Ched Evans

[Rob]

So you wouldn't employ anyone who has committed any of those crimes in any field? If that's the case, why not just execute them and be done with it?

I am a firm believer in the system that the courts get to punish you and once you have served your time you are the same as any other citizen. If you don't agree then you might as well never let them out of prison. This is why I think this campaign against him is nothing to do with football, but simply the view that he hasn't been sufficiently punished.

I actually have no problem with you as an employer choosing not to hire a ex-con, employers should have as much freedom as possible when choosing who they should and shouldn't hire. However, if an employer would like to hire that person they should be free to do so.

Do you think Lee Hughes should never have been allowed to play football again either?

Your first sentence, that's not what I'm saying Richie - I'm saying, as you state afterwards, I personally wouldn't employ them. To expand a little, the majority of applications ask if you've been convicted of a criminal offence in the last x years. They don't then ask if you've served your time. As you say that's down to the employer but in addition they will also have certain crimes as an automatic NO.

I don't believe someone who has committed first degree murder or *struggle cuddle* or touched kids is the same as me. I believe that I, and the vast majority of others are better than them - this, I believe, is supported by the way we are treated and the greater number of options that are available to us, such as being able to gain certain types of employment and visit certain countries.

I believe that football clubs as part of their being have 'supporters' and therefore they should be the type of employers to automatically say a big fat no to a number of different convicted criminal offences, much in the same way as the fit and proper person test is already a part of our game to assess the suitability of potential Chairpersons. They should not be encouraging people to cheer for murderers or rapists and have to justify praising the footballing ability but ignoring the moral issue.

If Spurs became linked with a convicted kiddy fiddler would you want them? Would you want a man who has raped a woman walking the sacred White hart Lane turf and being adored by 55,000 fans, men, women and children?

He is appealing the decision and if he is successful then sure get back to your career. After all, the appeal is unlikely to take longer than the remainder of the original sentence given to him. But in the meantime, no matter if he says he is innocent, he has been found guilty by a jury of his peers and therefore is currently a convicted rapist until further notice.

 

[Andyandy]

"To deprive a human being of the right to work in their chosen profession should be a decision taken by a judicial system that dispassionately balances the rights of the individual against that of the society as a whole,"

It's an interesting point but clubs have the right to employ whomever they wish within the framework of the law. However no club needs the baggage that comes with this guy especially when they can sign somebody just as good without much effort. If he doesn't return to football - no loss to anybody but him, who cares!

The more interesting situation would be if the convicted player was as good as Messi/Ronaldo. Who would put winning before their morals?

 

[Rob]

...and Lee Hughes.... Didn't Oldham take him on?!

I'm in two minds about both him and McCormick. They took someone's life. But it wasn't their intention.

I wouldn't have wanted either at Spurs. Thankfully it hasn't ever happened and hopefully it won't ever happen with a player at our club for me to have to look deeper into that one to be perfectly honest, but I'd hope I stuck with that decision.

 

[Rob]

It's an interesting point but clubs have the right to employ whomever they wish within the framework of the law. However no club needs the baggage that comes with this guy especially when they can sign somebody just as good without much effort. If he doesn't return to football - no loss to anybody but him, who cares!

The more interesting situation would be if the convicted player was as good as Messi/Ronaldo. Who would put winning before their morals?

I would debate that this is far less likely to happen with a player at that level due to the added responsibility and all of the stuff the clubs do to regulate their players behaviour to try to share some of that responsibility and protect their asset obviously.

 

[Baleforce]

regarding solely what happens on the pitch, winning over morals for me all day long, it's only football, it's not real life

I think it's more pertinent that he's a player of this level, thats all that's making this newsworthy, I've played with many previously convicted men in various football leagues over the years (one side wouldn't have been able to get an 11 out if we banned the guys with a record), I think this is the top of a bell curve, non league and amateur players are not notable, higher league players will have it hushed up

 

[Richie]

It's an interesting point but clubs have the right to employ whomever they wish within the framework of the law. However no club needs the baggage that comes with this guy especially when they can sign somebody just as good without much effort. If he doesn't return to football - no loss to anybody but him, who cares!

