Ched Evans

verylonglegs

There is a lesson for football clubs amongst all this and that is that you should only name stands after dead people as they can no longer have opinions.

jawooga

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Matthewfalle

verylonglegs wrote:

There is a lesson for football clubs amongst all this and that is that you should only name stands after dead people as they can no longer have opinions.

Lympstone has a Jimmy Saville bar .........

ballysmate

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Ched Evans has a conviction for rape. As i understand it, any prospective employer is within their rights to refuse employment. But the decision is up to them. They make the decision whether he could be an asset to their business or not.
The issue has been clouded by the fact that he is a footballer and some people seem to think that a different set of rules should apply to them for some bizarre reason.

As regards your devil's advocate question. What if he was the preeminent brain surgeon in the world and God forbid, your child needed an operation. Would you give a flying fornication that he had a rape conviction or would you want the best surgeon in the world operating on your kid?

Monkeypump

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Well, he's been labelled an unrepentant rapist, but he's actually a convicted rapist who insists he is innocent. An unrepentant rapist would, by definition, accept guilt but no remorse.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Ched Evans has a conviction for rape. As i understand it, any prospective employer is within their rights to refuse employment. But the decision is up to them. They make the decision whether he could be an asset to their business or not.
The issue has been clouded by the fact that he is a footballer and some people seem to think that a different set of rules should apply to them for some bizarre reason.

As regards your devil's advocate question. What if he was the preeminent brain surgeon in the world and God forbid, your child needed an operation. Would you give a flying fornication that he had a rape conviction or would you want the best surgeon in the world operating on your kid?

or what if he was the leading rocket scientist of his age? would you overlook his involvement in the deaths of slave labourers because he would greatly benefit your own space program? in the case of Wernher von Braun the answer was that he could escape the noose and go on to help put man on the moon

southdownswolf

I'm purely guessing, but I don't think that he will become a leading scientist..... :idea:

surrey_commuter

southdownswolf wrote:

I'm purely guessing, but I don't think that he will become a leading scientist..... :idea:

damn you spotted the flaw in my analogy :evil:

Matthewfalle

But as an unreformed, unrepentant rapist he still has the chance to earn tens of thousands of pounds a week and be held up to adulation by thousands.

Now there throws a moral conundrum into this whole saga ............

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Ched Evans has a conviction for rape. As i understand it, any prospective employer is within their rights to refuse employment. But the decision is up to them. They make the decision whether he could be an asset to their business or not.
The issue has been clouded by the fact that he is a footballer and some people seem to think that a different set of rules should apply to them for some bizarre reason.

As regards your devil's advocate question. What if he was the preeminent brain surgeon in the world and God forbid, your child needed an operation. Would you give a flying fornication that he had a rape conviction or would you want the best surgeon in the world operating on your kid?

or what if he was the leading rocket scientist of his age? would you overlook his involvement in the deaths of slave labourers because he would greatly benefit your own space program? in the case of Wernher von Braun the answer was that he could escape the noose and go on to help put man on the moon

IF he had been convicted and IF he had served his sentence, then why not? Whether Wernher von Braun should have been prosecuted for war crimes is another matter. Anyway, he wasn't so the point is moot.

by Matthewfalle » Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:12 pm

But as an unreformed, unrepentant rapist he still has the chance to earn tens of thousands of pounds a week and be held up to adulation by thousands.

Now there throws a moral conundrum into this whole saga ............

Someone else who appears to only have a problem with his chosen profession being potentially lucrative.
As was pointed out much earlier, we wouldn't be having this debate if Evans was a plumber, even though in which case, he would be entering people's homes.

verylonglegs

Matthewfalle wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

There is a lesson for football clubs amongst all this and that is that you should only name stands after dead people as they can no longer have opinions.

Lympstone has a Jimmy Saville bar .........

Well he is not ringing them up and telling them how to run the place is he?

jawooga

Ballysmate wrote:

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Ched Evans has a conviction for rape. As i understand it, any prospective employer is within their rights to refuse employment. But the decision is up to them. They make the decision whether he could be an asset to their business or not.
The issue has been clouded by the fact that he is a footballer and some people seem to think that a different set of rules should apply to them for some bizarre reason.

As regards your devil's advocate question. What if he was the preeminent brain surgeon in the world and God forbid, your child needed an operation. Would you give a flying fornication that he had a rape conviction or would you want the best surgeon in the world operating on your kid?

