Ched Evans

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

He has been convicted and served his sentence, whether or not he is actually guilty is irrelevant to this argument, it has to be assumed that he is indeed guilty and unremorseful until proved otherwise.

 

He has every right to continue his life and a career once more, but a career as a professional footballer should be out of the question due to the public profile and supposed 'role model' of the position.

 

Let him get on with his life in any profession he chooses, a normal job like the rest of us, but not one that is lived in the public eye.

 

Being a highly paid professional footballer should be regarded as a privilege, a privilege that he has now lost.

 

I'm not sure that allowing a convicted rapist to 'get on with his life in any profession he chooses' is the right way forward.  Unless his conviction is one day quashed then there are surely a whole range of professions that would not be open to him.  Most positions in the public sector, or in caring professions, for instance.  Committing a crime such as rape should bring with it the acknowledgment that his life will never be the same and he cannot have the expectations that others would see as 'normal' (for want of a better word).

 

Also he has not yet served his sentence.  His sentence was five years, and he is out on license, so still serving his sentence, albeit not in prison.  The slate is not wiped clean.

[westonred]

Whilst I do not condone what Evans has done I saw this on Facebook this morning and This person has a valid point

 

Whilst people who hold strong views regarding the return of the convicted rapist Ched Evans to professional football are entitled to express their displeasure I hope they also refuse to watch any BBC programme since they employed a convicted killer in Leslie Grantham and the likes of Jimmy Saville, or maybe people just jump on a bandwagon, and celebrities will speak out against somebody but don't understand what duplicitous means.

[WTFiGO!?!]

You can say that as often as you like, some on here will either ignore it or decide it doesn't fit in with their view of things. In a couple of hours there will be posts on here spouting the same ill informed rubbish as on previous pages.

 

This thread is just going around in circles and needs closing.

 

So this image is as appropriate here as it would be for a gag in the NLBR thread?

[LondonBristolian]

My wife knew nothing about this case and so looked up the case on the internet and has examined original official evidence and other documents and has come to the conclusion that there are question marks over the conduct and conclusions of the original verdict and that there has probably been a miscarriage of justice.  Clearly Ched feels the same and he is probably making the mistake that the legal system dispenses justice. As far as I can understand it, he was turned down leave to appeal and that no second trial has taken place.  He is in a terrible position that denies him a fair hearing but condemns him out of hand.  Maybe we should all cut him some slack until a further trial has actually happened. The evidence that freed his friend from the same charge should have freed him as well.  Maybe others on here could read the details of the case before jumping to conclusions based upon sensational reporting........of course, that does not mean that he is not guilty, we will only know after a proper appeal hearing.  That would be justice! 

 

You're presumably aware that all the aspects of the case you speak about have already been decided on by a jury?  And they decided what happened was rape.  You can't guarantee they were right - in so far as you can never guarantee that any jury is right - but the simple fact is he has had a fair hearing and the jury decided he was guilty.  Nobody's condemning him until he has a fair hearing because he had one already, if he didn't like the result.  As far as I am aware, no new evidence has been subsequently presented the jury didn't consider.  And that a lot of the facts circulating on the internet come from Evans' own website rather than an objective source.

 

FWIW I have read the court summary of the original hearing and the reasons why his appeals were not accepted (essentially no new evidence being presented and no evidence the judge misdirected the jury, and crucially it was felt the judge told the jury it was not inconsistent to deliver different verdicts on the two men if they felt it appropriate and it was felt this advice was not incorrect or a misapplication of law).  You're mistaken in thinking everyone who feels the jury's decision is probably correct has come to that conclusion because they did not read about the case properly.  From the description of the evidence and the testimonies involved, it's certainly possible to see why the jury returned a guilty verdict and indeed a guilty verdict on Evans and not MacDonald.

 

What you need to remember is the jury is not saying 'this man is proven guilty and this man is proven innocent' - a jury does not have the power to declare anyone innocent.  All they can say is 'the prosecution has convinced us beyond reasonable doubt that this person is guilty but the prosecution has not convinced us beyond reasonable doubt that MacDonald is guilty', which is an entirely different thing.

