Ched Evans

[drew]

I wonder if they would have done that if they had the internet then? Probably organise a quick petition and send it of to the Baron to get him to change his ways!

 

[Hamilton]

Apologies, but the only thing I was drawing attention to was a case where there was a guilty verdict and two failed attempts to get an appeal, nothing more nothing less. Hamilton made a comment assuming the matter should be done and dusted because a jury reached a verdict etc etc. I don't claim to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of English law cases.

I've been over and over this with you Drew, much earlier in the thread. You are fixated with this case and your point of view when it comes to the evidence you have access to. No amount of debating will help you see sense. Let's hope the Criminal Case review can draw a line under it all. I just hope that it won't take the 36 months predicted.

As you like inappropriate comparisons, perhaps you should get a "Je Suis Ched" t-shirt on order.

 

[Acker79]

Surely you mean 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Difficult to be a mob on your own! Of course you may be referring to Evans reference to Mob Rule but I think you will note we have already discounted the suggestion this was started by his team!!!

I think you're confused. The "I" is the person who is making the claim of mob rule, not the mob itself (i.e. when someone disagrees with the majority, they call it mob rule in an attempt to undermine it and/or to make themselves the victim).

My post is about what I think 'mob rule' means, not how it applies to this case. It can be Evans or it can be his supporters (who definitely were using it before him, as can be seen in earlier posts in this thread), it isn't limited to the first person to make the claim.

 

[drew]

I've been over and over this with you Drew, much earlier in the thread. You are fixated with this case and your point of view when it comes to the evidence you have access to. No amount of debating will help you see sense. Let's hope the Criminal Case review can draw a line under it all. I just hope that it won't take the 36 months predicted.

As you like inappropriate comparisons, perhaps you should get a "Je Suis Ched" t-shirt on order.

What is your problem! First you suggest the appeal court judges were reviewing the verdict which I think you will find they werent'. You then suggest the matter should be closed because of the jury and two appeal attempts and, apparently in your view that means he is guilty. I merely pointed out the judges didn't look at the verdict but the process and gave you an example of a case where a jury gave a verdict and there were two attempts at appeal before justice prevailed. No doubt with a bit more research there could be a few more cases where two appeal attempts have failed and the matter has gone to the CCRC. Oh, and where did you get the 36 month time frame from? Thought they mentioned 35 weeks!!!

 

[nwgull]

It's not helped by the fact that recently judges have criticised jury's for being unable to comprehend simple instructions - we recently had a case where the jury came out and asked the judge if they could use evidence they'd seen in the press that was not shown in court - and another case where (after the judge had explained everything and sent the jury out) the jury came back and asked if they should say guilty if they thought he might have done it, but weren't sure.

Not quite as bad, but I remember in the Albion players' case, the jury had to ask the judge what 'reasonable doubt' mean.

 

[drew]

I think you're confused. The "I" is the person who is making the claim of mob rule, not the mob itself (i.e. when someone disagrees with the majority, they call it mob rule in an attempt to undermine it and/or to make themselves the victim).

My post is about what I think 'mob rule' means, not how it applies to this case. It can be Evans or it can be his supporters (who definitely were using it before him, as can be seen in earlier posts in this thread), it isn't limited to the first person to make the claim.

Fair enough, we'll just agree to disagree about our interpretations.

 

[Triggaaar]

To me, in common parlance, 'Mob Rule' tends to mean "I don't like the majority decision, so I'm going to try to undermine it by calling it mob rule, making it seem less legitimate and try to make myself the victim".

So you think that anyone in the press saying that it's mob rule, is trying to make themselves the victim? That's a weird way of looking at it.

 

[Papak]

I truely believe Evan's best option is to get a job at Cottrills or Prestons and leave the rest of humanity alone.

 

[Acker79]

So you think that anyone in the press saying that it's mob rule, is trying to make themselves the victim? That's a weird way of looking at it.

No. In a later post I was clearer than when I wrote that: it's become a lazy argument to undermine the popular majority decision and/or make themselves the victim. The people in the press are just being lazy with their arguments in an attempt to make the popular opinion less valid.

