A&H

Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
DanCohen17 said:
Correct. They're under a moral & legal obligation to do so, but is that fair on them? Why should they be put in a position that would, understandably, make them feel incredibly uncomfortable? I for one wouldn't want my sister/cousins/female friends to be alone in a room with a convicted rapist!
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with the term convicted rapist. He is under the same umbrella as a predator with a knife and the vile disgusting individuals of the world. Yeah it's true he was convicted of rape. However, he is no risk to any women, people are denying him his human rights to work freely.

Tealeaf said:
I've heard it said elsewhere and have to agree - perhaps it's better for all concerned including the player himself - to wait for the outcome of his appeal. Conviction overturned - full on apologies from those who slated him, let him back to work regardless. Conviction upheld - matter of conscience for clubs concerned.

Before the moralising starts it wasn't like clubs were falling over themselves to sign Marlon King was it? Oh...hang on.....:oops:
Click to expand...

The problem for him if it is to be overturned is that mud sticks. Clayton McDonald, who was acquitted, has struggled ever since.
 
The Referee Store
"He is no risk to women"
How do you come to that conclusion? He's been charged, trialled, convicted & imprisoned based on a rape case! How much more of a risk is there...?
 
Jacko said:
That's the trouble with the term convicted rapist. He is under the same umbrella as a predator with a knife and the vile disgusting individuals of the world. Yeah it's true he was convicted of rape. However, he is no risk to any women, people are denying him his human rights to work freely.
Click to expand...

Whoa!! Can we really categorise rape? Rape is considered primarily as an act of power and control; sex is not the primary motivation per se. Is its means of execution really of consequence? But that is perhaps a discussion for another time and place.
Unless we have his probation reports we don't know if he continues to pose a risk.
However, as I said earlier, our system allows him to be employed.
 
Jacko said:
The problem for him if it is to be overturned is that mud sticks. Clayton McDonald, who was acquitted, has struggled ever since.
Click to expand...

Totally agree and it's because it's such an emotive issue. Just look at the spectrum of opinion on here. In the wider sphere even sensible comments are misinterpreted and twisted. Someone says something along the lines of "Don't put yourself in harms way by getting so blind drunk" and another person attacks that person claiming they are saying she "asked for it." Not the case whatsoever but that's where we are. Keep seeing stuff about a lack of apology from him too. He's appealing it - we always talk about players derailing their appeals to FAs by doing stupid stuff - like admitting to the offence. In this case that is a completely understandable position.

On a personal level, don't know any party involved, wasn't involved in the criminal proceedings, but think whatever the appeal outcome he's a bloody idiot. It will be a harsh lesson or justified punishment.
 
100% he shouldn't be allowed back until it's finalised. Whether that's him admitting and apologising or appealing and winning or losing & leaving it. At THAT point, there needs to be serious discussion as to whether he's allowed back.

If he wins the appeal (and there's no reverse appeal), therefore he is announced as innocent and removed from the sex offenders list (and loses all criminal charges on his record), he should definitely be allowed back.
If he admits & apologises, the resulting uproar (because he's denied it for so long) wouldn't allow him back at all.
If he loses the appeal, leaves the case officially but still proclaims innocence, then there's a far bigger problem!
 
The main issue for most, I believe, is that a convicted rapist could potentially be going back into a job where he will be in the public eye week in week out, performing infront of however-many-thousand Oldham get a week! It can't be right
 
What about players convicted of drink driving?

Hardly the role model for impressionable people........yet we are happy to have them in the game?

Or those convicted of violent crimes......Cantona....worst possible kind of violent attack....on a fan, during a game.......didn't hurt his career too much did it?

As I said.....an unhealthy mix of Daily Mail readers and the UK version of McCarthyism has blown this out of all proportion.
 
Drink driving is a victimless crime.
Death by dangerous driving due to drink driving isn't, but drink driving itself is a victimless crime.