[LondonBristolian]

Whilst I do not condone what Evans has done I saw this on Facebook this morning and This person has a valid point

 

Whilst people who hold strong views regarding the return of the convicted rapist Ched Evans to professional football are entitled to express their displeasure I hope they also refuse to watch any BBC programme since they employed a convicted killer in Leslie Grantham and the likes of Jimmy Saville, or maybe people just jump on a bandwagon, and celebrities will speak out against somebody but don't understand what duplicitous means.

 

The analogy doesn't hold.  Firstly, whilst the BBC certainly didn't do enough due diligence in investigating rumours of Saville, they didn't knowingly employ a convicted sex offender.  Secondly you're assuming that people's objection to their club employing Evans is a blanket opposition of all criminals being offered work in the future, rather than a specific feeling that Evans' conduct in this particular case means a club would be ill-advised to employ him.

 

FWIW I know I'm not helping but I agree this thread is circling and could probably be closed...

[Guest]

Cynic I think you are right.

 

Ultimately the question is should a convicted rapist be entitled to carry on a career as a football upon re-integration in to society. This is such a deeply entrenched moral question and ultimately it is not a case of being right or wrong, because anyone justifiably can come to either conclusion.

 

Mine personally, to summarise, is I think he should be entitled to. I reach this because others in the past have been able to (Tyson) and even convicted killers (McCormack) and the particularly disgusting case of drunk driving hit and run (Hughes). He is restricted from some careers for the protection of others however the professional body (FA) has not prevented him, the professional players association (PFA) supports him and the democratically appointed legislatures over the years have not sought to prevent his doing so by legislation. Indeed, they welcomed Mike Tyson to Manchester and Edinburgh for fights so I think it is highly hypocritical of some politicians to wade in on this issue. Therefore I believe he has a right to carry on and I would support him in asserting that.

 

Would I want him to turn up at BS3? No, but neither would I want Hughes, McCormack, King etc. But hypothetically if he did I would not be disgraced, I would not sign a petition against it and I would continue to support the club. It doesn't make me a condoner of rape nor would it the club.

 

I do feel very strongly about the statements which intimate he's had three cracks at the whip - a trial and two appeals all unsuccessful, which is complete nonsense. He has had one trial and save for very extreme circumstances that's all he or anyone else gets. Even if an appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court it's still one trial as the appeals process is nothing to do with retrying a case. That I agree with, the decision of the jury on the evidence presented to them in an appropriate manner has to be sacrosanct or the whole trial by jury system fails.

[AshtonGreat]

Exactly.

People are essentially saying they don't think he's guilty, therefore the justice system must be broken, because how could their perception be wrong?

Would be hilarious position to hold, if it wasn't so disturbing.

He's guilty, and until his (third) appeal is heard (and most likely after it too), that is an undisputed fact, regardless of the propaganda he liberally spreads via any means his wealth can buy him.

If you're sticking up for him, you're sticking up for a rapist. Whatever your reasons for doing so, take into account you are condoning his conduct, which however you slice it was pretty grim regardless of crime, and certainly not the sort of stuff I personally think is defendable; footballer or no.

Whether he should play football or not; could give a flying. But the fact every time I log on here to look at news and view about my beloved City I have to see a thread about a convicted rapist signing for some other club is getting on my nerves; can't we bump this to news of something?

Just as a matter of interest, if someone were to say they felt that Amanda Knox was innocent, would that mean they were 'sticking up for a murderer'? Just putting it out there.

[samo II]

Just as a matter of interest, if someone were to say they felt that Amanda Knox was innocent, would that mean they were 'sticking up for a murderer'? Just putting it out there.

Completely different legal system; in Italy, you are only confirmed in your sentence once they full range of appeal processes open to you are exhausted, which in her case they are not as yet.

 

Totally irrelevant comparison, though she was found guilty in her retrial last year, so if you wanted to be belligerent about it, calling her a convicted murderer would be the truth, taking into account the conditions.

 

But this isn't a thread about that, is it?  It's about people trying (for reasons that completely escape me) to make the case that Evan, a convicted rapist (that being pretty much the only consistent fact on here) should be allowed to play football again.

Personally; I'm disinterested in that discussion, and just want this poisonous thread, full of unpleasant lies and half truths, to vanish.

[MarcusX]

Cynic I think you are right.

