There appears to be a different value system operating in Government compared to International Football doesn't there?
The pretty objectionable John Terry apparently refused to stand down as England captain because he claims to be innocent. He'll stand trial after the Euro finals which evidently take place this summer (had you forgotten/don't care/been overwhelmed by the excitement of of the Olympics). "Innocent until proven guilty" I hear declared. It will indeed be several months before we find out whether he can add racism to his list of sins. It does seem that the Terry family is a pretty awful one, and its probably fortunate that they have a footballing talent otherwise who knows what they'd be doing to terrorise the neighbours. So forced to go he was by the FA, which is hardly renowned for its ability to manage a p*ss up in a brewery. It took several months for the FA to come to this decision, and until the last few hours their position appeared to be that unless and until he was convicted, he could stay in his elevated role. By any measure he can't be that good a captain anyway given the amount of silverware on the England dressing room mantlepiece.
By comparison Chris Huhne, who also protests his innocence, has resigned immediately on being charged of getting his (ex) wife to take the points for a motoring offence. A very middle class crime. I hear that as a Minister he is pretty good at his job, so you can probably assume that his loss is our loss. He has consistently proclaimed his innocence and intends to prove it in court. Or at least prove that he can't be proven guilty. Government circles, or at least political commentators had made it clear in recent days that should he be charged he would be sacked, so his decision to resign was an astute one.
For different people Huhne and Terry are both role models, and it fascinates me to see how each, and their employers, have responded to their situation.
I wonder how Vicky Price is feeling this evening. As I understand it, it was her position as spurned wife that started the ball rolling. She was the one that told the papers that he had asked her to take the points and she had agreed. We've all been dumped at some stage in our lives, and we've all (well me at least) have thought of revenge as the route to follow. But generally after a chat with Best Friend down the pub and a few whiskeys we've realised that acting in the heat of the moment is not sensible. I suspect she is regretting her actions (the big caveat here is that I am assuming that I have understood what she did correctly). She is being prosecuted for the same crime as her ex-husband - the very serious offence of perverting the course of justice. If he is convicted then inevitably so will she. So at that level it may feel that things have backfired. But if he is found not guilty, she will be viewed in a pretty poor light indeed. Her stock will have fallen. For her I just can't see an upside to any of this. So the moral must be 'Think before you jump'.
Interestingly I read another press article today that suggested that the best revenge for a spurned partner is success...and that's something from personal experience I can whole heartedly agree with that...after The Boy's mother and I divorced, that seemed to spur me on, and my greatest work success was in the years following. I was never conscious of it, but I guess looking back, subconsciously I was there trying (and succeeding) in proving something.
