges represent as serious an offence of perjury as I have had experience of and have been able to find in the books."

His former friend and co-defendant Ted Francis was cleared of perverting the course of justice by providing Archer with a false alibi.

Archer was cleared of one count of perverting the course of justice.

The judge told the peer: "Sentencing you Lord Archer gives me no pleasure at all , I assure you. It has been an extremely distasteful case, I can tell you."

The judge, who was conducting his last case, said it was the most serious case of perjury he had come across. He said he had to bear in mind that Archer had resumed his political career and gone from "strength to strength" after committing the crime.

He was sentenced to two years for the first count of perverting the course of justice, four years for a second similar charge, three years for count five of perjury and four years for count six, also of perjury.

The sentences are to run concurrently."

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

Answers

Hope he's got soap on a string so he doesn't go dropping it...

Mind you he'll end up in one of those soft prisons...

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

He should be made to pay the original settlement back - with 14 years interest. Is that Ian Hislop I can hear laughing?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

That man is a disgrace. The unfortunate thing is that he'll be out in 2 years and no doubt write a book while he's in there, making another million or two.

This case was, if I read it correctly, whether he had lied over the Monica Coughlan (sp?) incident. Therefore, now it has been proven he lied his head off, does he immediately have to pay back the £half mill that he won from The Star in damages, or do they have to go BACK to court again, or do they have no comeback at all? Please don't tell me he gets to keep the loot!

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

It's a pity the woman (Coughlan?) was killed a couple of months ago. She would presumably been pleased to have her story vindicated. Big news - I had no idea he might be facing a sentence (They should've made it a novel!)

Aitken, Archer, Hamilton, labour party still amateurs in the sleaze stakes apparently.

So as Dylan once sang :-
Even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
Unfortunately Dylan was being ironic singing about The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol where the killer is handed out strongly for penalty and repentance 6 months.

Will his peerage now be withdrawn? Is there a precedence for this?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

I cannot join in with the glee shown here about the situation. Before you start with the slings and arrows (Archer geddit) it is not because of personal feelings for him. OK he is guilty and deserves what he has got. But why was here there? He played away from home, so that was not enough for what he got. The other player sold the story to get more money.

This judgement has only plastered over the result not tackled the problem. It is still because the same jouralists (as a group) complained about on here re transfer stories etc, were waving their cheque or CHECK book for ciara, syme and Screacher et al (oops another contribution for the Inter Alia fund)

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2001

Nope Gus, can't agree. He wasn't sent down for his private life, but for rank dishonesty in trying to cover it up, using his usual tactics of bribery and threats. If he'd simply have admited it, or stayed silent he wouldn't be in prison now, not on these charges at least.

To anyone interested I highly recommend Michael Crick's excellent biography 'Jeffry Archer: Stranger than Fiction', which pulled off the remarkable trick of leaving the reader in little doubt that Archer was guilty in the '87 trial, and a complete fraudster to boot, without being libelous. Archer blagged, bluffed and lied his way into the heart of the British establishment.

That he slept with prostitutes, and was routinely unfaithful to his wife, is a matter of little consequence were it not for a)fixing a court case through deceit and winning a substantial amount of money for it and b) behaving as a paragon of trad virtues.

If Emma Nicholson is to be believed he may have stolen funds from the Kurds benefit he organised, insider dealing, bullying threats of writs to anyone who threatened him. A cheat, a crook, a nasty peice of work. When the luckless Monica Coghlan was killed in a car crash my first reaction was 'hmmmm, that is convenient'. Archer was no loveable rogue bringing colour and panache into British public life, he was a fraudster and con-man. The worrying thing is that, despite much of this being known, he got away with it for so long.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2001

Thank you for your opinion Stevo. You will be hearing from my lawyers shortly.... ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2001

Gus - the sexual infidelity appears never to have been a real issue with his wife, as some interviews on the news yesterday revealed. The real issue is that he lied, persuaded his friends to lie and even went to court and claimed substantial damages from his lies.

Jonno - sadly, the peerage is in perpetuity, which means he can freely walk back into the House of Lords and vote after his 4 yrs (minus 18-24 mths for good bribes behaviour). There is a Labour backbencher who wants the law changed, but I think it unlikely.

However, be prepared for the "Road to Damascus" conversion, available in paperback on his release. Unfortunately, he will never change his character...i.e. psycho / sociopathic tendency during the stint in chokey. Pleased it's Bellmarsh, though. "First among equals, Jeffrey?"

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2001

stevo and Bobby,

All that is true (allegedly) neither of the cases would have been in the courts if the journalists had not been involved. I do not give a jot what he gets up to or what his wife thinks about it.

Either the "lady" who tried to sell the story because of her famous client, or the journo out for a story were at the root of this. That is my point.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2001

Archer can have his peerage removed but it will require an Act of Parliament to do it. What are they waiting for?

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2001

Gus, not concerned about his lurve life but the underlying gut notion that in the early days the charities he was representing may have not received their fair share sickens me, more than one way to skin a fat cat , they have started on the easy option methinks the journo Michael Crick ?? will eventually extend his sojorn at HM Pleasure

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2001

i once got a letter from Archer asking if he could invest in my art site, i was advised to decline...

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001