This is a case which polarises opinion. I will not comment on the issues involved as they have been dealt with by the courts. What is at issue is what should an ex offender be allowed to do after serving his sentence. One view is that he should not be allowed to become a footballer as they are supposed to be role models for society. The opposing view is that he has served his sentence and should be allowed to rehabilitate himself with anyone who chooses to employ him. It is a difficult decision for all concerned as inevitably should he ever play again he will be barracked everywhere he goes (a la Marlon King) . On the other hand any club risks alienating a large section of its fans. My view is that he has served his sentence and he has a perfect right to be employed by anyone who wishes to employ him and that it is nothing to do with anyone else. Many other footballers have gone off the rails and have been allowed back so why is Evans so different. Controversial I know but what would you say if BCFC chose to employ him?
Charlie Webster recently made the news, as she's resigned from being a Sheffield United patron after he was allowed to train with the club. It's a weird situation. I think he has every right to return to his job, as does anyone with a criminal record. I don't buy the whole "role model" thing, as it's never stopped celebrities from committing crimes. That being said, I can see Charlie Webster's point of view. Both sides raise compelling arguments and all I can take from the situation is that both sides are perfectly entitled to their opinion. You simply cannot ban convicted footballers from playing football, because it's against the law. However, Charlie Webster is fully within her right to oppose this move, and she should be applauded for her stance. In my opinion, I can't see what Ched Evans has to gain by rejoining the world of football straight out of jail. He continues to maintain his innocence, and he's entitled to do so. However, if he's that sure of his innocence then he should appeal his sentence and wait for the courts to decide again before returning to work.
Evans is a tw*t, a horrible tw*t. However, I think he should be allowed to carry on with his life after serving time. He'll get stick wherever he plays, he'll have to put up with it.
I agree he is a twat especially if you read some of the less damaging pranks he got up to whilst at Man City like shooting his landladys son in the groin with an air pistol And whilst he's served some of his time is he rehabilitated ? And consider this....if Sheffield Utd didnt employ him, there are plenty of clubs that would
The problem I have with footballers (or any other sportsmen) is the effect it has on the victim and their families when they see them on TV celebrating scoring a goal. What the victim feels will stay with them forever - not just the 2 and a bit years of a sentence Let him go and play overseas (if he can get a work permit)
It's a weird situation. I think he has every right to return to his job, as does anyone with a criminal record. I don't buy the whole "role model" thing, as it's never stopped celebrities from committing crimes. The trouble is most celebrities are dicks, but in a lot of cases tv stars once committed don't work again for appalling crimes apart from ****e things on ****e stations. I agree with SMMBCFC if he wants to carry on, do that but do it overseas where it's not rubbing the victims nose in it.
evans served half of 5 year sentence- most of that I imagine was in an open nick,comes out shows no remorse and expects to pick up where he left of,meanwhile his victim is still in witness protection having had to change her identity twice because of threats against her life,call that justice, no let him rot.
My take on this situation reading the comments, putting aside any thoughts of the evidence on trial. It is simple for me, he was found guilty, he served time, did he even lose an appeal. Therefore he is a convicted criminal....but worse than that the nature of his crime surely means he is added to a sex offenders register. Now this is where the problem begins in rehabilitation...because as a professional footballer, it means he will be required to do community work and have many photo opportunities with children and women. If he has an enhanced check in jobs that involved this nature of work he would not be allowed to be employed. So unless the government changes the rules regarding ALL employment opportunities, why is football an exception as a community foundation. It would be like letting a convicted *****phile work in a day nursery.
If you are in a profession and are highly paid, i.e Doctor, Lawyer etc...and if you had criminal record for rape, how easy do you think it would be to return to your chosen line of work ? I think the answer would be very difficult indeed, assuming you declared it of course.
He should be made to do a normal job. Why does a rapist deserve to earn 10k a week and enjoy a life we can only dream of.... No, he should be made to push trollies around at Lidls. Who cares if he has "served his time" he ****ing raped someone for gods sake! Let the **** suffer for the rest of his life. It's no more than he deserves.
He is a t**t but is entitled to work and football is all he has ever known. We don't stop brickies plying their trade when they are released, why footballers? "Because he is a role model"... No he isn't, no footballer is, and if you make them a role model or look at them as one, that's your fault and your asking to be let down. They don't get into the game as 9 year olds to grow up and be a personal role model, a professional one maybe but not a personal one. People should have the intelligence to look over time at the biggest names in football, maradonna, best, gazza, Rooney, the list goes on... And see these are not individuals to be looked up to for anymore than their talents of kicking a ball. I think it's danferous when patrons and Jessica Ennis have their say so publicly as they are open to law suits for not letting a supposedly reformed convict making s living. I also don't think he was guilty to be honest. If you read the whole story, this is not a squeaky clean innocent young woman, she is the type we see far too much of these days who seek out footballers! She went to a hotel willingly with these men, what did she think she was going for? To play cards? It sounds politically incorrect but she is a tart who has muddied the distinction in my view between actual rape and not remembering whether she gave consent or not.
This is exactly how I feel about this one, with the proviso I haven't seen too much of the prosecution evidence so I am reluctant to completely condemn the 'victim'. There are plenty of examples of footballers still playing after conviction for serious crimes, is killing someone whilst drunk driving worse than rape?? How do we judge these things?
He is entitled to work, yes, however, i do not think he should be working in football. In the same way he would not be allowed to work in many public or community based jobs, that required criminal record checks (basic and enhanced) and certain exclusions would apply to him, especially so soon after release. I expect he will also be on a sex offenders register. This is not about judging Ched, I know no detail of the case, but he went to trial and was found guilty, I assume he also lost an appeal and served time. Yes, he served his sentence, but as football involves working with women and children as part of your portfolio I consider this to be a risk aspect until he clears his name.
I agree with this completely. The last sentence though is interesting. He says himself that he is innocent and intends to clear his name - when you're looking at trying to get back into your extremely well paid, public oriented, job, you're not going to say anything else are you?. It will be difficult to see how he is going to do that after all the available evidence has - apparently - been put in front of a jury and found guilty! None of us can make comment about that evidence unless we were in court throughout the whole trial and heard for ourselves what witnesses said. It is often the case that 'snippets' of evidence come into the public domain but that can, and often is, taken completely out of context in relation to the whole matter!
