Ched Evans

Matthewfalle

The lowest form of possible human being (with a ridiculous name) or a reformed character who should be allowed to play professional football without a care in the world?

Debate please.

pblakeney

It is a tricky one that will boil down to two general questions.

Would anyone care if he was a plumber?

Should footballers be set as role models?

I think that the answer to both questions is, no.

slowmart

Who cares but i'd like to shag his mrs.


BTW he's not reformed as he denies any guilt whatsoever. Obviously he looked at Stevie Gerrard and John Terry and thought it was worth a punt.

pinno

Whether footballers should serve as role models or not is besides the point. They are role models by default because they are in the public eye.
Do we know if he used his status as a footballer to commit the crime - that would be the question.
If you are a professional footballer you will be earning a decent salary and you are in a privileged position which should come with some responsibility.

slowmart

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans


The court papers paint a different picture to the one portrayed by the press.

ballysmate

Not up to employers to administer justice. That is for the State.

tim_wand

Ballysmate wrote:

Not up to employers to administer justice. That is for the State.

Not up to them to apply justice. But it is up to them to comply with law.

Evans is a registered sex offender, I would Imagine that in terms of Safe guarding the public, any employer who is involved in what is essentially a Public entertainment business has got to take this into serious consideration.

I still do not understand the mechanisms by which a convicted rapist in denial of offences has convinced a parole board he is rehabilitated and no longer a risk?

ballysmate

tim wand wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Not up to employers to administer justice. That is for the State.[/quote

Not up to them to apply justice. But it is up to them to comply with law.

Evans is a registered sex offender, I would Imagine that in terms of Safe guarding the public, any employer who is involved in what is essentially a Public entertainment business has got to take this into serious consideration.

I still do not understand the mechanisms by which a convicted rapist in denial of offences has convinced a parole board he is rehabilitated and no longer a risk?

Agree with paras 1 and 3.
Yes he is a registered sex offender, but I can't see how he turning out to play football on a Sat afternoon in front of thousands makes him a greater threat.
I think the people who find it galling, do so because of the potential earnings he can make. They should be honest and not hide behind this 'role model' bollox.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

I think the people who find it galling, do so because of the potential earnings he can make. They should be honest and not hide behind this 'role model' bollox.

Well put.

Would there be as much of an outrage if he played Sunday League?

Manc33

Never heard of him before this so he can't be good.

Yep, its great to tell all the kids you can do one monumental screw up in your life and get away with it once. :roll:

southdownswolf

I can't understand why there was no such outrage when Lee Hughes was allowed back to play football. He actually killed a person, but was welcomed back into football with open arms.

Regarding the Ched Evans case; how come the lady in question was not too drunk to consent with one person, but was with Evans?

pinno

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

The court papers paint a different picture to the one portrayed by the press.

^Interesting. It raises a couple of questions.

1. Should anybody take a girl to bed who was drunker than you are and only 19 that you know little of. I mean, he is a footballer and shouldn't have to go far to find sex. I think that was his biggest mistake.
2. It also raises questions about his integrity. He had no doubt in his mind that he was going to have sex with the girl - soft target perhaps? Easy shag? That's another mistake.
We've all had one night stands that we have walked away from and thought little or nothing of. What if after one of those encounters, the police knocked on your door and you were suddenly charged with rape because the accuser had had second thoughts?

I might get sh1t for these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Man follows a woman who he does not know late at night, drags her into an alleyway and rapes her at knifepoint.

Secenario 2:
Man meets woman. They drink a bit too much, have fun, kiss, dance together. The female invites the man home. They initiate intercourse and whilst having intercourse she changes her mind and he doesn't quit.

Scenario 1 is aggressive, hostile and cowardly.
Scenario 2 is somewhat different. Still rape for all intense and purposes but not as traumatic as the first scenario and the boundaries are a little blurred.

Do the two men get charged and sentenced the same?

southdownswolf

pinarello001 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

The court papers paint a different picture to the one portrayed by the press.

^Interesting. It raises a couple of questions.

1. Should anybody take a girl to bed who was drunker than you are and only 19 that you know little of. I mean, he is a footballer and shouldn't have to go far to find sex. I think that was his biggest mistake.
2. It also raises questions about his integrity. He had no doubt in his mind that he was going to have sex with the girl - soft target perhaps? Easy shag? That's another mistake.
We've all had one night stands that we have walked away from and thought little or nothing of. What if after one of those encounters, the police knocked on your door and you were suddenly charged with rape because the accuser had had second thoughts?

I might get sh1t for these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Man follows a woman who he does not know late at night, drags her into an alleyway and rapes her at knifepoint.

