Friday offtopic - Ched Evans

The Rookie

First Aspect wrote:

want another stab at this please, you know.

Perhaps not the best choice of simile?

First.Aspect

The Rookie wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

want another stab at this please, you know.

Perhaps not the best choice of simile?

I was wondering why the thread was locked.

ugo.santalucia

We have to be careful with defamation... so if you want to talk about whether CE should be allowed to play football, that's fine... if you want to talk about whether the rape victim was raped or not, that's NOT fine... there have been cases in the past where the forum has been threatened with defamation.
So, keep the discussion within the rules and it won't be locked.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia wrote:

We have to be careful with defamation... so if you want to talk about whether CE should be allowed to play football, that's fine... if you want to talk about whether the rape victim was raped or not, that's NOT fine... there have been cases in the past where the forum has been threatened with defamation.
So, keep the discussion within the rules and it won't be locked.

Whilst I personally have not "relitigated" on this thread, I'm interested to know precisely what you guys actually think could have been defamatory. There are a couple of candidate comments early on, but you don't seem to be bothered by that. As usual, though, when forumites get upset with each other, you step in.

rick_chasey

It's fine.

Thread's not locked. Let's not turn it into a 'why was it locked' thread.

ugo.santalucia

First Aspect wrote:

As usual, though, when forumites get upset with each other, you step in.

... hence the role is named "moderator".

I personally think the internet should be a place where you can say whatever you want, but this is no longer the case and certainly we have been given guidelines about what is OK and what is not OK to say on this forum. I am not here reading every single comment and I have an en passant interest on the topic. However, if I see it taking the route of whether or not the victim of a crime was lying and whether or not the convicted was in reality not guilty, then I have to step in and re-route the discussion towards a less sensitive topics. You can do as I say, or the thread will be locked for good... your choice (not mine, I don't have any choice other than ignoring it until someone complains)

roger_merriman

ugo.santalucia wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

As usual, though, when forumites get upset with each other, you step in.

... hence the role is named "moderator".

I personally think the internet should be a place where you can say whatever you want, but this is no longer the case and certainly we have been given guidelines about what is OK and what is not OK to say on this forum. I am not here reading every single comment and I have an en passant interest on the topic. However, if I see it taking the route of whether or not the victim of a crime was lying and whether or not the convicted was in reality not guilty, then I have to step in and re-route the discussion towards a less sensitive topics. You can do as I say, or the thread will be locked for good... your choice (not mine, I don't have any choice other than ignoring it until someone complains)

there are places you can say as you please and have been able to do so for 40 years or so, But webforums even in the mid 90's when they started have always had to be rules, since by its nature its running on someones server and normally tied into some thing, be it slashdot or bikeradar.

it is the nature of the beast hasn't changed much really all tend to be moderated.

going back to the topic, sex crimes are fairly hard to forgive. But if they have served their time/punishment then beyond a few areas what job shouldn't be limited.

ugo.santalucia

roger merriman wrote:

going back to the topic, sex crimes are fairly hard to forgive. But if they have served their time/punishment then beyond a few areas what job shouldn't be limited.

That's what I struggle with... people want to make their own rules... say "you can do this, but you can't do that" when if fact there is no law to back it up... it is particularly bad when people with influence, like celebs and politicians (pre elections) want to have a say at all costs

rubertoe

There really hasnt been a good Friday thread for ages (i get that it is now monday).

Let the man work, He has served his time. If a club wants to offer him a contract then let them. He has been punished by judicial process and should not be repunished by the population as well.

As people have said if he was a carpenter and a sunday league player he would be back earning and playing. It is purely that he is looking to get back into a job where he will be paid well that irks people.

Anonymous

rubertoe - you clearly aren't reading all the points. The money is one thing, but he is also in the public eye and possibly idolised (rightly or wrongly) by some people, which can give the wrong impression. If he went on to made millions quietly, no one would know (or care). But for the victim as well, seeing him being lauded for scoring goals or hearing his name chanted and praising him may be quite tough to handle.

surrey_commuter

pastryboy wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My understanding of the situation is that he was sacked by Sheff Utd when he got incarcerated.

His contract expired around the time it was all happening so there was no sacking.

I was trying to make the point that he was no longer employed by Sheff Utd so it is not a matter of him "returning to work". In other words any club could offer him a contract and there is no reason why the football league would refuse to register him. So he can continue his career but of the 92 potential employers 91 have shown no interest and the 92nd looks like it will take a big financial hit if it employs him.

pblakeney

coriordan wrote:

rubertoe - you clearly aren't reading all the points. The money is one thing, but he is also in the public eye and possibly idolised (rightly or wrongly) by some people, which can give the wrong impression. If he went on to made millions quietly, no one would know (or care). But for the victim as well, seeing him being lauded for scoring goals or hearing his name chanted and praising him may be quite tough to handle.