The more interesting situation would be if the convicted player was as good as Messi/Ronaldo. Who would put winning before their morals?

Mike Tyson spent 3 years in prison for *struggle cuddle* so that is perhaps an interesting comparison. It's slightly different as it's an individual sport, I wonder how people feel about his return to boxing. I'm sure there would have been a similar campaign against him although I would have been too young to remember.

 

[Richie]

Your first sentence, that's not what I'm saying Richie - I'm saying, as you state afterwards, I personally wouldn't employ them. To expand a little, the majority of applications ask if you've been convicted of a criminal offence in the last x years. They don't then ask if you've served your time. As you say that's down to the employer but in addition they will also have certain crimes as an automatic NO.

I don't believe someone who has committed first degree murder or *struggle cuddle* or touched kids is the same as me. I believe that I, and the vast majority of others are better than them - this, I believe, is supported by the way we are treated and the greater number of options that are available to us, such as being able to gain certain types of employment and visit certain countries.

I believe that football clubs as part of their being have 'supporters' and therefore they should be the type of employers to automatically say a big fat no to a number of different convicted criminal offences, much in the same way as the fit and proper person test is already a part of our game to assess the suitability of potential Chairpersons. They should not be encouraging people to cheer for murderers or rapists and have to justify praising the footballing ability but ignoring the moral issue.

If Spurs became linked with a convicted kiddy fiddler would you want them? Would you want a man who has raped a woman walking the sacred White hart Lane turf and being adored by 55,000 fans, men, women and children?

He is appealing the decision and if he is successful then sure get back to your career. After all, the appeal is unlikely to take longer than the remainder of the original sentence given to him. But in the meantime, no matter if he says he is innocent, he has been found guilty by a jury of his peers and therefore is currently a convicted rapist until further notice.

Someone earlier asked me about a player signing for Spurs and my answer is I don't know. I'm absolutely not defending the guy, he has been convicted and that's that, my argument is more in the defence of ex-cons in general.

Some convicts are banned from working in certain professions because they work directly with vulnerable people, which I understand and don't really disagree with, although logically I think if we thought they were still a threat then they should still be in prison. The argument for football is completely different, it's basically saying a ex-con such as himself isn't allowed to be famous because then he'll have 'fans' and be a 'role model'. Such a ban could also apply to musicans, actors, all other sports etc...

 

[Yermiyahu]

We need a striker, Ched needs a club. He's done his time..... Cheeky bid?

 

[Superted]

Mike Tyson spent 3 years in prison for *struggle cuddle* so that is perhaps an interesting comparison. It's slightly different as it's an individual sport, I wonder how people feel about his return to boxing. I'm sure there would have been a similar campaign against him although I would have been too young to remember.

People seem pretty happy watching The Hangover movies with his very special cameos.

 

[Grays_1890]

Mike Tyson spent 3 years in prison for *struggle cuddle* so that is perhaps an interesting comparison. It's slightly different as it's an individual sport, I wonder how people feel about his return to boxing. I'm sure there would have been a similar campaign against him although I would have been too young to remember.

Its a great point though, I seem to remember a number of women groups protesting against him etc.

But he made his return to sport and given the chance he has not done it again....as per the earlier suggestion that given the chance they would!!!!

 

[Rob]

I think the difference with boxing and football is the tribal mentality. Boxing, as alluded to, is a single person sport so people could choose whether or not to support the person. If you support a team and they sign a person it's another matter entirely

 

[Grays_1890]

I think the difference with boxing and football is the tribal mentality. Boxing, as alluded to, is a single person sport so people could choose whether or not to support the person. If you support a team and they sign a person it's another matter entirely

I think that's just a technicality

The question is should the person be allowed back into their profession after conviction, the answer for Mike Tyson is yes and for Ched Evans should be the same. You can't move the goalposts on the two just because one is a footballer and one is a boxer. Ultimately even if you chose not to support or follow Tyson he would have been forced upon you once he fought a boxer you do follow, like Lewis.

I wouldn't mix up the law with ideal...

 

[Seedy Ron]

Looks like Oldham are going to go through with it.

