being devils advocate here, would you employ someone who'd been done for ABH and paid his dues?
If I believed the man was unlikely to reoffend and had moved beyond such behaviour, if he is a reforming character who wants to be reformed, yes BUT Clark should have been done for GBH, didn't pay his dues, and I am not the RFU looking to employ players to to represent this country at the highest level of the sport. I believe there is sufficient difference that the two can't be seen as properly comparable.
So looking at Clark's position -
The GBH is a difference included for the sake of completeness. Wouldn't change my perceptions that much.
Would my opinion be different if he had paid his dues? Yes, although full payment of his dues means he arguably shouldn't be back in professional rugby yet. It's arguably not fair that I hold this opinion, but is what it is. Still, let us imagine he had paid in full and was available.
There is an argument to whether selection for the England team should solely be efficacy or whether it should also reflected the privileged, responsible position in the public eye they hold. If it is the latter, then yes, I think Clark should be barred unless there's been a significant punishment question. I have to admit, I am somewhat biased against Clark by the fact that Lancaster has publicly nailed his colours to the latter position, but still includes Clark in squads, which I find disgraceful hypocrisy. Again, that's probably not fair, it's not his fault, but it increases my sense that he should not be in the squad.
At the moment, Clark hasn't paid his dues and neither has he shown any remorse, which makes me question whether he's a reformed character. If he'd paid his dues, if he'd shown genuine remorse and the rest of it, then yes, I think he should be considered for a chance of redemption. But there hasn't been and never will.
).