Your last point is the valid one, but redundant in this case. But it does raise the question as to what would happen if it was an international player in question.
I doubt that the victim will be going to games and I further doubt that CE will ever be seen playing on TV.
For the reasons given throughout this thread, I think his career is effectively over due to the bad publicity it would bring so the story is going to fade away.

DonDaddyD

Long time.

Regardless of how successful his appeal goes. I think he should be allowed to play football.

There are footballers who have criminal records and/or prison sentences: Duncan Ferguson, Tony Adams, Joey Barton, Eric Cantona, Patrick Kluivert (caused death by dangerous driving) to name a few who have been on the wrong side of the law and had long careers. Why must Ched Evans be the exception?

Lefthook

Of course he is allowed to play football. No one is stopping him kicking a ball around down the park.

The question is wether an employer wants to employe him to play football and the possible negative impact that might have on their business. It is their right to employe or not employe him, but they have to justify this to their customers.

Yes, if you have served a sentence you are free to reenter society, but individual members of that society have the right to choose how they want to frame their interactions with you.

If he was a carpenter, he might be back at work. But would I want to employee a sex offender to come and do work in my house while my wife and kids were home alone! If I had that knowledge, then on balance no, I would not.

tangled_metal

I see no reason why he can't work as a footballer. However since he is now on the sex offender's register (sentenced to 5 years qualifies him for that) he will not pass any CRB checking which means no outreach work for any club that employs him if that involves children or vulnerable adults. That may or may not be an issue but any club would need to abide by any restrictions that lack of CRB clearance entails. Perhaps that makes him less of an asset to any club willing to take him on. I am sure the implications are not insignificant and could affect a lot within the club environment, I do not know personally and it is conjecture. I am sure it could affect some of his potential earnings from outside the club activities too along with his very poor public image right now.

One aspect I have questions over and that is whether rehabilitation has happened if he does not accept the decision of the court. IIRC there have been many cases of people contesting their innocence from within the prison system and as a result not being let out of parole like CE was. They would rather not accept their conviction to get let out.

It seems to me CE got the best of both worlds, let out after half his sentence whilst still stating his innocence and contesting his conviction. I wonder if there is not some aspect of this that goes against the concept of rehabilitation? This is difficult because it could lead to truly innocent people accepting conviction just so they can get out as soon as possible. Does anyone have a view about what is important in rehabilitation? Was he really rehabilitated?

DonDaddyD

Lefthook wrote:

Of course he is allowed to play football. No one is stopping him kicking a ball around down the park.

I forget what this place is like. By 'play football' I meant within the context of this discussion, which is to play football professionally, I.e. to be paid to play football.

lefthook wrote:

The question is wether an employer wants to employe him to play football and the possible negative impact that might have on their business. It is their right to employe or not employe him, but they have to justify this to their customers.

The question isn't whether an employer wants to employ, clearly his previous team would like to re-sign him or they or they wouldn't court the public attention and criticism, the question is whether he should re-employed be as a professional footballer, or if he should be banned from doing so (within the UK at least) as they do with other professions.

The carpenter example doesn't hold either. He only needs to declare his criminal record to his employer and not the customer. The person who serves you in the supermarket could have spent time in prison for rape, man slaughter etc.

DonDaddyD

Tangled Metal wrote:

One aspect I have questions over and that is whether rehabilitation has happened if he does not accept the decision of the court.

I'm of the thought that rehabilitation is acceptance that the action itself is wrong, and not having to accept the sentencing decision.

bigmonka

Lefthook wrote:

The question is wether an employer wants to employe him to play football and the possible negative impact that might have on their business. It is their right to employe or not employe him, but they have to justify this to their customers.

Yes, if you have served a sentence you are free to reenter society, but individual members of that society have the right to choose how they want to frame their interactions with you.

If he was a carpenter, he might be back at work. But would I want to employee a sex offender to come and do work in my house while my wife and kids were home alone! If I had that knowledge, then on balance no, I would not.

That post sums up my opinions in a nutshell.

tangled_metal

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

One aspect I have questions over and that is whether rehabilitation has happened if he does not accept the decision of the court.

I'm of the thought that rehabilitation is acceptance that the action itself is wrong, and not having to accept the sentencing decision.

Is that wrong in the legal sense that he should accept the conviction or the guilty verdict by the jury? Appeals against sentences for severity or if the CPS for a low sentence is not unusual but are based on acceptance of guilt and the crime itself. What I question is whether the convicted should accept that they have been caught and found guilty before they can be considered rehabilitated?

