No, in my opinion you are wrong, even if you have been falsely accused, the fact that you have been subjected to the same constraints and conditions as someone guilty would make rehabilitation into society necessary; it's s a healing process, regardless of the reason for the malaise. Do you really believe that the American guy falsely accused and imprisoned for 39yrs does not require the support of rehabilitation? If, as it appears, he has no defence, but he does not see that and is in denial, then it is within the role of rehabilitation to help him come to terms with that; it does not need to be at the starting gate, it can be at any milestone on his journey of coming to terms - I think you will find it is called an epiphany moment, which are not something that can be scheduled for you, the social media mob or the media. Please, be aware I realise he would need to provide more evidence, doh. Football is only different if you want to make it different, folk only get a bigger say if they are allowed it - why? Like I said, what harm would come from allowing him to train?
If you were a Wigan supporter would you be offended with Vincent Tan's statement today? "All the fans in Wigan now think it's okay to be racist.They follow the leader."
No, but that's because I don't get offended. I certainly wouldn't get offended by anything that skidmark says.
Rehabilitation is a two way process. If I thought I was innocent I would never accept that I was in the wrong. Society would have to accept my innocence and then make the appropriate response. The first thing would be an apology with an admission they got the verdict wrong and I had been wrongly imprisoned. Anything less would be a cop out. In Evans' case I don't see how there can be a compromise, either he thinks its alright to have sex with somebody too drunk to give consent and then lies about it or she did consent. The only way he would be innocent if she didn't consent would be if the law changed back to what it was and the victim had to prove she (or he) said no and her (or his) previous sexual activity was admissible. He doesn't think he's in denial, he's done nothing wrong. He may change his mind in the future or he may not. At present he thinks he's innocent. Rehabilitation is a two way street. Do you think Sheffield United would let me train with them? Or even some of the lads that have just been released from Hull City, just to keep their hand in? Sheffield United was testing the water to see if there was any way back to the first team for Evans. How many rapists go back to the same job with the same employer after coming out of prison? Do you think they should have the right to as part of their rehabilitation? Football is different because he gets up in front of thousands each Saturday and many of them don't want a convicted rapist playing for their team and are prepared to make their voices heard. You might think that's wrong but its a fact of life. After Marlon King's conviction there was plenty of discussion on CI and Citymad about whether he should be offered a contract at City when he came out of prison. It comes with supporting a football team.
I agree, it is a two way process, it may also be dynamic and reactive; but I believe your argument is confused. If, in these circumstances, you thought you were innocent you would have to abide by the sentence passed and then fight it using the law of the country to support you; many have done just that. Usually there are active groups who will take up the gauntlet for the unfairly accused â I have to admit that their noise is not deafening. So, as I have now had to repeat too many times, I am not arguing his sentence. He clearly has said he is innocent and that he will clear his name, so I really donât understand your point as apologies would come when he has achieved that goal. Your point about compromise has no relevance to the discussion about the training and his rehabilitation. Again, yes he is either innocent or in denial; that state of affairs can change either way during the rehabilitation process â if it is possible to complete such a process for a footballer. Most football clubs will accommodate a fellow professional; are you a professional? Sheffield United made an early statement (I copied a key extract into post #84), when the level of fuss was understood, here it is again, just in case itâs very straight terms passed you by: This is a part of Sheffield United's original statement: "The club acknowledges receipt of a request from the PFA to the effect that the club consider allowing Mr Evans, who is a PFA member, to train at the club's facilities. "According to the request, this training would be with a view to enabling Mr Evans to get back to a level of fitness, which might enable him to find employment in his chosen trade. "This request has come to the club, because it is the last club at which Mr Evans was registered before his conviction. "The club agrees with the recent statements of the PFA, to the effect that professional footballers should be treated as equals before the law, including in circumstances where they seek to return to work following periods of incarceration. "There can be no place for 'mob justice'." You may wish to second-guess their intentions, but I will take this statement at face value and understand that the PFA have not contradicted it. I also know that other PFA members, of my acquaintance, totally recognize this as being a normal matter. You ask, âHow many rapists go back to the same job with the same employer after coming out of prison? Do you think they should have the right to as part of their rehabilitation?â I think that is a matter for the employer. No one has a right to any job so that is a daft point you fail to make. But as I can only repeat to you once again, my discussion is about the training, not a job; one has not been offered (to my knowledge) and I am not now and have never discussed one. Again, you say, âFootball is different because he gets up in front of thousands each Saturday and many of them don't want a convicted rapist playing for their team and are prepared to make their voices heard. You might think that's wrong but its a fact of life.â Where have I ever said anything is wrong or right regarding giving him a job? I look at everything on its merits or otherwise and prefer not to wield a broad-brush. Why should football be so different from TV, etc? Why should players be placed high on a pedestal? I can assure you I know and have known a number of footballers and if they were to be role-models for my grandchildren it would not be because they are professional footballers â I really do think some folk need to get a life. I read the stuff about King and that Belgium player on here, but that is not this and I am discussing a training arrangement, nothing more; itâs all you should be discussing unless you wish to give a non-story the arms and legs it does not deserve.