You seem to be agreeing with me that you can make a case either way by using an extreme What If.

ballysmate

jawooga wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

jawooga wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Devil's advocate question: Would you expect the celebrities convicted on operation ewe tree evidence be allowed to serve their time, and then come back to do what they were good at, and present Top Of The Pops?

I'm really not sure how you can compare the cases....

I'm not equating the cases although it's easier to argue that than give a definitive answer. Don't get me wrong, I can't give a definitive answer either. I'm trying to point out that being morally certain one way or another is fraught with difficulties. some people have argued fairly that Ched Evans has served his time and deserves to be accepted back into society doing his old job. Some have argued also fairly that he's an unrepentant rapist, who shouldn't have got parole and shouldn't have a place as a role model in his community. My silly point is a counter argument to those who lean to Evans' defence and to point out that Evans' legal rights isn't necessarily the only consideration.

Ched Evans has a conviction for rape. As i understand it, any prospective employer is within their rights to refuse employment. But the decision is up to them. They make the decision whether he could be an asset to their business or not.
The issue has been clouded by the fact that he is a footballer and some people seem to think that a different set of rules should apply to them for some bizarre reason.

As regards your devil's advocate question. What if he was the preeminent brain surgeon in the world and God forbid, your child needed an operation. Would you give a flying fornication that he had a rape conviction or would you want the best surgeon in the world operating on your kid?

You seem to be agreeing with me that you can make a case either way by using an extreme What If.

He has been found guilty, been punished by the State and if Sheff Utd or any other club want to give him a contract it is no-one else's business. If as a result, people decide not to support Sheff Utd, that is their business.

nicklouse

And they have dropped him.

plowmar

Offer to re employ has been withdrawn.

ballysmate

plowmar wrote:

Offer to re employ has been withdrawn.

Do keep up.

by Ballysmate » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:40 pm

It appears Sheffield United have caved in to the lynch mob and won't offer him a contract after all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... riker.html

If he does win his appeal and the conviction gets quashed, I am sure the lawyers will rake it in.

tim_wand

He should give Wigan a try. They love employing folk pending trial by media.

ballysmate

In this multimedia age, an opinion is like a clitoris - every ****'s got one.

ballysmate

tim wand wrote:

He should give Wigan a try. They love employing folk pending trial by media.

Malky should soon feel at home.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -else.html

verylonglegs

The offer Sheff Utd withdrew was to use their training facilities, that's all they were ever offering. Nigel Clough emphasised they were nowhere near offering him a contract but people were being too self-important with their opinions to pay attention.

cornerblock

You don't think they were testing the water so to speak? To me they were just gauging public opinion to see if it might have an affect on the money brought in from sponsors. Once it was obvious that it would have a bearing on them commercially they backed off.

supersonic

Cornerblock wrote:

You don't think they were testing the water so to speak? To me they were just gauging public opinion to see if it might have an affect on the money brought in from sponsors. Once it was obvious that it would have a bearing on them commercially they backed off.

I do believe they were. But the water has definitely drowned them.

We will have to see what this new appeal brings.

slowmart

supersonic wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

You don't think they were testing the water so to speak? To me they were just gauging public opinion to see if it might have an affect on the money brought in from sponsors. Once it was obvious that it would have a bearing on them commercially they backed off.

I do believe they were. But the water has definitely drowned them.

We will have to see what this new appeal brings.

His appeal was turned down.

His case is under review and being fast racked by the Criminal Case Review Commission after the intervention of his highly paid legal team. He remains on the Violent and Sex Offender Register.

Personally it looks like a poor attempt to rehabilitate him as a victim and cloud the issues and he would have stood more chance in showing remorse for his actions and moving on. He's just compounding the original mistake.

Mind you his legal team will coin it regardless as i doubt there the sort to do no win no fee.

southdownswolf

Slowmart wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

You don't think they were testing the water so to speak? To me they were just gauging public opinion to see if it might have an affect on the money brought in from sponsors. Once it was obvious that it would have a bearing on them commercially they backed off.

I do believe they were. But the water has definitely drowned them.

We will have to see what this new appeal brings.

His appeal was turned down.

His case is under review and being fast racked by the Criminal Case Review Commission after the intervention of his highly paid legal team. He remains on the Violent and Sex Offender Register.

Personally it looks like a poor attempt to rehabilitate him as a victim and cloud the issues and he would have stood more chance in showing remorse for his actions and moving on. He's just compounding the original mistake.