He might say that he was wrong to go into that room and wrong to perform whatever sex acts he did. Then turn around and say he is not guilty of rape, i.e. accept his bad judgement but not that it is a crime. If he has not accepted the crime, evidenced by his application to the criminal cases review board, then is that rehabilitation? he is not asking for his sentence to be reduced. I heard that there is something about sentences less than 5 years you get your name taken off the sex offenders register after a set time period, 5 or above and it is on for life. If for example he was appealing to reduce his sentence so he can come off the register then that still means he accepts the guilty sentence. If you see what I mean.

Lefthook

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lefthook wrote:

Of course he is allowed to play football. No one is stopping him kicking a ball around down the park.

I forget what this place is like. By 'play football' I meant within the context of this discussion, which is to play football professionally, I.e. to be paid to play football.

lefthook wrote:

The question is wether an employer wants to employe him to play football and the possible negative impact that might have on their business. It is their right to employe or not employe him, but they have to justify this to their customers.

The question isn't whether an employer wants to employ, clearly his previous team would like to re-sign him or they or they wouldn't court the public attention and criticism, the question is whether he should re-employed be as a professional footballer, or if he should be banned from doing so (within the UK at least) as they do with other professions.

He has the right to be re-employed as a 'professional footballer', but his value as a 'professional footballer' has dramatically fallen due to peoples lack of desire to see a public entertainer with a criminal record for a sex offense. So again, he can be employed, it is wether anyone wants to employ him. His ex team seemed to be cynically testing the water of public opinion by allowing him to train with them.

DonDaddyD wrote:

The carpenter example doesn't hold either. He only needs to declare his criminal record to his employer and not the customer. The person who serves you in the supermarket could have spent time in prison for rape, man slaughter etc.

I said if I knew about the record, not that I had a right to know about his record. But a public figure, such as a professional footballer receives the benefits of that fame, they also receive the downside of the notoriety when it goes wrong.

DonDaddyD

Tangled Metal wrote:

Is that wrong in the legal sense that he should accept the conviction or the guilty verdict by the jury? Appeals against sentences for severity or if the CPS for a low sentence is not unusual but are based on acceptance of guilt and the crime itself. What I question is whether the convicted should accept that they have been caught and found guilty before they can be considered rehabilitated?

I get that. In my mind they are not mutually exclusive. He could and has said "rape is bad/wrong/evil. However I did not rape this girl, I am not a rapist and the verdict to imprison me was a mistake". [paraphrase]

There is also his reasoning for this; his refusal to admit to the crime is not rooted in the fact that he doesn't understand what rape is, its because there are real questions as to whether the verdict was correct.

The law can't and shouldn't bully someone into admitting to a crime they genuinely think they didn't commit and there are legal grounds to actually question the verdict. What you're saying is "admit to the crime or you haven't learned your lesson". What if there was no lesson to learn, or the lesson itself was different?

I have always found it 'legally naive' that admission of guilt/crime somehow correlates to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should be about understanding what the crime is, its lasting impact on the victim and why it is wrong. Clearly he understands this.

He might say that he was wrong to go into that room and wrong to perform whatever sex acts he did. Then turn around and say he is not guilty of rape, i.e. accept his bad judgement but not that it is a crime. If he has not accepted the crime, evidenced by his application to the criminal cases review board, then is that rehabilitation?

Yes, because the question should be "would you do it again?"

bigmat

I think the purpose of rehabilitation is to make the person less prone to commit the same offence if they were to be released. CE is probably (I certainly hope) unlikely to participate in those kinds of activities again. I suppose the fact that he still doesn't accept that what he did merited the sentence he got doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't learnt his lesson, but a bit of contrition is always a good start with these things - an acceptance of why what you did was wrong is also an element of rehab.

Personally I don't think he should be banned from football, and those MPs etc suggesting that he should be are out of order - he's done his time (well, some of it, but that's a different debate). However, I would have great difficulty supporting a team he played for, and it is that toxicity in the football market that may well see his career cut short.

tangled_metal

DonDaddyD - my argument is that whether the actions he carried out in that room was rape or not was down to the jury to decide, they decided it was rape and he got convicted. New evidence then appeal but if you're up for parole whilst that happens I'd expect a question about your view on what you did, it's impact and something about your view on your guilt. Naive perhaps but my take on rehabilitation is acceptance of guilt, impact of your actions and whether you have tendencies to do the crime again.

