Ched Evans

[Superhudd]

Isn't apologising admitting guilt? If you were about to go on trial for a murder you didn't commit would you publicly apologise for the murder in the build up?

There's no way he'll apologise unless all legal routes of proving himself not guilty have been exhausted.

Don't worry.. no one would apologise. Just another ridiculous reason the mob use to hit him with and therefore rile up the dingdongheads into death threats.

 

[Robspur12]

Yes this case hinged not on whether the girl was drunk or not but her level of intoxication. She had to be incapable of making a decision (basically unconscious) for *struggle cuddle* to have been committed.

She need not have been able to make an informed or wise decision but the ability to make any decision means *struggle cuddle* could not have been committed.

The jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was incapacitated to such an extent that she was not conscious of her surroundings and was unable to make a decision at all when Evans had sex with her.

Personally I find their findings bizarre and dangerous.

Toxicology report and expert witnesses suggest the girl was no where near this level of intoxication;
Medical examination found no external or internal injuries to the girl;
CCTV footage shows her arriving at the hotel unassisted laughing and talking. Earlier she was shown eating a pizza and then getting in a taxi with Mcdonald to go to the hotel room;
The girls testimony is that she can't remember anything of that night. However not only does this call into question her insistence that she did not consent, it is also questioned by the expert witnesses;

Ultimately there is actually almost zero evidence that *struggle cuddle* has occurred and considering the evidence that makes the girls testimony questionable how it could be considered that Evans raped her beyond reasonable doubt I do not know.

What is even more concerning was that the jury considered that the girl was in a fit state to consent to sex with McDonald but not with Evans. How can this be so as her level of intoxication did not change from one to the other?

It should also be pointed out that initially the girl only.reported the loss of her bag to the police and nothing else.

Given the nailed on cases I've lost in court against suspected fraudsters a much less serious crime and knowing the evidential standards we have to meet for someone to.be convicted of such a hideous crime based on so little should be scary for a civilised society. To my mind it's literally one step from "she's a witch, burn her. Because I said she's a witch!"

So knowing that you should be aware of 2 things
1) that despite the members of the media telling you otherwise the judicial process is generally very fair.
2) the process is weighed heavily in favour of defendants which is why justice is not always done.

In this case the defendant, Ched Evans, has been convicted of *struggle cuddle*. So unless posters are saying that one of the above 2 isn't the case here or didn't happen then show the evidence. To try and lessen the seriousness of this case by putting a value judgement on it rather than listening to the whole evidence of the case as the jury heard it, is simply wrong IMO.

For me football is a community sport and footballers representatives of a community. I don't think that Ched Evans can represent the women of a community having committed a serious crime against a woman, been convicted and shown no remorse. Sadly because of the hysteria people are questioning the integrity of the victim who the judiary has concluded had a horrible criminal act done to her.

Quite aside from the value judgements against the victim we have the father in law of Evans who is bank rolling his future son-in -law in a quite disgusting attempt to sanitise the crime. I think the whole lot of them deserve nothing but contempt as do the idiots who have threatened the Oldham board as stupid as they were to consider making a deal with a rapist.

 

[minnow]

Well said Robspur12.

Players more than represent us on the pitch - they are us, every time we say 'we' when talking about our club it reinforces that bond, often stretching back through generations of support. We are our club for far longer than they are, and it's a privilege for them to play in the team. If a club puts a convicted rapist out there, the fans have every right to take it very personally. I don't think it's just women Ched Evans can't represent though - men have just as much right to find his football employment and representation of them objectionable, and I'm glad so many have been saying so.

 

[Superhudd]

Well said Robspur12.

Players more than represent us on the pitch - they are us, every time we say 'we' when talking about our club it reinforces that bond, often stretching back through generations of support. We are our club for far longer than they are, and it's a privilege for them to play in the team. If a club puts a convicted rapist out there, the fans have every right to take it very personally. I don't think it's just women Ched Evans can't represent though - men have just as much right to find his football employment and representation of them objectionable, and I'm glad so many have been saying so.

As the Oldham banner said on Saturday.. Where's the 70k then.

Your 100% right except those that actually go should decide. Not those that have no connection to the game, those that have never been in the Oldham community.

talking about community, as in working in the town of Oldham.. Local supermarket.. The local convenience stores are often called the hub of the community. Library, swimming pools etc. therefore I take it on that same premise he should not be allowed to work there either.

