Ched Evans

[Grays_1890]

I dont know who you work for but no company or person can force me to work with someone I dont want to. As I said the general concensus is that we would all resign rather than work with a convicted sex offender, not that it would come to that as he wouldnt even be considered for a position as the CRB check would show his record and as such his application for employment would be rejected.

I will repeat what I said previously

Once society starts specifying the type of jobs a rapist can do on top of the legally proscribed ones, it is heading in a dangerous direction. The jobs listed under regulated activity are about protecting people, not about punishing offenders again. People should focus on the real risks of employing people rather than the perceived risks. Are they the best person for the job?

 

[Baleforce]

I will repeat what I said previously

Once society starts specifying the type of jobs a rapist can do on top of the legally proscribed ones, it is heading in a dangerous direction. The jobs listed under regulated activity are about protecting people, not about punishing offenders again. People should focus on the real risks of employing people rather than the perceived risks. Are they the best person for the job?

this can't be repeated enough

 

[Nexus1967]

The company I work for does contract work for the nhs and a lot of schools(building maintainence etc) and everyone who applies for a job are checked for a criminal record. The nhs are particularly sensitive about this in my experience. The results go back to youth offending. I myself had a couple of brushes with the law when I was in my late teens and these showed up when I was checked. Luckily they were deemed minor and so long ago(I am well into middle age now) that I got employed. But the fact remains that most major employers check for criminal records now and anyone with a criminal record will struggle to get a decent job now. Of course there are many small companies who hardly check anything let alone see if you have a criminal record

 

[Baleforce]

nexus, we get what it's like where you work, no one is questioning that

but it's not like that everywhere, it's not just small companies either, I work for a global group which is probably the largest of its kind, we don't ask about previous convictions, like we don't ask about age or sexuality

 

[Nexus1967]

nexus, we get what it's like where you work, no one is questioning that

but it's not like that everywhere, it's not just small companies either, I work for a global group which is probably the largest of its kind, we don't ask about previous convictions, like we don't ask about age or sexuality

I must say I am quite surprised that you work for a large company and they dont check for criminal records. Banks for example are not going to employ someone with convictions for bank robbery or financial fraud etc. I know it is a bit of "big brother" is watching you, but as far as I am aware most major employers now will check an applicants facebook and twitter accounts etc etc to get a profile of the type of person they are.
Of course you should not be excluded from the workplace because of previous convictions, but in the case this thread is about, I' m sure there would be many people( men and women) who would feel very uncomfortable is they found out one of their collegues had been convicted of a serious sex crime and that no previous checks had been made before they had been employed.

 

[Grays_1890]

The company I work for does contract work for the nhs and a lot of schools(building maintainence etc) and everyone who applies for a job are checked for a criminal record. The nhs are particularly sensitive about this in my experience. The results go back to youth offending. I myself had a couple of brushes with the law when I was in my late teens and these showed up when I was checked. Luckily they were deemed minor and so long ago(I am well into middle age now) that I got employed. But the fact remains that most major employers check for criminal records now and anyone with a criminal record will struggle to get a decent job now. Of course there are many small companies who hardly check anything let alone see if you have a criminal record

And therefore that fits under the banner of legally.

But you are not judging them your company is. If you worked for another company that was able and did employ a Ched Evans you and your colleagues would have to like it an lump it I suppose.

 

[Nexus1967]

And therefore that fits under the banner of legally.

But you are not judging them your company is. If you worked for another company that was able and did employ a Ched Evans you and your colleagues would have to like it an lump it I suppose.

Actually I would not like it nor would I lump it I would resign rather than be forced to work witk a serious sex offender. Like I said no one can force anyone to work woth someone they dont want to

 

[Grays_1890]

Actually I would not like it nor would I lump it I would resign rather than be forced to work witk a serious sex offender. Like I said no one can force anyone to work woth someone they dont want to

And you have answered my argument

 

[Rob]

I must say I am quite surprised that you work for a large company and they dont check for criminal records. Banks for example are not going to employ someone with convictions for bank robbery or financial fraud etc. I know it is a bit of "big brother" is watching you, but as far as I am aware most major employers now will check an applicants facebook and twitter accounts etc etc to get a profile of the type of person they are.
Of course you should not be excluded from the workplace because of previous convictions, but in the case this thread is about, I' m sure there would be many people( men and women) who would feel very uncomfortable is they found out one of their collegues had been convicted of a serious sex crime and that no previous checks had been made before they had been employed.