Because someone's stupid enough to get smashed and drive a car, why shouldn't they continue their career? They can carry on with any career outside football, aside from those that are driving based.

Assault is a different matter. 95% of the time, it's a heat of the moment incident (same as VC on the field). Rape, by definition, is not. Rape is a planned action, or a thought-out one during the process. It isn't an instantaneous action at the heat of the moment.

For ME, that's the difference!
 
DanCohen17 said:
Drink driving is a victimless crime.
Death by dangerous driving due to drink driving isn't, but drink driving itself is a victimless crime.

Because someone's stupid enough to get smashed and drive a car, why shouldn't they continue their career? They can carry on with any career outside football, aside from those that are driving based.

Assault is a different matter. 95% of the time, it's a heat of the moment incident (same as VC on the field). Rape, by definition, is not. Rape is a planned action, or a thought-out one during the process. It isn't an instantaneous action at the heat of the moment.

For ME, that's the difference!
Click to expand...

Not always - this bloke Lee Hughes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hughes) killed somebody drink driving and returned to Oldham after serving half of his term.
 
Yes. Of course I would. Its called rehabilitation.

And because a court found him guilty does not mean you know what happened either. The whole case seemed fishy to me at the time due to the circumstances around it.

I find the media frenzy around it embarrassing and disrespectful to the 'victim' as much as it is to football and the people of this country. The sponsors throwing a wobbly every time he is offered training trials is equally deplorable.

It is not as if he stalked this person for the aim of raping her. She went back, willingly, to a hotel room at night with him. As someone else said, did she plan on a quick game of scrabble a bacon sarny and aufweidersen?

As far as I'm concerned if the media stopped the pathetic reporting and swarming around the case and he was quietly allowed to sign with a club, the whole "role model" argument would die off and people would be quick to forget

Let's not forget we have two players who have been convicted of killing of one degree or another who play in the FL. Why is this any different? No one went out and killed by drink droving because a player for their team did it. And to the same extend no one is going to go out and rape someone because of Evans.

People have their own minds and this whole nationwide plague of "don't do that, it will make people copy you" is absolutely nonsensical. If anything he has been punished. Openly and publicly, and this served a positive message as well.

Can't believe how long this has dragged on.

And this whole role model nonsense. Is it not a role model that someone made a mistake, served their time and was rehabilitated and changed their ways? That's testament to the justice system and a positive role model to many
 
It ought to be remembered here that to give consent, or to do an act willingly, a person must be fit to do so. It is now well established law that a person who is heavily intoxicated cannot provide this informed consent to sexual activity, much in the same way as a will change by a person with dementia is unlikely to hold much water. This is what the prosecution successfully argued during his trial, and what the Court of Appeal found no grounds to interfere with.
 
Whether he did it or not is largely immaterial. He has been found guilty in the first instance and subsequently failed to overturn this verdict on numerous appeals. The question, to me at least, is whether or not somebody who has been found guilty in a court of law and subsequently served his 'sentence' should be allowed to return to his job.

The British justice system relies on rehabilitation and as such, Evans should be able to go back to his job. The fact that he is on parole is also largely immaterial, didn't Jermaine Pennant play with a tag after leaving prison? (very different, I know). I totally get why people feel so strongly; Oldham are my local team, so I'm seeing first hand the emotion that this topic stirs. The media circus cannot helpful to Evans or the victim of this awful crime, surely if he was just playing without the media circus, she would be able to move on with her life and try to get back on track.

Perhaps he should wait until the final appeal is decided? If his conviction is quashed, there's no issue with him returning to football. If his conviction is upheld, this whole circus is likely to kick into gear again.
 
a couple of people on here, Jacko and Herts, seem to have missed the point that the woman in question did not go back to the hotel room with Evans but that McDonald contacted his friend Evans, who then took it upon himself to go to the room and have sex with a drunken teenager
 
+1 for Brian. No

Currently a convicted rapist, still on probation. Bad publicity and causes too many problems
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top