 

Ultimately the question is should a convicted rapist be entitled to carry on a career as a football upon re-integration in to society. This is such a deeply entrenched moral question and ultimately it is not a case of being right or wrong, because anyone justifiably can come to either conclusion.

 

Mine personally, to summarise, is I think he should be entitled to. I reach this because others in the past have been able to (Tyson) and even convicted killers (McCormack) and the particularly disgusting case of drunk driving hit and run (Hughes). He is restricted from some careers for the protection of others however the professional body (FA) has not prevented him, the professional players association (PFA) supports him and the democratically appointed legislatures over the years have not sought to prevent his doing so by legislation. Indeed, they welcomed Mike Tyson to Manchester and Edinburgh for fights so I think it is highly hypocritical of some politicians to wade in on this issue. Therefore I believe he has a right to carry on and I would support him in asserting that.

 

Would I want him to turn up at BS3? No, but neither would I want Hughes, McCormack, King etc. But hypothetically if he did I would not be disgraced, I would not sign a petition against it and I would continue to support the club. It doesn't make me a condoner of rape nor would it the club.

 

I do feel very strongly about the statements which intimate he's had three cracks at the whip - a trial and two appeals all unsuccessful, which is complete nonsense. He has had one trial and save for very extreme circumstances that's all he or anyone else gets. Even if an appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court it's still one trial as the appeals process is nothing to do with retrying a case. That I agree with, the decision of the jury on the evidence presented to them in an appropriate manner has to be sacrosanct or the whole trial by jury system fails.

 

I think you probably speak the most sense on this thread.

 

Personally, I believe that based on precedent (Tyson, McCormack, Hughes, King) Evans should be allowed to return to Football. It seems that perhaps an example is being made of Evans, or perhaps as some have mentioned this case just happened at a time when social media was more prevalent and a "voice" is given to the minority that wasn't possible around the time of Hughes, King, McCormack and certainly not Tyson.

 

Whilst I appreciate a decision has been made, he has been found guilty of rape by a jury, I feel that the "grey area" and lack of clear cut evidence surrounding this case makes it a bad one to make an example of. By this, I mean this case would appear to have been decided based on the opinion of a Jury regarding the drunk state that the victim was in at the time. This is only an opinion, as no-one could realistically know how drunk the victim was at the time of the incident other than those in the room at the time. (there is no additional evidence that has not been released to the public).

 

If the petition and protests were aimed at the FA and ridding the game of anyone who had committed a "serious offence" I would support it because I don't feel someone like Hughes should be in the public eye. I cant however support a hypocritical standpoint against one particular person, especially considering the circumstances of this particular case.

[richwwtk]

Personally, I believe that based on precedent (Tyson, McCormack, Hughes, King) Evans should be allowed to return to Football. It seems that perhaps an example is being made of Evans, or perhaps as some have mentioned this case just happened at a time when social media was more prevalent and a "voice" is given to the minority that wasn't possible around the time of Hughes, King, McCormack and certainly not Tyson.

 

As I have no in-depth knowledge of the cases I would be interested to know - did all of these people still publicly protest their innocence and show no remorse at all following their convictions?

[MarcusX]

As I have no in-depth knowledge of the cases I would be interested to know - did all of these people still publicly protest their innocence and show no remorse at all following their convictions?

 

I believe Tyson showed remorse in court? But was something of a serial offender - bit before my time.

 

Hughes has been reported to lack remorse, according to quotes from parole officers and such like. he also fled the scene of an accident to avoid a breathalyser, and tried to deny the charge so I don't rate him very highly as a human being.

 

King has re-offended since and is back in prison.

 

The mother of the two children that McCormack killed released her story and stated that he made no contact, no apology and showed no remorse to her family. I believe he eventually contacted her almost a year later...

 

The difference is, particularly in the Hughes and McCormack cases, there is absolutely no question of guilt. There is simply no defence in the world for what those two men did, so no they aren't going to publically protest their innocence and I would imagine there is a huge feeling of guilt and remorse for their actions - whether that's publically displayed or not.

[Red-Robbo]

As I have no in-depth knowledge of the cases I would be interested to know - did all of these people still publicly protest their innocence and show no remorse at all following their convictions?

