Ched Evans

[Grays_1890]

The whole thing sits awkwardly for me.

I am not here to argue if he raped her or not, he was convicted, therefore in the eyes of the law he was guilty. However in the eyes of the law he is now released, therefore allowed to pursue a life, regardless of the terms. I therefore think he should be allowed to resume his career as a footballer. People talk about footballers being a role model type, again I am not here to argue either way, but do you think people can not make up their own minds of where they hold Evans in terms of standing? I am sure not many will see him as a role model through reputation alone, people do have that choice.

Let the bloke play, he is serving within the law for GHod sake

 

[GlennGoddle]

I imagine the chants that will be directed towards him will be a bit on the blunt side

 

[Richie]

Online petition: 26,000 signatures (and counting)
Oldham average attendance: 4,094

This has become a crusade against the guy. I agree with what someone above me has said, in the eyes of the law he is guilty and therefore my opinion of the judgement is irrelevant, but he has paid his debt to society and is entitled to get on with his life. People are even comparing football to jobs like teachers or care workers who work with vulnerable people, saying he shouldn't be allowed to work in that career.

It's about people viewing his punishment as insufficient, and wanting to punish him further.

 

[Richie]

Also I can't stress how much I despise when politics gets involved in football. Politicians who think it'll make them look 'in touch' to talk about their local club

 

[elyid]

It's about people viewing his punishment as insufficient, and wanting to punish him further.

100% this.

These 26,000 signatures should really be complaining that the justice system didn't punish him correctly. Instead they launch a pointless crusade against one guy (pointless in the sense it won't change the punishment for a *struggle cuddle* conviction).

Free man IMO and personally if I was him I would be suing this petition website for allowing a personal attack on his freedom of employment.

 

[elyid]

Just to add: if there should be any sanctions on employment for certain crimes even after release from prison then surely this should be set by the government.

Why aren't the "mob" trying to lobby the government for this if they feel so strongly about it?

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting thread. I don't know the ins and out of this case, but some good information in this. Particularly from NWND, but also other posters, cheers.

Online petition: 26,000 signatures (and counting)
Oldham average attendance: 4,094

This has become a crusade against the guy. I agree with what someone above me has said, in the eyes of the law he is guilty and therefore my opinion of the judgement is irrelevant, but he has paid his debt to society and is entitled to get on with his life. People are even comparing football to jobs like teachers or care workers who work with vulnerable people, saying he shouldn't be allowed to work in that career.

It's about people viewing his punishment as insufficient, and wanting to punish him further.

I don't quite get this argument. Yes he's entitled to get on with his life, as well as he can. He's a free man in the eyes of the law, so like all free men he has that entitlement. But what makes him entitled to getting a job as a football player?

 

[braineclipse]

Just to add: if there should be any sanctions on employment for certain crimes even after release from prison then surely this should be set by the government.

Why aren't the "mob" trying to lobby the government for this if they feel so strongly about it?

Well, there are for some jobs.

But that doesn't mean that he's entitled to actually get a job in all other fields?

If a company decides not to hire someone because of a publicized conviction, surely that's fine? If the customers of a company tell them that they don't want them to hire that person, is that somehow off limits? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Grays_1890]

But what makes him entitled to getting a job as a football player?

Why not, it is only a job a decent paid job but a job.

You can't help think its the money involved here not the moral/political view that is swaying people on the subject.

As a tax payer I would prefer someone be reintegrated into work and also where people can see them than not.

Maybe all those signing up for the Oldham petition should stay another asking why those that participated don't attend games as it is?????

 

[Richie]

Interesting thread. I don't know the ins and out of this case, but some good information in this. Particularly from NWND, but also other posters, cheers.



I don't quite get this argument. Yes he's entitled to get on with his life, as well as he can. He's a free man in the eyes of the law, so like all free men he has that entitlement. But what makes him entitled to getting a job as a football player?

I don't think he's 'entitled' to a job as a footballer, but it's the profession in which he is trained and qualified for. He doesn't put anyone else directly at risk by working with vulnerable people (as opposed to a teacher for example) so I frame it as 'why isn't he entitled to a job as a footballer'. Consider this piece for the Guardian, No football club should touch Ched Evans, even if he does ever apologise, people think he doesn't deserve to be a footballer.