CE is saying he is innocent of rape and is still fighting for his conviction to be quashed = lack of acceptance of guilt. It is not bullying to expect him not to be released in that situation. Serving half your sentence then getting parole.should really be a reward for good behavior and rehabilitation. A reward if you like not a right. Not giving a reward like parole is not contravening his rights or bullying.
I guess we differ in our views on this. I don't believe rehabilitation has happened with the result that he should still be behind bars. I also believe his case should be reviewed. If that review clears him then I'm sure he's on for a big payout. However the whole case fits the profile of a polarizing debate. It's ripe for backroom barristers to argue about on forums. Court of public opinion rules OK.

DonDaddyD

If I was accused of a crime I didn't do, even tried and found guilty, there is no way I would accept the verdict or give an admission of guilt or wrong doing.

This doesn't mean that I am unable to understand that the crime I was accused of is wrong and has no place in society, its just that I didn't do it.

It is equally possible to maintain this stance behave well and be (we differ on) rehabilitated.

Rehabilitation doesn't really on admitting wrong doing. Anyone can do that, lie and go back out there and commit the same crime. It's understanding the nature of the crime itself and why it is wrong. CE has demonstrated that - it's just that he didn't (so he believes) do what he was accused of.

Let's agree to disagree

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I was accused of a crime I didn't do, even tried and found guilty, there is no way I would accept the verdict or give an admission of guilt or wrong doing.

This doesn't mean that I am unable to understand that the crime I was accused of is wrong and has no place in society, its just that I didn't do it.

That's why people who didn't do it stay inside - can't get parole unless you show remorse.

Sewinman

There is something rather self-serving and circular in an insistence on the admittance of guilt. Juries get it wrong all the time. The interesting issue here is that he seems to have been let out early whilst protesting his innocence. Presumably the parole board had no issue with it, which does make one wonder how strong the conviction is.

DonDaddyD

"

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I was accused of a crime I didn't do, even tried and found guilty, there is no way I would accept the verdict or give an admission of guilt or wrong doing.

This doesn't mean that I am unable to understand that the crime I was accused of is wrong and has no place in society, its just that I didn't do it.

That's why people who didn't do it stay inside - can't get parole unless you show remorse.

I think this view is so insular. Showing remorse for the crime you have been found guilty of and demonstrating an understanding that the crime itself is wrong are not mutually exclusive.

It's not like he saying that "rape is OK", and that sometimes "No means yes". He isn't, he has said quite publicly that rape is wrong. It's just that he believes he didn't rape her. What if there is nothing to actually rehabilitate and in actual fact all people want to hear is that he did it. That's not justice IMO.

Sewinman wrote:

There is something rather self-serving and circular in an insistence on the admittance of guilt. Juries get it wrong all the time. The interesting issue here is that he seems to have been let out early whilst protesting his innocence. Presumably the parole board had no issue with it, which does make one wonder how strong the conviction is.

I agree.

TheBigBean

Wikipedia says that it is only those who are sentenced to indeterminate sentences (e.g. life in prison) that are required to admit their guilt.

Sheffield Utd will need to look at where it gets its income and how much it will expect to lose by re-employing Evans. I would imagine its TV money (if any) will remain unchanged, it's gate receipts might go down but might also improve, its prospects of promotion might improve and its sponsorship income will probably fall. If this is a net loss for Sheffield Utd then they probably won't employ him, but another club can do the same analysis, and I think a club in lower leagues may find it profitable.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean wrote:

Wikipedia says that it is only those who are sentenced to indeterminate sentences (e.g. life in prison) that are required to admit their guilt..

I stand corrected.

jedster

Let's be clear what the real issue about him and Sheffield United is and what it isn't. Few people are arguing that their should be a legal ban on him playing professional football. The main argument goes like this:

a) CE is a scumbag
b) Companies / businesses / clubs who value their reputation should avoid employing and associating themselves with scumbags

I understand that reasonable people can disagree whether CE committed rape according to the strict legal definition.

I don't think there is much scope for disagreement that when a strong man enters a hotel room where a woman is already drunk and naked with another man, and she has not clearly agreed to him joining them in advance he is taking massive liberties and needs to be cast iron sure that she is really consenting and fit to consent. I totally see why a jury might conclude that he had not done nearly enough to make sure she was consenting and by implication that he really didn't care whether she was in fact consenting. This lack of care and the fact that they left her so drunk and ill that they mentioned she might be in danger to the hotel staff proves that he is a scumbag.

Secondly, the girl has gone into hiding and been given a new identity because of threats and harassment by his supporters. What has he done to try to call off the dogs? Nothing. Second proof that he is a scumbag.

Sensible organisations should not associate themselves with scumbags.

Simple as that.