Bollox! She was a drunken tart, who was willing to go to a hotel room for sex, his mistake was getting involved with the tart!.................
This lad deserves everything he gets if he is allowed to play professional football again. He will be abused left right and center by decent fans in every game he plays as that is human nature. If a club wants to take that baggage on board then they are fools as i doubt the TV companies will risk broadcasting their games for fear of public opinion..This lad has brought all this on himself and he should do the decent thing and go back under the rock he came from and disappear... Im ashamed he is welsh...
"The judge made sure of that by putting him on the register indefinitely. Why? Because when his playing career is over he could end up going for a job as a coach, teacher and so on. The restriction of future emplyment was put in place by the judge not me. Again nothing to do with my sensibilities." More ignorance. Rape = a life registration. No discretion. Please do your research, Bob.
If you are a registered sex offender due to the fact that an enhanced DBS is required you will be barred from those employment options. If you are a convicted criminal and are not on this register it is then down to the employer whether they wish to employ you. Some professional occupations will not employ anyone with a criminal record including education, HM Forces and Police. The question I am asking is are you basing your opinion based on some of the facts that you know/read about the case or would this be your stance no matter what.
So let's consider the word "decent" and thereby what is "indecent". "This lad deserves everything he gets" .... I disagree .... he's paid his debt to society. He deserves to be treated equitably - no more, but no less, and his rights to be respected. "He will be abused left right and center by decent fans in every game he plays as that is human nature" .... he will most certainly be the subject of abuse, but not from "decent" fans as it is not, IMO, human nature to abuse others. Those that do abuse him are certainly no better than the person they are abusing. " If a club wants to take that baggage on board then they are fools" ... a club is going to have a serious decision on their hands for sure; but foolish I think not, some clubs have values and those should include treating everybody with respect and dignity. Some clubs will refuse to hire him because he's not a good enough player - a football decision. Some clubs will refuse to hire him because of the risk of negative publicity - a business decision. Some clubs will refuse to hire him because their owners have the self-righteous, holier-than-thou "****-him he's a sinner" attitude - an in-human decision. Some clubs will refuse to hire him because sponsors will bring direct pressure to bear and twist arms financially - resulting in another type of business decision being made, and the club will have to weigh their commitment to values against financial loss. "He should do the decent thing and go back under the rock he came from and disappear" .... why should he do the "decent" thing for the convenience and sensibilities of others, when others have no interest in being "decent" - and by that I mean equitable - towards him. "I'm ashamed he is welsh" ... from the mouth of Saint Dai, I say no more.
"I'm ashamed he is welsh" ... from the mouth of Saint Dai, I say no more. Yes but we should add that this is the same guy who agrees with UKIP apart from their policies on Europe.
Firstly my name aint Bob please do your research its quite simple my name is at the top. It seems I dont have the monopoly on ignorance!! Secondly maybe I should have been more specific, my apologies. The law (which the judge dispenses) has made sure of that.
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure what "DBS" is. If the law mandates people on the register from being employed in certain occupations then so be it - it is part of society's debt, applicable to all and not capriciously aimed towards him. Other employers will no doubt make hiring decisions based on many factors - if they have a formal policy and apply it consistently then that is par for the course. I don't know Evans nor the details of the case other then the charge and that he was convicted, so I am not basing anything I say about the case's circumstances or him as a person. In general, my position is that a convicted person, once the sentence has been determined and served, should not be further penalized or discriminated against. I realize that this takes, in some cases, an extension of a great deal of trust, guarded trust, on loan so to speak that the person must earn over time. It's also a matter of risk aversion, and many people have no stomach for risk in any form, which complicates matters and makes it difficult for people like Evans to reclaim themselves and their livelihood. The register is in large part a revocation of trust based on risk mitigation. For some crimes this revocation is both necessary and practical - as in the case of *****philes where real risk persists - but should also be accompanied with support for the problem and for their livelihood. For other crimes its sole purpose seems to be to stigmatize in perpetuity and I don't see the need for that.
On a sex register = scumbag = low life that don't deserve to be in the public eye as a roll model for impressionable kids....
Thats a fair point YJ. I suppose I agree to a point that people shouldnt be punished over and above what the law dictates. In this case as in all serious sexual crimes employment and travel is restricted. Which I totally agree with. Although the ECHR have said that indefinite terms on the register without review contravenes the HRA DBS is the Disclosure and Barring Service checks. They used to be known as CRBs (Criminal Record Bureau). Most of my employment history has required enhanced CRB's which basically dont just check my history bu direct relatives and anyone that has lived or does live with me including inlaws not just blood relatives so to speak. I just get concerned when people want to advocate a sliding scale of seriousness to serious crimes. The judicial system has this in place already and I htink we are on a sticky wicket if we go down the route of "well that rape charge isnt as bad as this one " scenarios.