I'm not confused, we just disagree. I don't see footballers as role models and I have a life of sorts. Sheffield United gave Ched Evans special treatment in offering him training facilities. Treatment they don't offer to other people convicted of crimes. In my view he didn't deserve that offer. I think football fans have the right to have a say in the running of their football club, whether its the name or inviting a convicted rapist to train with their team. Sheffield United's fans spoke and the club listened to their views.
Obadiah, I never said you did, but there are plenty who take it too far; I once thought any sportsman had a role as A role model, but with every new year that comes along, sport takes a turn I find unpleasant. Don't take offence, it wasn't meant to be. They did not give him special treatment. The PFA frequently make training requests for all sorts of reasons; as the statement says, they usually start with clubs that have an association to the player. A lot can depend on their public image, can they mix easily. It is the duty of the PFA to do this. I think today's statement from the Sheffield board is spot on. I would not expect them to make a similar offer to a mechanic or surgeon offender, would you, really? The club are clear that they felt bullied by the social mob, they are clear that they feel the pressures were unjust. I am all for the voice of the fans, but I am a fan and I am definitely unhappy with this situation - it bodes very poorly for the future.
As I have the time I decided to read up on the Evans case. Has anyone got a link that might challenge this. http://www.chedevans.com/ Probably old hat to most, sorry!
no.. but to say that they are good runners in order to outrun the lions on the serengetti, might get you into hot water.
Probably, and its also not correct. There will be far more Jamaicans who arent good at 'running' than those that are. And even in terms of recognised honours they won't be 'good'. There will be lots of countries who have won more honours for 'running' than Jamaica. If you said that Jamaica has, at present, some of the best 100m sprinters in the world then that would be fine. Well you'd just look really stupid. What are loads of Jamaicans doing in Africa?
If Sheffield United offered the same rehabilitation services to a steward or member of their office staff convicted of rape, theft or anything else I would agree Ched Evans didn't receive special treatment. If they offer help to convicted criminals not associated with the club, again he wouldn't have received special treatment. Because he is a good footballer he was treated differently from the vast majority of people walking out of prison. To me that is special treatment. This is what Marlon King's agent had to say about how the PFA fulfilled its duties in his case: http://metro.co.uk/2009/10/30/king-will-appeal-claims-agent-526955/ The PFA may be a little selective in who they do and don't support. Here's the court transcript of why Ched Evans' second application for leave to appeal was turned down: https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
If you believe someone can have total amnesia, which the jury has gone along with then you convict. I say bollocks to that. It leads the defense with no defense, they can't cross examine her. It all comes down to the rich footballer and punishing him.
Ched Evans believed her, its in his second application. He even produced medical evidence to support it. It was the Judges that said it wasn't relevant.
I read the full details of the rejected appeal application yesterday and now even less convinced of his guilt. Evans medical expert stated that the seven drinks she'd had could cause slurred speech, but not memory loss. The judge decided that the combination of drink and drugs(cocaine) possibly could. The judge obviously as no experience of cocaine, otherwise he'd know that it reduces the effect of alcohol, rather than increasing it and I believe his lack of expertise in this area caused him to make an incorrect decision. I still find it hard to believe that a 19 year old gets so pissed on seven drinks that they can't remember what they did, most of the 19 year olds I know would have seven drinks before they even went out.
that doesnt mean it didnt happen. We all know how arrogant these footballers are.. yet we also know how money hungry women of today are.. WTF is Paul Heaton doing with associations with the ****ing blades? thought he was an Ull lad.
He didn't say that she'd had seven drinks. He said she'd have been 2 and half times over the limit at 4:00am, something quite different. The rate you lose alcohol in your blood stream depends on a number of things. So unless Evans' medical expert conducted detailed tests on her he couldn't say one way or other what her alcohol levels would have been at 4:00am as he didn't know how fast she loses alcohol from her system. She did have drinks before she went out as well as drinks after. It was accepted the cocaine was days old, as was the cannabis. The judge asked the jury to consider whether the drink/drugs reduced her inhibitions or made her unable to consent (paragraph 22). The judge didn't make an error as he told the jury that it was their decision. The jury decided she was so out of it she didn't consent. Evans and his experts believed she has black outs as they introduced expert evidence and a new witness to that effect in the application for leave to appeal (paragraphs 26 and 27).
Unless you are used to jumping over crocodile infested rivers and could easily leap it, you . . . . Hmmm
