Off Topic Ched Evans

Is anyone else sick of all the bleeding-heart moralists taking the opportunity to hop-on their High Horse?

I am.

There have been countless Footballers convicted of all sorts of horrific crimes over the years but suddenly Oldham Athletic are in league with the Devil?

Down here in Devon, Luke McCormick (Plymouth Argyle) was convicted of drink-driving and causing the deaths of two small children. I didn't hear a whisper of complaint from any sponsors, MP's or anyone for that matter when he returned to Argyle via Swindon. Too low profile eh?

Take your pick over the years... Titus Bramble, Lee Hughes etc

Ched Evans is on the verge of having his conviction overturned anyway. Big shock there.

What gives? Somebody please tell me!

 

Not sure about being on the verge of having his conviction overturned, but it certainly shouldn't be up to the general public to be dishing out justice to convicts who have served their time in the eyes of the law. The facts of the case have always seemed a bit less than black and white to me personally and I do think he has a right to maintain his innocence.

 

Because the general British public has the combined intelligence and rational thought of a toad

 

Not sure I understand the comments here.

Ched Evans works in the entertainment industry. That has the advantage that is well paid. It has the disadvantage that its employees are high profile and must cater to the preferences of their audiences.

Mr Evans was convicted following a fair trial which has been reviewed and approved on appeal. He is therefore, so far as any of us can know, guilty of the crime for which he was charged. He has served half of his sentence and is able to look for employment in the entertainment industry.

The crime of which Mr Evans was, presumably rightly, convicted is one about which many (I would like to think most) people have strong feelings. In a similar fashion to that which I expect that one of the Corrie stars would have encountered if they had been convicted of the offences for which they were charged, he has found his box office appeal to have diminished. This has lead to him having some difficulty in obtaining a renewed engagement and but he seems to have found good employment at a slightly lower level than that he enjoyed before being convicted.

What is the complaint ?

 

It's good to see that under the current Government that educational standards are improving.

 

Excellent post and completely in agreement with this. Just hope that this doesn't backfire on Oldham, although it may increase their attendance for the next few weeks!

 

He was found guilty by a jury in a Court of Law. Granted, miscarriages can occur from time to time, but unless new evidence comes to light which shows that he hard was done by he is a registered sex offender. Criminals on the sex offenders register cannot go into occupations such as teaching or the Police force. I can't see why this should be any different. He's ultimately a role model for kids regardless of the level he ultimately plays at. The argument is that other players have been convicted of drink driving offences that have led to death. There is a major difference - Involuntary Manslaughter lacks intention. The mentioned offenders did not intend to get in a car, drive it and kill someone. They were reckless in doing so. Rape is a basic intent offence and intoxication is no defence. Ched Evans knew what he was doing when he went to the hotel room. He went with the intention to have sex with the victim. The overriding issue in cases like this is consent. The victim has to give consent and in this case Ched Evans also had to reasonably believe that the victim gave consent. He intended to have sex with her knowing she was drunk. It's interpretation; can someone who is blindly drunk give full consent? Arguable. For me, his actions smack of guilt. Of course, I haven't read the full case transcript and am going off second hand opinions from journals [not newspapers], but in my eyes he is guilty. Plenty of other footballers have probably done the same thing I'm willing to bet. But that's others. The simple fact is - He [Ched Evans] shouldn't have committed the crime. It's his own fault. The demonisation of the victim by his supporters is disgusting. Whether she was stupid in getting herself drunk in the first place is another issue altogether. He was in a position of responsibility and a massive role model to youngsters. He committed one of the worst crimes imaginable and received a light sentence for the crime. I have no sympathy.

 

This is an area that understandably provokes strong reactions on every side. Rape is a disgusting offence and not one to be dismissed lightly. There are real concerns with the legal system in this country and the number of miscarriages of justice that happen each year (even by the government's own figures). The information in the public domain does make this conviction seem dubious at best - though we don't know what other information is not publicly available. However, the system is what it is, and until anything happens to indicate otherwise then he needs to be treated as a convicted rapist. The question is how do you treat a convicted rapist?

For me the original sentence was very light for the offence of rape. I believe that if he is guilty then he should have spent a lot longer in prison. Prison is there for rehabilitation, punishment and protection. I expect I am in a very small minority of people that doesn't agree with the sex offenders register. I believe it is used as a money saving gimmick. It allows people who should be in prison to be released earlier than they should be under the public assumption that they are closely monitored. I believe that if someone is still a danger to the public then they should be in prison. I also believe that once they are released from prison - even under license - they should then be free to pursue their chosen career, within the confinements of certain safety regulations (ie: working with vulnerable people, etc). If people have an issue with his ability to find employment so soon after his conviction then that should be an issue with sentencing guidelines. However, rightly or wrongly, the incarceration section of his sentence is over. He should now be free to pursue a career as a footballer. Footballers are not role models, and nor should they be. They are footballers. People may say it is naive to suggest they are not role models but I strongly disagree. If any child is under that illusion then it is time for their parents to explain properly what a role model is, how they should look for leadership and guidance, and tell them to throw away the 'what would ched evans do' bracelets.

 

I wholly agree that footballers are not, per se, role models.

I also fully agree that once you are released from prison you should be free to seek employment.

Where your employment is based on your employer selling tickets to the public, however, your employment prospects are unusually susceptible to public opinion. If the public is less likely to buy tickets to your employer's performances because they employ you, you are a liability and not an asset. For which you have yourself to blame.