 

[Robspur12]

As the Oldham banner said on Saturday.. Where's the 70k then.

Your 100% right except those that actually go should decide. Not those that have no connection to the game, those that have never been in the Oldham community.

talking about community, as in working in the town of Oldham.. Local supermarket.. The local convenience stores are often called the hub of the community. Library, swimming pools etc. therefore I take it on that same premise he should not be allowed to work there either.

I think you are missing the point Hudd. A local supermarket is a private business - it does not represent the community in the way a Football club does. As a convicted rapist I doubt very much whether Ched Evans would be able to work at a library or swimming pool or in fact any Council institution. I also think he would be unlikely to be employed in any capacity that represents a community or section of a community such as an MP, school governor, Police officer etc. I would add footballer to that list.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think there is a grey area here, footballers don't represent communities in the way an MP or councillor would. If you look at the UK as a whole football although a vast sport isn't representative of the whole UK, and when you drill down per team you will find that each regional team isn't representative of that area, when I say that I mean not everyone in Oldham will like football and even less support the club.

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?

Its not our job to be handing out extra-judicial punishment. Why should a footballer be denied a return to employment if we would not deny a plumber? Money is the real red herring. The point here is that the very concept of rehabilitation is undermined if we try to rig the world against those we have already punished. You could argue that by blocking jobs your promoting people to reoffend , why would anyone wish to change if they know they are never going to be given a decent shot again in life?

 

[Baleforce]

great post grays

 

[Richie]

Any time people talk about sports stars being role models, I think of this

[video=youtube;4gqk4WPnrpM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqk4WPnrpM[/video]

 

[Robspur12]

QUOTE=Grays_1890;655886]I think there is a grey area here, footballers don't represent communities in the way an MP or councillor would. If you look at the UK as a whole football although a vast sport isn't representative of the whole UK, and when you drill down per team you will find that each regional team isn't representative of that area, when I say that I mean not everyone in Oldham will like football and even less support the club.

I don' think that the test for representing a community is that every one in that Community must like football or support the club. After all MPs are not voted for by everyone in the community. The clubs take the name of the towns because they are an inherent part of the town and in the main their support is drawn from that community. If they did not represent the town their names would not reflect the town name.

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?

I agree to a certain extent but foot ball being a community game means the players are involved in community projects. Would you be happy for your daughter for example to be "coached" by a convicted rapist? I think the proscription for some jobs goes beyond just risk. Some jobs rightly carry a responsibility to behave in a certain way because of the influence exerted by that job. I believe football is one of those.

Its not our job to be handing out extra-judicial punishment. Why should a footballer be denied a return to employment if we would not deny a plumber? Money is the real red herring. The point here is that the very concept of rehabilitation is undermined if we try to rig the world against those we have already punished. You could argue that by blocking jobs your promoting people to reoffend , why would anyone wish to change if they know they are never going to be given a decent shot again in life?[/QUOTE]

I think you need to look at each case on its own merit rather than talking about generalities. Money is not an issue here for me. What we have is a convicted rapist who has shown no remorse to his victim. By that he does not believe he did anything wrong and if you follow that through he would very likely commit the same crime again if he thought he would not be caught. How can this person be allowed to continue working in an area where he will come into contact, as part of his job with women and children? In my ignorance I always thought that the first step in rehabilitation was admitting that you had committed a crime showing remorse and empathy towards the victim and the willingness not to commit that crime again. The victim after all will have to live with the consequences of the perpetrators actions for the rest of their life why should the perp just be allowed to return to a normal life? I have a suspicion that this "rehabilitation argument" is only being presented by posters who do not really believe that the victim was raped despite their having been a conviction. I wonder how many would be so comfortable rehabilitating a footballer who had battered or stabbed someone and showed no remorse for their crime. That is sad really.

 

[scaramanga]

I don' think that the test for representing a community is that every one in that Community must like football or support the club. After all MPs are not voted for by everyone in the community. The clubs take the name of the towns because they are an inherent part of the town and in the main their support is drawn from that community. If they did not represent the town their names would not reflect the town name.

Does that mean it's OK for MK Dons to employ him?

 

[Robspur12]

Does that mean it's OK for MK Dons to employ him?