No, but nor did the Guildford Four etc.

It's not the protesting his innocence that concerns me, it's the factor you hinted at in an earlier post - the public role of a footballer in society.

Because of the way the sport and its skilled playears are viewed by society and particularly the young, I can't see that there is a place for a convicted rapist in it, even after serving his sentence.

No-one would expect - for example - a convicted paedophile to be able to go back into teaching, and unfortunately for Evans the same thing applies here.

During the course of this debate, I've changed my mind on this - largely due to some very good points being made by OTIB posters.

I still don't know if I were a juror I'd have felt "beyond reasonable doubt" enough to convict, but I accept that none of us was in court, heard every shred of evidence and picked up all the nuances that might not come through in black and white newsprint.

And that's besides the point. Until he can prove the innocence he claims, he has to be treated as a convicted rapist.

It's time the FA got their fingers out their bums and set up a fit and proper test for registered players too.

[AshtonGreat]

No, but nor did the Guildford Four etc.

It's not the protesting his innocence that concerns me, it's the factor you hinted at in an earlier post - the public role of a footballer in society.

Because of the way the sport and its skilled playears are viewed by society and particularly the young, I can't see that there is a place for a convicted rapist in it, even after serving his sentence.

No-one would expect - for example - a convicted paedophile to be able to go back into teaching, and unfortunately for Evans the same thing applies here.

During the course of this debate, I've changed my mind on this - largely due to some very good points being made by OTIB posters.

I still don't know if I were a juror I'd have felt "beyond reasonable doubt" enough to convict, but I accept that none of us was in court, heard every shred of evidence and picked up all the nuances that might not come through in black and white newsprint.

And that's besides the point. Until he can prove the innocence he claims, he has to be treated as a convicted rapist.

It's time the FA got their fingers out their bums and set up a fit and proper test for registered players too.

And yet Suarez has bitten fellow professionals on three separate occasions, but recently signed a lucrative contract with one of the world's most popular clubs. I know it's not comparable to convicted rape but it is nevertheless a deplorable offence and one that could significantly influence young children - probably even more so than the Ched Evans case because it's happening in front of their eyes. Sadly, when there's big money at stake, such things are conveniently forgotten.

[Red-Robbo]

And yet Suarez has bitten fellow professionals on three separate occasions, but recently signed a lucrative contract with one of the world's most popular clubs. I know it's not comparable to convicted rape but it is nevertheless a deplorable offence and one that could significantly influence young children - probably even more so than the Ched Evans case because it's happening in front of their eyes. Sadly, when there's big money at stake, such things are conveniently forgotten.

Yep, the issues go way beyond this case.

[richwwtk]

Thinking more about this, I'm in no position to tell if he should play again or not, I just don't want him to because, guilty or not, his actions have shown him to be a reprehensible human being and I'm annoyed that such a person can earn several times anything I ever will just because he is able to kick a ball!

[havanatopia]

Not knowing a lot about this case I would only ask the very open question which is this:- If, as I understand it, he has done his porridge is he not entitled to have another go at playing football?

 

If you do the crime and then do the time should you be continually punished once you are a free man? its not his fault many may think his time was not long enough; personally i do not think the time for many crimes is long enough but it is what it is and he served his punishment as handed down to him.

 

What he was found guilty of, regardless of a correct verdict or not, was deplorable but probably better for society as a whole if he can be given the chance to lead a normal life now. Holding back ex-cons only really leads to more re-offenders which is hardly the desired effect after a prison term.

[samo II]

And yet Suarez has bitten fellow professionals on three separate occasions, but recently signed a lucrative contract with one of the world's most popular clubs. I know it's not comparable to convicted rape but it is nevertheless a deplorable offence and one that could significantly influence young children - probably even more so than the Ched Evans case because it's happening in front of their eyes. Sadly, when there's big money at stake, such things are conveniently forgotten.

I say this without malice or an intention to insult you specifically, but I think comparing raping a girl to an act of gross unsporting behaviour is pretty inappropriate.

 

Doing this muddies the waters; Suarez might have a predilection for biting fellow sportsmen in moments of high tension, but he's not a convicted sex offender.  He is also repentant about his actions, whether you believe that or not is another matter, but he's publicly gone to great lengths to make that clear.  Evans hasn't, and has even failed to speak out against the harassment and denigration of his victim.