Sorry Bap for calling you Bob. You've both been spouting so much crap I got confused. "I just get concerned when people want to advocate a sliding scale of seriousness to serious crimes. The judicial system has this in place already and I htink we are on a sticky wicket if we go down the route of "well that rape charge isnt as bad as this one " scenarios. " As you say, there IS a sliding scale of seriousness built into the system. A predator who stalked a woman for weeks before breaking into her home and raping her would have received much more than 5 years. Lawyers regularly encounter anomalies whereby people are on the register that shouldn't be. Pinch a girl's backside in a pub and she turns out to be a 'child'? You may well find yourself on the Register. Is anyone seriously suggesting Evans is a risk to the public? It's nonsense, but that's the way it is. By the way his licence period will be for years and be considered as part of his sentence so he's still serving time, technically. Don't know why you're so "concerned" about us making a differentiation in seriousness when our own judicial system does so. By way of example, 2 dealers get arrested for the same offence - supplying Class A drugs. Are you seriously suggesting that the criminal conduct of the guy who sold a 10gm deal is equally as reprehensible as the guy who sold a 50gm deal? The criminal law allows for a "sliding scale" as do we.
Fair point, but that's a different debate Phill. For my money saying "He's a convicted rapist so he shouldn't be allowed back into football" is an over-simplification and is contrary to a long held value in this country that you do your time, pay your dues to society, then be allowed to get on with your life. It's also a view that sadly reflects a lynch-mob mentality that pervades our society.
he's served his time and should be allowed to continue to earn a living IMO. how long do you continue to punish a criminal? does that mean it would be fine for him to go to a building site tomorrow and earn a few quid or is it just that he's in the public eye, and football needs to be seen to condemn his behaviour. this is just my opinion, but if its possible, this is a lesser 'rape' than the stereotypical one. drunk woman on a night out looking to get with footballer, footballer knows she is blind drunk and not capable of consenting, yet screws her anyway, yes that is rape if those facts are proven.
John, that is exactly my point. The sliding scale is already in place. In this case the Judge used that. But you are advocating your own scale on top of that. By the way John, where supply of a Class A substance is concerned especially heroin supply is supply whether its a 10 gram bag or a 50 gram. Are you seriously telling me John that you would consider some heroin dealers are less despicable than others? For the record there isn't much difference between the 2 anyway. They are both classed as street dealers (for want of a better description). A better example would have been to compare either Class A with Class B or even change the the quanitites ie grams v kilos etc. That is of course if you were trying to illicit the response you wanted from me. As previously states the criminal law does allow this so there is no need for us to do it also. Oh and just to avoid confusion. The reason I think your name is John is because I know a guy called John and get confused cos he is a twat as well.
Oh dear I expected something a little more adult, Bap. Let's try and be grown up shall we? 1: "The sliding scale is already in place. In this case the Judge used that. But you are advocating your own scale on top of that." No. I am saying that the Judge correctly adopts a sliding scale of seriousness when it comes to sentencing - if he/she didn't there'd be an instant appeal. I am not advocating that the public add another scale on top of that at all. I am saying that if the law differentiates serious to less serious then we should (and do) as well. If you don't, you end up putting a shoplifter who steals a Mars bar in the same bracket as someone who steals £100 from a charity collection box. Both theft, but both treated differently in law (on sentence) and by us, the public (in attitude and degree of social stigma). 2: "Are you seriously telling me John that you would consider some heroin dealers are less despicable than others? " Yes, and the law agrees with me. A dealer who is slinging 10gm deals to fund his own, sad habit is treated differently in law to someone who sells larger quantities to fund his own habit and an expensive lifestyle. The public too also regard such offenders differently. 3: "A better example would have been to compare either Class A with Class B or even change the the quanitites ie grams v kilos." No. Because then you are comparing supplying different types of drug that carry different sentencing ranges. The whole point (that you repeatedly miss) is that there are degrees in criminal law within the same offence that you seem intent on ignoring. You say that the public should not regard people differently and that a conviction is a conviction but that argument is already lost. How many people on this very forum have pointed out the circumstances of Evans's conviction? Quite a few. In my experience the public are intelligent enough to know how to formulate opinions based on degrees of offending once they know the circumstances. The courts have to do so and the public do too whether you like it or not.