Mind you his legal team will coin it regardless as i doubt there the sort to do no win no fee.

Or it could be that he believes that he is innocent, just like the other person. Having read the trial documents, I still can not see how he was convicted, especially as the other person was not.

slowmart

southdownswolf wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

You don't think they were testing the water so to speak? To me they were just gauging public opinion to see if it might have an affect on the money brought in from sponsors. Once it was obvious that it would have a bearing on them commercially they backed off.

I do believe they were. But the water has definitely drowned them.

We will have to see what this new appeal brings.

His appeal was turned down.

His case is under review and being fast racked by the Criminal Case Review Commission after the intervention of his highly paid legal team. He remains on the Violent and Sex Offender Register.

Personally it looks like a poor attempt to rehabilitate him as a victim and cloud the issues and he would have stood more chance in showing remorse for his actions and moving on. He's just compounding the original mistake.

Mind you his legal team will coin it regardless as i doubt there the sort to do no win no fee.

Or it could be that he believes that he is innocent, just like the other person. Having read the trial documents, I still can not see how he was convicted, especially as the other person was not.

Perhaps the jury found consent was given in the case of the guy who took her to the hotel room. phoning a mate to come round to shag a very drunk female may have been a harder sell to the jury in the case of consent

It's a difficult case but one things for sure you have to question the tactics employed to position and showcase his rehabilitation. Saying he is not guilty is too simplistic and a more articulate response with some show of regret would have helped leverage public opinion rather than reinforce the dubious behaviour and guilty verdict.

I don't agree that he should lose his career but it's understandable the lack of public empathy given his comments post release that he finds himself ostracised.

supersonic

He has stood by his guns all the way through. He (and McDonald) both maintain consent was given. The jury obviously found otherwise - they were instructed to view each of them individually even though the evidence very much overlapped.

It is a situation he can never recover from. Even if the CCRC overturn the conviction, he will still be viewed as a slimeball. But let's be realistic - many, many people go out out day in, day out, to go clubbing and look for a shag. And many forget what has happened. That makes a lot of people bastards in the eyes oof the public. But... It boils down to the point of consent in the eyes of the law - and they have deemed that he could not have reasonably believed it was given or that it was not given. As it stands he is a convicted rapist.

chris_bass

Sorry to resurrect this but didn't think Chedwyn deserved two threads!

But, turns out he isn't guilty after all pending a retrial

tangled_metal

The verdict only says there has been new evidence which if presented in the original trial may or may not have affected the verdict. As a result the verdict is to be considered unsafe. This means the verdict is set aside and a retrial is needed.

Put simply it's a verdict on the relevance of new evidence not the guy's guilt or innocence. It may even still technically be correct to call him a convicted rapist but I'm not sure a which stage that status changes.

Irrespective of the eventual outcome of all this (assuming there's a retrial) he's still a highly questionable individual. Didn't he cheat on his pregnant girlfriend? Didn't he have sex with a highly inebriated woman in questionable circumstances? He's a young lad who was in the money and was no doubt having fun that I think has gone a bit wrong. He's paying the piper for sure, but he isn't innocent.

ilovegrace

Tangled Metal wrote:

The verdict only says there has been new evidence which if presented in the original trial may or may not have affected the verdict. As a result the verdict is to be considered unsafe. This means the verdict is set aside and a retrial is needed.

Put simply it's a verdict on the relevance of new evidence not the guy's guilt or innocence. It may even still technically be correct to call him a convicted rapist but I'm not sure a which stage that status changes.

Irrespective of the eventual outcome of all this (assuming there's a retrial) he's still a highly questionable individual. Didn't he cheat on his pregnant girlfriend? Didn't he have sex with a highly inebriated woman in questionable circumstances? He's a young lad who was in the money and was no doubt having fun that I think has gone a bit wrong. He's paying the piper for sure, but he isn't innocent.

" Highly questionable individual "
Let he who is without sin
regards
ILG

tangled_metal

I'll get the stones then shall i?

Seriously, I find his actions questionable and TBH I've never taken up the opportunity of a one stand with a highly inebriated woman before. IMHO It's a bad idea to get involved like that when it's doubtful she's able to give consent. It's risky I think. BTW I'm no minor team pro footballer with fans but in my youth I had my chances. Besides cheating on your partner is actually something I feel justifies the "questionable individual" tag. My view expressed and I stand by it.

Of course if you feel cheating on your partner, with a highly inebriated woman such that there is a question over consent is not questionable that is your opinion.