They are not in anyway comparable, regardless of sharing a profession, and it doesn't feed into the debate at hand; worse, it further detaches Evans form the severity of the crime he has been convicted of.

He is a convicted sex offender - it's not a disciplinary matter or a moral matter, but a legal one; he is a rapist by the standards set by the laws of this country.  All debate on the case is secondary to this fact.

And for those saying stuff like "but he's served his time" I recommend the following article, that very succinctly outlines the responses to many of the common misconceptions about the case using those pesky things called 'facts', that regardless of what his website and press team have tried to spin, really are what is important here; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ched-evans-has-served-his-time--and-other-misconceptions-about-the-convicted-rapist-footballer-9957849.html

[ten minutes of rough]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would I want him to turn up at BS3? No, but neither would I want Hughes, McCormack, King etc. But hypothetically if he did I would not be disgraced, I would not sign a petition against it and I would continue to support the club. It doesn't make me a condoner of rape nor would it the club.

 

 

 

As hard as it might be I believe that would be it for me and the club, not that I think for one second City would ever stoop so low as to sign anyone of this ilk,

 

You may not condone what they do but you sure as hell give them a good life their victims could not enjoy.

 

To say or do nothing is passive support, to stand up for decency and fair play needs a bit more guts my friend. 

[Monkeh]

there is a joint statement from oldham and the PFA shortly me thinks oldham may of signed him

[samo II]

Not knowing a lot about this case I would only ask the very open question which is this:- If, as I understand it, he has done his porridge is he not entitled to have another go at playing football?

 

If you do the crime and then do the time should you be continually punished once you are a free man? its not his fault many may think his time was not long enough; personally i do not think the time for many crimes is long enough but it is what it is and he served his punishment as handed down to him.

 

What he was found guilty of, regardless of a correct verdict or not, was deplorable but probably better for society as a whole if he can be given the chance to lead a normal life now. Holding back ex-cons only really leads to more re-offenders which is hardly the desired effect after a prison term.

I'd recommend reading this article on rehabilitation, and what that actually means in the context on both this case and in a wider context.

http://everydayvictimblaming.com/responses-to-media/are-you-really-talking-about-rehabilitation-for-ched-evans/

Rehabilitation does not simply mean going back to 'normal' life, and as someone with experience dealing with ex-offenders from many different categories of crime, I can tell you; those x-convicts who to go straight back to the type of life they led before conviction are the most likely to re-offended.

You might think that sounds stupid in he context of a professional footballer, but look at Marlon King; repeat re-offender, despite returning to the 'good life' of a footballer.  

Evans simply going 'back to normal' could be seen, both externally and internally (i.e. by Evans himself) as validation for his behaviour, and thus lead him to be placed into more scenarios where he could potentially re-offend.  

Again; people may scoff at this, but there is a high level of recidivism amongst convicted sex offenders of all stripes, and being that the concept of rehabilitation is built around making sure the offender does not re-offend, there is a logic to it.

[Vincent Vega]

there is a joint statement from oldham and the PFA shortly me thinks oldham may of signed him

The internet will break if they have...

[Monkeh]

The internet will break if they have...

They've locked down their forums because of the shit storm that was starting,

 

Its going to be intresting

[Super]

Shame on Oldham, if Johnson has any decency he will resign.

[samo II]

Shame on Oldham, if Johnson has any decency he will resign.

Could do far better than stay at a club willing to undermine him in this fashion, certainly considering the solid job he's done there.

Said before; but could do worse than jump to somewhere like Gillingham, where he'd certainly fit Sally's seeming desire for a young and hungry manager.

[Vincent Vega]

No decision today from Oldham today, but how long does it take to say no...!

[Guest]

As hard as it might be I believe that would be it for me and the club, not that I think for one second City would ever stoop so low as to sign anyone of this ilk,

 

You may not condone what they do but you sure as hell give them a good life their victims could not enjoy.

 

To say or do nothing is passive support, to stand up for decency and fair play needs a bit more guts my friend. 