Banks, as I'd hazard a guess most major brand companies, don't want a lot of certain other criminal convictions either as they state in your contract that at all times you represent the company and that applies retrospectively in that they wouldn't employ someone who would automatically be bad for their brand image. Under laws in place they are entitled to discriminate against criminal convictions with regards someone being employed by them or not and that applies at the application point as well as once employed, as in someone receiving a conviction and subsequently being dismissed.

And therefore that fits under the banner of legally.

But you are not judging them your company is. If you worked for another company that was able and did employ a Ched Evans you and your colleagues would have to like it an lump it I suppose.

Actually I would not like it nor would I lump it I would resign rather than be forced to work witk a serious sex offender. Like I said no one can force anyone to work woth someone they dont want to

I wouldn't work for a company who would employ a serious sex offender in the first place. Plenty of career choices which make that simple.

 

[StephenH]

Hope he can now be allowed to get on with life

Ched Evans: Footballer found not guilty of hotel *struggle cuddle*
Footballer Ched Evans has been found not guilty of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room.

more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

 

[Craig_J]

Hope he can now be allowed to get on with life

Ched Evans: Footballer found not guilty of hotel *struggle cuddle*
Footballer Ched Evans has been found not guilty of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room.

more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

Makes me feel bad for some of the things I'd said... no doubt that regardless it will stay with him for life.

Also at what stage exactly is a woman to drunk to give consent?

If she's passed out then clearly... but if she gives consent whilst drunk how drunk does she have to be?

Only I've had sex with a lot of drunken women but generally I'm always incredibly drunk myself and I'm probably the one who's most drunk... as some of the mistakes I've made would verify!

 

[parklane1]

I hope the police take the woman to court now for wasting police time and her name should be made public.

 

[Grays_1890]

Some on this forum had to be wrong and some be right, some will argue we will never know.

But I hope football and the likes of Jessica Ennis OBE come out and apologise for what they said and acted.

I am delighted an innocent man has got justice, people battered him because he was a football and some footballers like Tes Bramble deserve all they get and do, but equally, you have to apologise to the likes of CHED..

 

[StephenH]

I hope the police take the woman to court now for wasting police time and her name should be made public.

Think the lad will just want to put the whole thing behind him!

I hope people in general learn from terrible cases like this and not to jump to conclusions, and think about some of the bile they come out with on the web. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Kandi1977]

I hope the police take the woman to court now for wasting police time and her name should be made public.

Now that is just plain wrong. In a criminal case of this kind, it's often just word vs word. There is often no hard evidence (no pun intented), and it has to be proved without reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. In a civil case on the other hand, it just has to be proven more likely than not for a convition. He might be guilty as hell, but it's just bloody difficult to prove it beyond doubt in a criminal case.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I hope the police take the woman to court now for wasting police time and her name should be made public.

She never accused him of *struggle cuddle*, seriously read up on it, she told someone she couldn't remember what happened, police found out and decided to pursue it. . Her stance has been consistent

 

[parklane1]

She never accused him of *struggle cuddle*, seriously read up on it, she told someone she couldn't remember what happened, police found out and decided to pursue it. . Her stance has been consistent

I have read up on it, she accused someone of being wrong in the first instance and if i am not mistaken he got found not guilty as well.

There are plenty of gold diggers around and a man has had to go through hell for 5 years because of this. Her case was she was not capable of knowing what was happening which is to some *struggle cuddle*.

 

[parklane1]

Now that is just plain wrong. In a criminal case of this kind, it's often just word vs word. There is often no hard evidence (no pun intented), and it has to be proved without reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. In a civil case on the other hand, it just has to be proven more likely than not for a convition. He might be guilty as hell, but it's just bloody difficult to prove it beyond doubt in a criminal case.

Well in that case neither party should be named, Evans has had to go through hell over the last 5 years because of it and is now exonerated, its a pity he has been called all sorts of scum in that time.

 

[Kandi1977]

I have read up on it, she accused someone of being wrong in the first instance and if i am not mistaken he got found not guilty as well.

There are plenty of gold diggers around and a man has had to go through hell for 5 years because of this. Her case was she was not capable of knowing what was happening which is to some *struggle cuddle*.

It's the prosecutors that decides to take the case to court, not the offended, and the prosecutors don't take cases to court unless they feel they have a fairly strong case

 

[parklane1]

It's the prosecutors that decides to take the case to court, not the offended, and the prosecutors don't take cases to court unless they feel they have a fairly strong case

Well even if that is the case neither party should be named until the verdict is made. Evans life has been hell while she remains unknown. Which in my opinion is wrong.