Secenario 2:
Man meets woman. They drink a bit too much, have fun, kiss, dance together. The female invites the man home. They initiate intercourse and whilst having intercourse she changes her mind and he doesn't quit.

Scenario 1 is aggressive, hostile and cowardly.
Scenario 2 is somewhat different. Still rape for all intense and purposes but not as traumatic as the first scenario and the boundaries are a little blurred.

Do the two men get charged and sentenced the same?

The two men get charged and may have slightly different sentences, but I doubt they would be much different.

However, the scene in the Ched Evans case appears to be that she consented at the time, but once sober, decided that it should never have happened.

mpatts

I prefer Radio 4.

macleod113

its not my decision but only my opinion but i believe he has served his time and should be allowed to try and return to work if he is able to prove he is skilled enough.
sadly with board members and celebs now jumping on the 'get rid of him' bandwagon i think he has no chance.
i dont believe that anyone will look at him as a convict and think if he does it why dont i commit a crime just as he has been in the public eye.

supersonic

So many things that can be said - so I'll boil it down. I agree with the above - whether he did it or not, he has served the punishment given to him. Part of that is rehab. He has an opportunity to make a wage using his skills.

Simplistic yes. I know that there is the role model argument. The profile of his job sees to that. It is complex, but my feelings are that he should be allowed to make his living in the profession he had.

Oh, I'm a Wednesday fan ;-)

ManOfKent

southdownswolf wrote:

I can't understand why there was no such outrage when Lee Hughes was allowed back to play football. He actually killed a person, but was welcomed back into football with open arms.

He wasn't, he got dogs' abuse from many fans, as did Luke McCormick when he first came back into football. Many fans thought they should not have been allowed back, but money talks.

verylonglegs

ManOfKent wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

I can't understand why there was no such outrage when Lee Hughes was allowed back to play football. He actually killed a person, but was welcomed back into football with open arms.

He wasn't, he got dogs' abuse from many fans, as did Luke McCormick when he first came back into football. Many fans thought they should not have been allowed back, but money talks.

Football fans acting as the moral authority? That's almost comical given some of the chants heard on a weekly basis in many grounds.

ugo.santalucia

The problem is:

If you believe in the justice system, then after his sentence he should be treated like anybody else, if you don't, then you might as well shoot criminals in the head and save money.... jails are costly.
Football is what he is good at and I don't see why he should not be allowed to play. If kids see footballers as a role model, that's our society problem, not his fault... it would be retaliation to prevent him from doing what he is good at...

He will sit on a couch, claim benefits and maybe become an even worse offender... and that's because we cannot educate our kids properly... well done!

southdownswolf

ManOfKent wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

I can't understand why there was no such outrage when Lee Hughes was allowed back to play football. He actually killed a person, but was welcomed back into football with open arms.

He wasn't, he got dogs' abuse from many fans, as did Luke McCormick when he first came back into football. Many fans thought they should not have been allowed back, but money talks.

There may have been some fans that did not want to see him back in football, but there was nothing like the public campaign that is going on with Ched Evans. As for the abuse on the terraces, I think it was all "water off a ducks back" to him. He had plenty of abuse from fans prior to the hit and run, certainly in the Midlands, due to his previously relationships with women. Oldham reminded their supporters at the time that they should not take a moral judgement on him, as he had already served his time for the crime committed.

cornerblock

I can understand the viewpoint that he's served his time and deserves the right to go back to work, but as a professional footballer? An occupation that brings with it adulation, media coverage, brings a person into your living room. Would those who believe he has the right to do so be of the same opinion about a time served paedophile? I believe there are certain crimes that quite rightly rule a person out of certain jobs. Me personally? I don't want to see the beaming face of a rapist celebrating a goal ever.

As for him just sitting on the couch claiming benefits, deary me! :roll: Is he incapable of earning a living in a job that does not mean being in the public eye? Perhaps his girlfriends rich father could employ him. That's another thing I find a bit odd, it's her father financing his appeal and the publicity drive to convince us all that he's not a rapist, a guy who openly admits that he 'cheated' on his daughter! :shock: Strange days indeed.

Like most things I imagine it'll be the finance, or lack of it from sponsorship that will determine whether he is allowed back into the game.

southdownswolf

So what job should he be allowed to go back to? Should he work on a factory shop floor where he comes into contact with lots of women all the time? Maybe in a clothes shop, where again, he comes into contact with lots of women? Or should he be in a job where he is ostracised and work in a room all by himself?

ballysmate

Cornerblock wrote:

I can understand the viewpoint that he's served his time and deserves the right to go back to work, but as a professional footballer? An occupation that brings with it adulation, media coverage, brings a person into your living room. Would those who believe he has the right to do so be of the same opinion about a time served paedophile? I believe there are certain crimes that quite rightly rule a person out of certain jobs. Me personally? I don't want to see the beaming face of a rapist celebrating a goal ever.