 

If two disgusting ****s like Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick can return to football, anyone can.

 

There are major issues with the 'justice' system in this country and the sentencing that some offenders receive. Murder and rape are two of the worst crimes imaginable and the sentences dished generally are shocking. In both instances, the victim/ victims family receive a life sentence, so why shouldn't the perpetrator receive a similar sentence?

 

Completely agree that Oldham have left themselves open to the court of public opinion, and may well suffer as a result. The same would have been true of any employer though, regardless of what industry they were in. If Ched Evans doesn't succeed in resuming his footballing career then you can guarantee that some newspaper somehwere will report on what job he does get. Is that something Tesco, Halfords or the local factory would want publicised - or would they too be vulnerable to a public backlash who wanted another pound of flesh - and always will do.

 

I think the public outcry is boring to be honest. I think clubs are well within their rights to turn down the opportunity to sign him because of his past. I also think he is well within his rights to try and gain employment within the industry. I see no conflict of interest. Obviously it doesn't sit well with many people as he as the potential to earn good money and be a role model. However he has served the time that law in this country has decided is applicable. Never mind if he has been released early and not served his sentence, that is part and parcel of the justice system - get on with it.

I don't think this is something for the public to wang on and on about. He is now suffering from victimisation. Of course its difficult for people to sympathise because of what he has been convicted of but this whole focus on one individual is pretty disappointing for all the other victims out there whose various cases don't get the same attention.

I don't agree with the demonisation of his victim either. This thing where I constantly read on this forum and others what people think happened that night makes me laugh and recoil in equal measure. Never mind the fact that none of these people were there, they don't even know the intricacies of the case itself.

I think people have to accept that a process has taken place and move on, that applies to both sides of the fence. Personally I can't comment on whether or not he has or hasn't committed a crime. All this "he has not shown remorse" etc is neither here nor there. If he believes he is innocent then he will of course defend his right to stick to that stance. I am also fully aware the justice system is far from perfect. However it is the best we have at present and I accept the function it performs. Under that system he has been sentenced, served his punishment and is free to gain employment. There is no law as far as I'm aware to stop him gaining employment in the football industry.

 

This raises the question of what prison is for. The old "Eye for an eye" approach has a lot of appeal and is what you are advocating here. It has problems though. If you scar me in a fight I be sentenced to live with that scar for the rest of my life - - does that mean the offender should receive a life sentence as well ? If not, why are physical scars less important than emotional ones ?

Anyway, retribution is not currently the point of the sentencing system. Deterence and rehabilitation are supposed to be the goals, both undermind by the fact that there is no money to either keep people in prison or to rehabilitate them.

 

True - I think it's more a case of some people simply cannot be rehabilitated. My original statement was perhaps too much of a generalisation. Victims and their families receive a life sentence from the named crimes. There are however degrees. For example, an offender that kills someone in the heat of a moment should be differentiated from an offender who intends, plans and kills a victim, i.e. a serial killer. The former is probably less likely to re-offend and poses little risk to the public. The latter - a danger to the public who should never be released. Sentencing guidelines are supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime, but I think a lot of the time they don't.

 

Well he wont be going to Oldham...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

 

The reality is that prison time is a hugely expensive, and therefore precious, resource. We simply can't afford to squander it on your average run of the mill rapist. Kind of like we can't squander expensive NHS drugs on your run of the mill cancer victim.

 

Between this story and the Gerrard transfer the muppets on sky are having a feeding frenzy.
On the topic of Evans, he's been convicted so as far as I'm concerned has no place in football until his appeal suggest otherwise.

 

I personally am not 100% certain on my opinion as to whether he is "guilty". Stereotypically footballers are known to be a certain type of person and this may appear controversial, but what was the lady expecting when attending a hotel room with 2/3 footballers and I add, all had been consuming a lot of alcohol. I am not completely up to speed, but I understood she agreed to partake in activities with two of the three, but I am unsure as to whether she strenuously declined Evans. A further question could be asked that if he was guilty of such an atrocious crime, why has he been allowed to leave prison. A clear indication of the faults in our judicial system.

However taking the decision made out of the equation, football as a business have set a precedent by allowing a number of footballers such as Robben, Marlon King, McCormack, Lee Hughes, Titus Bramble, Joey Barton, RVP and probably many more, return to play football without such vindication. Therefore I am of the opinion that it is the decision of a football club and everyone connected to make. If the fans, chairman, sponsors are all of the general consensus to sign the player, they should ultimately be free to do so without the vindication of the general public who are not involved with the club.

I did read a quote on twitter from a sports journalist saying "I would boo and jeer Ched Evans if I ever see him play live, but that does not mean I don’t think he should be aloud to return to football".

It’s not much of a punishment being booed and jeered across the country, but I am started to get annoyed with this story and the type of people getting involved who have never in their whole lives had any interest in football.

 

Personally I think you should need a license to play football professionally. Due to the lucrative potential rewards on offer, it stands to reason if you do something illegal, heinous and deliberate - and rape is right up there - then your license should be revoked indefinitely. It's not really the world's fault that Ched Evans is a convicted rapist, it's pretty much nailed on that it's Ched Evans' fault. If he wants to turn out in semi-pro or less, that's not a problem, but in committing such a crime he has pretty much handed in his license to print money.

Off to the factory, Ched - no-one will complain if you reintegrate that way, and I'm afraid we're all capable of packing and stacking. Or get an education, do something else. Or go abroad. It's not like he's out of options. He just sounds like the complete thicko-footballer to me.