So not only is Steve Bruce qualified to manage football clubs but he’s now a criminal law expert.
I usually find Bruce quite affable but when I heard that he had weighed in on the Ched Evans debate I had to find out what he said.
Like everyone else, Bruce is entitled to his opinion and with the events which took place in Paris this week still at the fore of many people’s minds, the debate over the concept of free speech has never been more important.
However, just because we live in a part of the world where free speech is paramount does not mean that you should not think about what you are going to say before blurting it out.
At a press conference this week, Bruce said he thought convicted rapist, Ched Evans, deserved a second chance and that he should be allowed to play football again.
Now, whilst many may disagree with what Bruce has to say, I personally, don’t think is doing anything wrong by voicing such an opinion.
However, I did have to draw the line when Bruce proceeded to say that he believed there to be a question mark over Evans’ conviction.
Bruce is not a legal expert. He is a football manager. He is not qualified to pass judgement on others using the law of the land. That’s why we have judges, lawyers and barristers.
Don’t get me wrong, no legal system can ever be perfect and there will always be miscarriages of justice but for Bruce to suggest that Evans did not rape the young girl in question is utterly ridiculous.
Evans, who did serve time in prison after he was convicted, has always declared his innocence and he’s perfectly entitled to do so but perhaps someone should tell Steve Bruce that the case against Evans was so strong that he has been denied the right to an appeal however, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) are currently looking into the conviction.
Even if Evans’ conviction is over-turned it still doesn’t make what Steve Bruce said acceptable.
In a society where free speech is celebrated sometimes it’s better to say nothing at all.
I would like to know why Steve Bruce thinks Ched Evans has a case “for appeal”.
Is Bruce suggesting that because the woman in question was so intoxicated that there is no way what happened could be deemed as rape?
Is Bruce suggesting that because the woman wasn’t grabbed by a masked man, dragged down a dark ally and then sexually assaulted that it can’t be regarded as rape? I am all ears and would be very interested to know why he thinks Evans has a case.
A laissez-faire attitude towards rape is offensive and utterly destructive.
Bruce reckons that most people didn’t bother to read the notes and the details of the case but guess what Steve, like you, I have too.
I can’t even begin to imagine what it must have been like for that poor girl. She was extremely drunk, I am not denying that, but how many of you reading this article have found themselves in a complete state as a result of alcohol? Many of us have been there. Just because a man or woman is intoxicated does not mean that they cannot be raped or sexually assaulted.
Ched Evans is still being portrayed by some as a victim but spare a thought for the woman. She is the real victim!