If someone wants to employ him, they should be able to, it's not a prohibited profession for a sex offender. But I do feel sorry for any Oldham fans who aren't comfortable with it, I wouldn't want Spurs to make the same decision, even if he was a much better player than Evans ever will be.

 

[Dicko]

I wonder if any Oldham fans will give him abuse or if they will just accept the clubs decision?

 

[clevelandspur]

I wonder if any Oldham fans will give him abuse or if they will just accept the clubs decision?

You know it will depend how he plays, there have been many other ***** who have inexcusable behavior that gets forgotten after a few goals fly in. Suarez comes to mind

 

[braineclipse]

I've spent a good 20 minutes thinking about this and honestly, I dont know. As a fan I personally would consider petitioning the club not to do it (and not through a ridiculous petition website like change.org), and I would absolutely consider boycotting the club while that person played for us. This is exactly what I feel Oldham fans should consider doing, which is why I stated I give the petition credence if it was of season ticket holders or members of their supporters trust. Unfortunately I don't believe it is, but I would be very interested to see what Oldham fans think.

If I chose to I would feel justified in lobbying the Spurs in that situation as I am a fan and I spend money on them. If it were another club I don't think I would feel justified in the same way, even for a more serious crime.

The irony is that Lee Hughes killed someone while drunk driving and upon his release from prison in 2007 signed for Oldham, and he is still playing professional football today. Was there a similar campaign against him? If not, should there have been?

I think this is a very solid post. Well considered and reflected.

I agree that the approach for Oldham should be to contact their fans and see what their own fans actually feel about the issue. Not just listen to a petition that has gotten what is overall a relatively low number of signatures.

I think there is a difference between *struggle cuddle* and drunk driving. Killing someone whilst drunk driving is of course in one way very different to "just" drunk driving, but in terms of the intentions behind they're very similar. And those intentions are very different to the intentions behind *struggle cuddle*.

"To deprive a human being of the right to work in their chosen profession should be a decision taken by a judicial system that dispassionately balances the rights of the individual against that of the society as a whole,"

So no line in the sand? No crime where people shouldn't be allowed, or actually entitled, to return to professional football or some other job in the limelight?

 

[Baleforce]

the jobs irrelevant, it's just a trade, if they were not being paid they would do something else, or do nothing

there is a line, but for me it's in the same place as parole, if they are allowed back into society they should be treated the same as everyone else, if not, keep em locked up

 

[Baleforce]

Article from Marina Hyde, very much worth reading,

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde

 

[tommysvr]

If someone like him were to ever be signed by Spurs, I wouldn't be supporting them until he left.

I hope someone gives him a career ending injury in his first match. The ironic thing would probably the sympathy giving to him vs the sympathy towards the poor young girl.

 

[minnow]

As soon as I heard it my gut reaction was I don't need to know anything about his case at all, he's been convicted by a court, people who have heard all the evidence decided he was guilty of a horrible crime. If he is innocent, I wish him luck with his appeal and getting his career back. But convicted rapists shouldn't have a high profile place in football, for the same reasons given by the sponsors who have backed out of deals with Oldham - it suggests a lack of decent values for clubs to employ them. If Spurs were to sign a convicted rapist I would never go to see them again unless they came out with a strong statement reversing their policy. I've had a ST for 11 years and am a lifelong fan and I would be gutted, but I wouldn't want to be part of it. I don't want my club to say it's okay to be a rapist - yeah carry on like normal mate, we can turn a blind eye seeing as you served (half of) your time. No, I want them to have standards, ethics, principals and I want to be proud of the players, not ashamed. There should be consequences for actions as serious as this. Clubs have zero responsibility to maintain the careers of convicted rapists.

I'm disgusted by Oldham's owners and feel sorry for their fans. I'm glad this is being talked about though. I'd hope that whatever club at any level he tried to sign for would have too much respect for themselves and their fans than to want a rapist on their books.

And now it looks like Evans's soon to be father-in-law is bank rolling the signing, the wages, and compensation if all the sponsors leave and the club suffers financial losses. What a lucky girl, and a wonderful life they'll have together that family, can't see anything going wrong there.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...lub-after-family-put-2m-on-table-9963909.html