Really interesting blog on the BBC today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30697264), Jon Kelly has taken the time to investigate a lot of the myths and stories surrounding Ched Evans and he raises and provide answers to some interesting questions. The main thrust of the piece is whether or not the general public would have had more sympathy for the man if he had apologised for his actions. This is something I picked up on when I first blogged on the subject. Apologies go a long way in this world, sometimes apologising for things you don’t think are wrong, but those offended do.
As Jon Kelly says in his piece, Ched Evans obviously believes himself innocent, but what he did was morally wrong. To argue the toss about whether or not he committed a rape, rather ignores the fact that your moral compass must be severely out of whack if you believe it acceptable to have sex with someone so drunk that they cannot even stand up. The law doesn’t deal in morals though, only facts. What you do may be morally wrong (or indeed right) but our laws are not in place to guide us through that morass. And one persons opinion of what is morally correct will always differs from another’s.
So the argument rages on over whether he should or shouldn’t be employed. It’s still a bag of snakes whichever way it goes and it still reflects supremely badly on the multitude of people with convictions who have accepted what they did was wrong, have paid the price (in jail time or not) and are trying to move on with their lives. It serves to keep the discussion alive I suppose, but to use a good old football analogy, not the game of two halves, but at the end of the day, you’ve got to be given the opportunity to work, earn money and look after yourself. Or do we want all our people with convictions just to survive off the state?