If no club wanted to sign him then I'd have no problem, as I say I don't think he has any more right to play football than anyone else, but clubs do want to employ him and I am unpersuaded by the arguments laid out in opposition to that. I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who signed that petition could name a League One footballer, those writing about it would have you believe the guy is going to be idolized by millions as if he were Ronaldo with his poster hanging in every childs room.

 

[braineclipse]

Why not, it is only a job a decent paid job but a job.

You can't help think its the money involved here not the moral/political view that is swaying people on the subject.

As a tax payer I would prefer someone be reintegrated into work and also where people can see them than not.

Maybe all those signing up for the Oldham petition should stay another asking why those that participated don't attend games as it is?????

I agree that reintegration should be goal, but a job in football is far from the only way that happens in this case.

It's a job, but the pay is not the only thing that sets it apart from most jobs. Most companies do not have fans, most people do not perform in front of a huge crowd, most jobs are not there to provide entertainment the way football is, most jobs are not in the public eye, most people do not receive adoration from thousands for doing their job, most people do not get their name chanted and ridiculed by masses of people on a regular basis at work.

Would your opinion change at all if this was a different crime? A different type of *struggle cuddle*? Or a more severe felony?

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think he's 'entitled' to a job as a footballer, but it's the profession in which he is trained and qualified for. He doesn't put anyone else directly at risk by working with vulnerable people (as opposed to a teacher for example) so I frame it as 'why isn't he entitled to a job as a footballer'. Consider this piece for the Guardian, No football club should touch Ched Evans, even if he does ever apologise, people think he doesn't deserve to be a footballer.

If no club wanted to sign him then I'd have no problem, as I say I don't think he has any more right to play football than anyone else, but clubs do want to employ him and I am unpersuaded by the arguments laid out in opposition to that. I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who signed that petition could name a League One footballer, those writing about it would have you believe the guy is going to be idolized by millions as if he were Ronaldo with his poster hanging in every childs room.

So there is a line in the sand? He just doesn't cross that line for you?

I wouldn't sign the petition myself. Certainly not unless I was an Oldham fan, in this particular case I'm not sure if I would even if I was an Oldham season ticket holder, but I would have considered it at least. Others have a different moral view on this than me, I can see their point is what I'm saying and I think the difference is a fairly small one. And I don't think see how the arguments put forward here are valid, they could just as easily be put forward by others in cases where I (and perhaps you?) think the line in the sand has been crossed.

 

[Richie]

Well, there are for some jobs.

But that doesn't mean that he's entitled to actually get a job in all other fields?

If a company decides not to hire someone because of a publicized conviction, surely that's fine? If the customers of a company tell them that they don't want them to hire that person, is that somehow off limits? Or am I missing something here?

I thought about this, but these aren't customers complaining. I'd be shocked if many of these 26,000 signatories had even heard of Oldham Athletic before they signed the petition. They believe he shouldn't be allowed to be a footballer on principle.

If this were the supporters trust running a poll of it's members I'd give it some credence, but it's a bunch of people on the internet who likely don't even watch football.

 

[braineclipse]

I thought about this, but these aren't customers complaining. I'd be shocked if many of these 26,000 signatories had even heard of Oldham Athletic before they signed the petition. They believe he shouldn't be allowed to be a footballer on principle.

If this were the supporters trust running a poll of it's members I'd give it some credence, but it's a bunch of people on the internet who likely don't even watch football.

That might be true for a majority of those signing or speaking out. But I don't think it's necessarily true for all or that it invalidates the argument put forward.

I do think principle is one thing that is important here. Are we saying as a principle that convicted rapists can and should be welcomed in with open arms into football clubs? If we are, what's the line in the sand?

 

[Richie]

So there is a line in the sand? He just doesn't cross that line for you?

I wouldn't sign the petition myself. Certainly not unless I was an Oldham fan, in this particular case I'm not sure if I would even if I was an Oldham season ticket holder, but I would have considered it at least. Others have a different moral view on this than me, I can see their point is what I'm saying and I think the difference is a fairly small one. And I don't think see how the arguments put forward here are valid, they could just as easily be put forward by others in cases where I (and perhaps you?) think the line in the sand has been crossed.

I understand why a convicted pedophile is banned from working with children for example, and I'd have a hard time arguing that they should be allowed to, but I think it's an interesting topic. It's a much more extreme case of course, but if the person is thought to have a risk of committing the crime again (thus putting those children at risk) then why are they out of prison in the first place? That's much more about the justice system than it is about any individual case though.