As for him just sitting on the couch claiming benefits, deary me! :roll: Is he incapable of earning a living in a job that does not mean being in the public eye? Perhaps his girlfriends rich father could employ him. That's another thing I find a bit odd, it's her father financing his appeal and the publicity drive to convince us all that he's not a rapist, a guy who openly admits that he 'cheated' on his daughter! :shock: Strange days indeed.

Like most things I imagine it'll be the finance, or lack of it from sponsorship that will determine whether he is allowed back into the game.

You seem to accept that he has been punished, but you feel the need to continue to punish him. Your gripe seems to be that you feel his success in life should be forever limited. I can see that sex offenders shouldn't be allowed in positions where they can pray on victims, but as SDW says, this is not the case in this instance. There are a whole host of jobs where he might come into contact with women.
As I said earlier, people wouldn't be up in arms if footballers were paid minimum wage.

laurentian

I think I'm in the "done his time, let him get on with his life" camp . . . it's a very tricky one, but I think that's my position - quite whether he'll find an employer I don't know. . .

It does seem mighty strange that any number of athletes (particularly cyclists and sprinters) can break the law in terms of doping and walk back into the sport after serving their time to make ££££ at the highest level but this guy's crime (odious as it may be) had nothing to do with football or his execution thereof and yet there's a sh!tstorm about it when he returns. Neither are great role models but the former must be worse from a purely sporting viewpoint.

slowbike

I had a brief read through the report linked on the first page. Hmm - tricky ...

I agree with the judges comments on that he should've realised that she was incapable of consenting, but perhaps he was incapacitated enough to not be thinking straight too.
In my view (with the limited info I've read) it's a case of morning after regret - which doesn't amount to rape - perhaps he regretted it too, in a way that blokes sometimes do, but we seem to be in the situation where women get the greater protection - understandably perhaps ...

I have a little difficulty with people who get themselves stupidly drunk then blame others for activities they've partaken in. An individual should be responsible for their own actions, and that should include anything they do whilst incapacitated (providing it was self administered!). That's not to say that a sober person should be free to take advantage of someone's intoxicated state, but I'd say that if you're wanting to become incapacitated then you should ensure you have a trusted person to prevent you from doing things you don't want to.

As for Ched Evans returning to Football - I can see why some people have a problem with it, but if the state has determined he's served his time then he should then be free to lead any lawful life he wishes.

cornerblock

My view has nothing whatsoever to do with his potential earnings, could not give a flying about that. Good luck to players who earn a fortune, nobody moans when Tom Cruise gets millions for churning out another shite film!
It's more to do with the exposure that a professional footballer has. Maybe it's just a selfish stand, but I don't want to pick up my paper or switch on my telly and see a convicted rapist. The same way I don't ever want to see Gary Glitter again. Earn a living by all means and if you find work colleagues that accept you then great, but I don't want to see you. Like I say it may be selfish, but honest.

pblakeney

The chances of seeing Sheffield United on T.V. or the media in general for sporting reasons are remote.

Coach H

Whilst I agree in principle with the 'he's served his punishment' lobby, how about this
Gary Glitter serves any and all punishment for offences committed and then is paid to appear on Never Mind the Buzzcocks. Everyone happy with that scenario?

Ched Evans is trying to return to a job in the public eye and some members of the public don't seem to want to see him. Sounds like freedom of choice for the general public rather than discrimination of Ched Evans to me.

pblakeney

Coach H wrote:

Whilst I agree in principle with the 'he's served his punishment' lobby, how about this
Gary Glitter serves any and all punishment for offences committed and then is paid to appear on Never Mind the Buzzcocks. Everyone happy with that scenario?

Ched Evans is trying to return to a job in the public eye and some members of the public don't seem to want to see him. Sounds like freedom of choice for the general public rather than discrimination of Ched Evans to me.

I don't know about happy, but I wouldn't have any objections.
The general public won't get a say unless he is allowed to play.

southdownswolf

Gary Glitter is still capable of earning money for the job that he was doing previously.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-That-Glitte ... B005PYFQ14
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000 ... XGZD02MHB9

You are still able to buy his music, therefore he is still in the career that he had when committing his crimes.

I am happy for Ched Evans to return to football.

southdownswolf

Coach H wrote:

Sounds like freedom of choice for the general public rather than discrimination of Ched Evans to me.

No, freedom of choice would be if he was playing and you boycott the game.