MK= Milton Keynes

 

[LutonSpurs]

Do the people who think Evans should play at a professional club care that the victim has had to move address because of the publicity this idiot has got? That his name in the spotlight will cause her hurt? If it was your younger sister or daughter as the victim would you view this case more compassionately?

 

[Richie]

Do the people who think Evans should play at a professional club care that the victim has had to move address because of the publicity this idiot has got? That his name in the spotlight will cause her hurt? If it was your younger sister or daughter as the victim would you view this case more compassionately?

You can deplore the abuse his victim has received while also holding the view that he has the right to play football again, they aren't mutually exclusive. You mention the 'spotlight', but the will-he-wont-he saga about signing for a club is garnering far more attention that him playing would. The media would be over it after a couple of games.

As for his name causing her hurt, well there's not much anyone can do about that. How do you compare this with the hurt the parents of the two kids Luke McCormick killed must feel? Even though I have sympathy with this point, I think it's overblown. How often do you hear a League One footballers name in the media? Once he signed for a club the media would move on very quickly.

As for thinking about my sister or (hypothetical) daughter, I'm sure I wouldn't be happy, but I can confess that I suspect I wouldn't be thinking logically or rationally about the issue. I hope to GHod laws aren't made based on the emotional responses of MPs imagining their own families in the situations which they are legislating, sounds like a perfect recipe for terrible laws.

 

[Baleforce]

Do the people who think Evans should play at a professional club care that the victim has had to move address because of the publicity this idiot has got? That his name in the spotlight will cause her hurt? If it was your younger sister or daughter as the victim would you view this case more compassionately?

that would be bringing personal feelings into it, which you clearly can't do with legal process

the crime, the money, the community, all irrelevant, this is a person who has been released from legal custody, a person our legal system has decreed is worthy to once again walk amongst us, anything other than full integration sets a worrying precedent for me

(I have a younger sister and a daughter, not that that should matter, this isn't an argument for specifics, it should only be decided by what's best in a hypothetical situation imo, you're have to leave the emotion outside)

 

[Robspur12]

that would be bringing personal feelings into it, which you clearly can't do with legal process

the crime, the money, the community, all irrelevant, this is a person who has been released from legal custody, a person our legal system has decreed is worthy to once again walk amongst us, anything other than full integration sets a worrying precedent for me

(I have a younger sister and a daughter, not that that should matter, this isn't an argument for specifics, it should only be decided by what's best in a hypothetical situation imo, you're have to leave the emotion outside)

But this is not the case, the justice system does not allow full integration to "walk amongst us. " He will now be on the sex offenders register which come with conditions and a number of jobs he will now become unsuitable for. The crime and community may not be important to you but they are the things that determine the sentence and any subsequent restrictions on Mr Evans. IMO the primary consideration is the protection of other members of the community for me that trumps rehabilitation every time.

 

[Baleforce]

yes there are restrictions, these would have been set when he was released, I'm assuming here that football wasn't restricted or else he's wasted a lot of time with Sheffield United and Oldham if the judge wouldn't allow it anyway

as I much as I loathe to discuss specifics in this thread, Evans is actually in a good position here as the the leading job opportunities for registered sec offenders are manual labour, and highly skilled trades, I'd say football falls into both of those

 

[Baleforce]

oh, and the sentence isn't affected by the community but solely the precedent for that offense

 

[Robspur12]

oh, and the sentence isn't affected by the community but solely the precedent for that offense

The decision to prosecute and the sentence are influenced by the public interest.

 

[Robspur12]

yes there are restrictions, these would have been set when he was released, I'm assuming here that football wasn't restricted or else he's wasted a lot of time with Sheffield United and Oldham if the judge wouldn't allow it anyway

as I much as I loathe to discuss specifics in this thread, Evans is actually in a good position here as the the leading job opportunities for registered sec offenders are manual labour, and highly skilled trades, I'd say football falls into both of those

The restrictions on some jobs would be statutory. On others it would I imagine be at the discretion of the employer. Football chairman based on the public interest test imo have a very good case for turning down the employment of Evans.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Legally any football club can employ him, that is not even a debate. It is an emotional outcry from the masses that has led to his lack of employment and the fact he has shown no remorse for the crime he has been convcited of (albeit he is appealing). He needed to stay shtum till his appeal was done and then deal with things. The reason the outcry has happened is due to peoples emotions on a sensitive issue. I feel he shouldn't be playing top level footy if he is convicted rapist who has shown no remorse for his crime.