I think the difference is that there is no law or government mandate, it's mob justice. If the government, FA or PFA want to come out and say a sex offender is banned from playing professional football in this country then at there is at least some structure and give the convicted some sort of recourse or appeals procedure, rather than what we have today.

 

[braineclipse]

I understand why a convicted pedophile is banned from working with children for example, and I'd have a hard time arguing that they should be allowed to, but I think it's an interesting topic. It's a much more extreme case of course, but if the person is thought to have a risk of committing the crime again (thus putting those children at risk) then why are they out of prison in the first place? That's much more about the justice system than it is about any individual case though.

I think the difference is that there is no law or government mandate, it's mob justice. If the government, FA or PFA want to come out and say a sex offender is banned from playing professional football in this country then at there is at least some structure and give the convicted some sort of recourse or appeals procedure, rather than what we have today.

Very different discussion to the one about not putting others at risk, not sure this is the place for that discussion as it will go off topic very soon.

Ok. Since we're talking extreme examples. If it was a convicted pedophile, and the club was Spurs. You would? And if your response is that you wouldn't be ok with it and voice your unhappiness. What about the arguments put forward by you and others in this thread? What would make them invalid in that situation, but not this one?

 

[Grays_1890]

I agree that reintegration should be goal, but a job in football is far from the only way that happens in this case.

It's a job, but the pay is not the only thing that sets it apart from most jobs. Most companies do not have fans, most people do not perform in front of a huge crowd, most jobs are not there to provide entertainment the way football is, most jobs are not in the public eye, most people do not receive adoration from thousands for doing their job, most people do not get their name chanted and ridiculed by masses of people on a regular basis at work.

Would your opinion change at all if this was a different crime? A different type of *struggle cuddle*? Or a more severe felony?

Lee Hughes ended someone's life in a drink driving smash, served his time and came back to play at a very good level of football. I wasn't against that and I am not against this to be honest.

If Ched Evans became a roadsweeper people would say "He is doing what he deserves" and its based on level of job by salary, I strongly believe that. Even though that is paid by public money and ticks a number of boxes you have for football.

What jobs per say would you class as acceptable? To turn the argument around?

 

[braineclipse]

Lee Hughes ended someone's life in a drink driving smash, served his time and came back to play at a very good level of football. I wasn't against that and I am not against this to be honest.

If Ched Evans became a roadsweeper people would say "He is doing what he deserves" and its based on level of job by salary, I strongly believe that. Even though that is paid by public money and ticks a number of boxes you have for football.

What jobs per say would you class as acceptable? To turn the argument around?

Less about what I find acceptable and more an interesting ethical discussion for me. Like I said I'm not about to sign some petition, not sure if I would if was an Oldham fan either (if I was I'm sure I would have spent more time getting to know the case). I'm just entirely unconvinced by the arguments put forward in this thread about why Oldham should sign him and he should be entitled to pursue his footballing career as best he could with less or no interference like this.

I don't see how roadsweeper is comparable to footballer at this point in the discussion. How many of the boxes I put forward for football does that tick and how?

Can I read from your response too that there would be a line in the sand, but that this just doesn't cross it?

 

[Baleforce]

Would your opinion change at all if this was a different crime? A different type of *struggle cuddle*? Or a more severe felony?

I think more relevant is what if he did a different job?

If he worked in a sheet metal factory would all this be going on, i'm guessing not as he can't be the only recently released convicted rapist trying to get a job at the moment.

If employers choose not to hire him thats one thing, assuming they are not being discriminatory. This is currently being driven by emotion, which you cannot build a reliable legal and rehabilitation system on, overall it needs to be black and white, we either rehabilitate and reintegrate or we don't, you can't pick and choose cases based on which situations are more palatable.

 

[Grays_1890]

Can I read from your response too that there would be a line in the sand, but that this just doesn't cross it?

Well I would feel a lot more comfortable with him working in an industry he is skilled as he is less likely to stay off the path. Secondly I would feel more comfortable as a convicted racist to work within a male dominated game such as football than become a late night black cab driver or bra fitter at Ann Summers. I'm obviously slightly taking the pee on that front but in all honesty I would be fine with him playing for my club.

Football and the public are making it tough for him to come back into the game, so its not like he isn't earning the right the hard way here.