Who said he was the victim here? I didnt see a single post alluding to that. People come out of prison and make successful careers all the time. There are plenty who are even 'celebrities'. I dont see many people clamouring for Johnny Vaughan to be kicked off Talksport. He's served his punishment that he was given. He wasnt sentenced to a lifetime of never being able to work again.
I think there's a few mistaking their understanding of the facts and morals taken from media rants with reality. Others in different circumstances being treat differently isn't really a defence, as so far at least four QC's agree. There are also others kicked into the wilderness that have broken no laws. .
I have no opinion with regards to Ched Evans playing football again, there are genuine arguments both for and against. However I hate the way people are using it to boost their profiles or appease the social media masses. Charlie Webster for example claims she can't be associated with a club that employs a rapist, yet admitted she was starstruck when she met another convicted rapist. Jessica Ennis wasn't bothered at all and remained quiet until others quit their roles and received praise and attention for it. It doesn't seem to be about the ethics of employing a criminal or the debate about rehabilitation, more how can I best make this work for my career and profile.
Right, I am NOT equating with posing for lads mags with rape.... but it does smack of self promotion on Webster's part. I'd never f**ing heard of her until she went on tv to have a pop at the Blunts over this and then a bit of research later shows she massively pissed off several women's groups - and her fellow female colleagues - by demeaning her and their journalistic qualities and abilities as serious professionals by getting her kit off for FHM.
Bruce: Wigan owner Whelan is not a racist Hull City manager Steve Bruce says Wigan chairman Dave Whelan is not a racist. Bruce worked under Whelan during two separate spells as manager of the Lancashire club. Whelan has been criticised for his comments regarding Jewish and Chinese people in a Guardian interview. please log in to view this image Maybe sitting on the fence might be the easiest thing to do but I've worked under Dave Whelan twice - I know him very, very well," said Bruce. "There's no racism in him at all. Sometimes words can be said which can be misplaced, they can be out there in the public domain, but certainly when I've worked with him there's been no sign of racism. "He is without question one of the best chairmen I've worked for. What you see is what you get." http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-21/bruce-wigan-owner-whelan-is-not-a-racist/
I think that's very unfair on Ennis, she tweeted about it being a poor decision by the Blunts as soon as it was announced that he'd been invited to train with them and said she wanted her name taking off the stand if he returned, within two days of the story coming out. She's also been threatened with rape on Twitter by a load of neanderthal Blunts, some of whom are about to be banned from Bramall Lane. I'd never heard of Charlie Webster before this though.
I don't think it's going to help him much, it looks like Whelan's comments are going to get him up on an FA charge. I just heard an MP saying 'even his apologies are offensive'.
My point exactly, why did she need to tweet it? If she didn't like it she could have told the club, they could have removed her name and then if still necessary issue a brief statement explaining her stance. By posting it on twitter your looking for peoples approval and the media attention that comes with it. Ironically by posting it on twitter she is drawing attention to the fact she is associated with the very club she wants to distance herself from. I bet the majority of the general population had either forgotten or didn't know her name was on the stand in the first place, it could have been removed without the fuss and media hype. The threats are unacceptable though, although that's a completely different issue.
She put it on Twiiter to exert pressure on the club the reverse their decision, exactly the same reason Paul Heaton issued a statement on Facebook and it's worked.