 

Guts? Takes a fair amount of those to put your head above the parapet, speak against the majority and stand for the rights of a convicted rapist, my friend.

[Vincent Vega]

Sky news saying Oldham are working to secure a deal...

[Cotham Brow Red]

If they sign him it would be a $hit stain for ever more on Oldham and I don't wish that on there true fanbase. Feel sorry for them and for LJ who I am sure wouldn't accept him if it was down to him.

Sorry Oldham but every match they are going to get shredded especially on away days. Bad news sticks and follows you.

[AshtonGreat]

I say this without malice or an intention to insult you specifically, but I think comparing raping a girl to an act of gross unsporting behaviour is pretty inappropriate.

 

Doing this muddies the waters; Suarez might have a predilection for biting fellow sportsmen in moments of high tension, but he's not a convicted sex offender.  He is also repentant about his actions, whether you believe that or not is another matter, but he's publicly gone to great lengths to make that clear.  Evans hasn't, and has even failed to speak out against the harassment and denigration of his victim.

They are not in anyway comparable, regardless of sharing a profession, and it doesn't feed into the debate at hand; worse, it further detaches Evans form the severity of the crime he has been convicted of.

He is a convicted sex offender - it's not a disciplinary matter or a moral matter, but a legal one; he is a rapist by the standards set by the laws of this country.  All debate on the case is secondary to this fact.

And for those saying stuff like "but he's served his time" I recommend the following article, that very succinctly outlines the responses to many of the common misconceptions about the case using those pesky things called 'facts', that regardless of what his website and press team have tried to spin, really are what is important here; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ched-evans-has-served-his-time--and-other-misconceptions-about-the-convicted-rapist-footballer-9957849.html

 

I appreciate you saying you mean no malice. Neither do I.

 

'Gross unsporting behaviour' is one way of describing biting someone; 'serious assault' is another. If someone bit someone outside a nightclub on a Saturday night, he or she would likely be arrested and charged.

 

But anyway, I already made it clear that I wasn't in any way comparing Suarez's crime to rape. My point was that when big bucks are at stake, normal decency seems to go out of the window. I would hazard a guess that if Ched Evans were the best player in the world, a lot more clubs would be in for him. It's sad. The Tyson case is perhaps a better example - I have no idea if Mike Tyson actually committed that crime, as I don't know the facts. But he was convicted of it. Despite this, he was soon back in the ring. And why? Because his name put bums on seats. If anything, some probably used his 'pantomime villain' status to crank up the hype.

 

I did read the Indy article, thanks. Not that I'm a fan of papers like that and the Mail.

[samo II]

I appreciate you saying you mean no malice. Neither do I.

 

'Gross unsporting behaviour' is one way of describing biting someone; 'serious assault' is another. If someone bit someone outside a nightclub on a Saturday night, he or she would likely be arrested and charged.

 

But anyway, I already made it clear that I wasn't in any way comparing Suarez's crime to rape. My point was that when big bucks are at stake, normal decency seems to go out of the window. I would hazard a guess that if Ched Evans were the best player in the world, a lot more clubs would be in for him. It's sad. The Tyson case is perhaps a better example - I have no idea if Mike Tyson actually committed that crime, as I don't know the facts. But he was convicted of it. Despite this, he was soon back in the ring. And why? Because his name put bums on seats. If anything, some probably used his 'pantomime villain' status to crank up the hype.

 

I did read the Indy article, thanks. Not that I'm a fan of papers like that and the Mail.

Can't disagree with any of that at all.

 

It's interesting how Clayton McDonald, who was found not guilty, but also wasn't a full international who had gone for millions in the past, is now playing in the conference, while his fellow accused (who's past transfer fees and appearances for his country are never far from being mentioned) is being sought after by a league club.  

So I'd suggest you are bang on in suggesting that the decision to hire Evans being driven by fiscal factors, which may win out here.

Part of me wonders how much of a factor being indebted (possibly literally) to certain folks who've been running his PR and defence he might be, and how is sustained campaign to get back in the game is driven by a possibility of ruin otherwise?

 

And, for the record; I've never bought the Independent in my life, and certainly not the Mail, and had linked it not for yourself but others who kept repeating the same things over and over that the article, regardless of it's paper, dealt with far more succinctly than I could.