When I heard the news report yesterday, telling how a prisoner serving time for attempted rape had won £7m in the Lottery, it was all too clear what would happen next. Tabloid headlines of the “Kill this sick pervert!” type (although, surprisingly, not in the Daily Mail) and general mass media coverage of hair being torn out in great outrage.
Yes, that’s right. A man, who did A Bad Thing earlier in his life and who is currently being punished for that Bad Thing, has won the prize in a totally random draw. By purchasing his Lotto Extra ticket while on temporary release, Iorworth Hoare contravened neither the rules of the National Lottery nor the terms of his punishment, and he will not have access to the money until he has served his sentence in full. Fair enough, eh? Unfortunately, that’s just not good enough for a (hypocritically) puritanical element in our society, which is suggesting that High Court judgements be arbitrarily altered to divert such winnings to a criminal’s victims. This scares me.
Exactly how, I wonder, do these people envisage the precise definitions of such a law? If Mr Hoare had bought the ticket prior to being convicted, would his win be viewed differently? Would a convicted fraudster be subject to the same restriction? Or how about yer lovable Cockney gangland scum, so admired by witless soap stars and other minor celebs? Oh, and why is attempted rape suddenly seen as such a heinous crime by newspapers who have regularly belittled accusations of rape whenever the young victims were drunk or wearing revealing clothing?