It's an easy thing to say folk are 'confused' but it would help if these remarks were more specific in who and what is confused. I have no confusion that Evans has been found guilty of rape and that judgment stands - I certainly do not contest it, nor do I believe that he is the victim of that crime; it's really very shallow and weak to infer I (or any of the other posters) might believe anything other. I think that folk adopting a high intellectual superiority in the discussion does not make their views any more credible. I have seen many comments that refer to him not being allowed a new club - Sheffield United could not have made it clearer that this was not on the cards. This was all about training, nothing else. I am confused (sadly, not really) why the media keep trawling out the Jessica Ennis-Hill stance as it is simply not relevant; comments about removing her name from the stand only referred to him signing for the club - he hasn't, he wasn't and it has been made crystal clear to one and all he isn't. So why keep dragging this up other than to perpetuate a lie that suits someone's other agenda. I am still confused why the wealth involved in his relationships plays any sort of a role in this so-called moral question. I am equally confused as to why footballers, per se, are not seen as being integrated into society. This is not a moral debate about rehabilitation as there are plenty of sportsmen, politicians, whatever that have committed crime and then been accepted back into the fold. This is a debate that attacks the perceived elitism of footballers at the top of their profession (The Blades, really. . . ). It might help if comment was made from experience rather than a blind assumption, probably based on the antics of a few daft lads - daft lads who exist in every walk of life where money is readily available. I would still like someone to point out to me what damage Ched Evans was making to the integrity of football, The Blades and it's supporters, or the general public by turning up to their training ground for simple training sessions - is it deemed more appropriate that he should attend the local fitness centre? It seems to me that there are those in society who have pre-conceived ideas and don't examine the details of each individual case.
I suppose that's a positive way of looking at it as opposed to the cynical view I posted. In all probability their true motivation is likely to be somewhere between the two.
Pete O'Rourke ‏@SkySportsPeteO The FA confirm they are investigating comments made by Wigan chairman Dave Whelan in a newspaper interview. #WAFC
Rubbish. Convicted murderers have become major stars on that supposedly bastion of British morals, the BBC.
Fez, to try and answer some of your questions. His wealth was brought up to show that if he doesn't play for Sheffield United he isn't going to be a burden on the tax payer. Training with Sheffield United was seen as the first step to his eventual resigning. Those Sheffield United fans who didn't want him returning campaigned to stop the training facilities. Football players represent our community, you get good ambassadors and you get poor ones. Marlon King was a very good footballer, would I have wanted him to sign permanently for Hull City? My answer would be no. And then there's Jimmy Bullard... If he was good enough would I want us to offer Ched Evans a contract? Again, my answer would be no. The more I've read about his conviction the more I'm convinced of his guilt. Yes there is still a small chance he's innocent. The woman's story has been consistent through all this, she can't remember. She made no compliant to the police that she'd been raped because that last thing she remembers was being in a takeaway hours before. Ched Evans took care to make sure he left as little evidence of his presence as possible. Hardly the actions of a man that had just had "enthusiastic consensual sex".
How many? Are you going to give us some names? The only one I can think of is Dirty Den from East Enders.
Messi is currently under investigation for tax fraud, if found guilty would you oppose us signing him? Of course you wouldn't. So where do you draw the line, is there a level of ability that makes you overlook their crimes or is it the nature of the crime that dictates if it is acceptable to sign them?
Wouldn't I? How do you know? On the evidence on his webpage and the summary of his appeal my line would exclude Ched Evans.
One could argue that Messi's is worse. His alleged fraud deprives Spain of massive finances during economic hardship and you could argue he directly resulted in a hospital somewhere not being built, therefore impacting on thousands rather than one poor victim. I wouldnt argue that, but you could.
This whole Evans thing is yet another example of people believe what they want to and make the facts fit.... The offence of Rape is about cosent. The consent changed after the 2003 act. Now it is rape if the victim does not consent and he does not reasonably believe the victim consents. It has to be true consent. If, through drink, or for any other reason, a victim had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting. If she remained capable of choosing that would not be rape. It is for the jury to decide if he reasonably believed she consented. There is no defence anymore of a genuine but unreasonably belief she consented. so yes your right PLT it does happen all time. It comes as a surprise to those involved as but it is dealt with as rape. As for an appeal it will be interesting to see what that might be and why he has waited until now.Would have thougt his legal team would have applied for leave to appeal after conviction if they knew of grounds. The victims personal circumstance, habits, personnel life or sex life are not relevent http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a0