 

[Stato]

The term 'mob rule' is a red herring. It shows a misunderstanding of the economic drivers behind decisions in this farrago.

Oldham decided to try to sign Evans for financial reasons. He was seen as a £3m player available on the cheap.
Oldham's sponsors are involved with Oldham for financial reasons. They want their brands associated with the football club, because it increases sales.
Oldham's sponsors threatened to withdraw their financial support for financial reasons. The sales positives they get from involvement with the club becomes less positive if the club are involved in something of which a lot of the public have negative views.
Oldham decided not to sign Evans for financial reasons. What they would gain from signing the player is less than what they would lose from their sponsors.

In a capitalist democracy, advertising puts a financial price on public opinion, you cannot simultaneously sell positive PR and reject negative PR as mob rule.

Should anyone wish to make the argument that Oldham's decision was not financial, but was because of the threats as reported to a BBC journalist last week, they would need to detail the actual specifics of these threats. As David Conn reported in the week and Daniel Taylor mentions again in the excellent piece referenced already by Herr Tubthumper, http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/10/gordon-taylor-football-mistruths-pfa-ched-evans Greater Manchester Police have asked Oldham for details and have been told that there is nothing to investigate but 'low level Twitter abuse'.

 

[drew]

The term 'mob rule' is a red herring. It shows a misunderstanding of the economic drivers behind decisions in this farrago.

Oldham decided to try to sign Evans for financial reasons. He was seen as a £3m player available on the cheap.
Oldham's sponsors are involved with Oldham for financial reasons. They want their brands associated with the football club, because it increases sales.
Oldham's sponsors threatened to withdraw their financial support for financial reasons. The sales positives they get from involvement with the club becomes less positive if the club are involved in something of which a lot of the public have negative views.
Oldham decided not to sign Evans for financial reasons. What they would gain from signing the player is less than what they would lose from their sponsors.

In a capitalist democracy, advertising puts a financial price on public opinion, you cannot simultaneously sell positive PR and reject negative PR as mob rule.

Should anyone wish to make the argument that Oldham's decision was not financial, but was because of the threats as reported to a BBC journalist last week, they would need to detail the actual specifics of these threats. As David Conn reported in the week and Daniel Taylor mentions again in the excellent piece referenced already by Herr Tubthumper, http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/10/gordon-taylor-football-mistruths-pfa-ched-evans Greater Manchester Police have asked Oldham for details and have been told that there is nothing to investigate but 'low level Twitter abuse'.

I would agree with what you say but would add that you need to ask how did the sponsors canvas public opinion? In this case, it is the negative press and petitions, the later being what some will call mob rule. Those two things probably make the negativity, rightly or wrongly, snowball. They didn't need to do marketing to be aware of the risks involved.

You are spot on though, Oldham weren't signing him for some moral obligation to rehabilitation and sponsors didn't make them drop him because of their morals.

 

[dazzer6666]

I would agree with what you say but would add that you need to ask how did the sponsors canvas public opinion? In this case, it is the negative press and petitions, the later being what some will call mob rule. Those two things probably make the negativity, rightly or wrongly, snowball. They didn't need to do marketing to be aware of the risks involved.

You are spot on though, Oldham weren't signing him for some moral obligation to rehabilitation and sponsors didn't make them drop him because of their morals.

They were aware of the risks for sure, but I suspect badly misjudged the strength of feeling that it generated. They must be a bit stupid to have thought they could get him signed without a massive backlash given all the previous publicity surrounding the case. Not sure mob rule is the right phrase, but it's very easy for people to launch a crusade these days through social media.

 

[father_and_son]

...but it's very easy for people to launch a crusade these days through social media.

With regard to this comment and a number of previous comments referencing mob rule.

Yes, its very easy for people to "launch a crusade through social media", however, for it to become popular opinion and turn into "mob rule" it needs to actually be widely supported.

Many people launch crusades that fall flat on their face within days because the wider community don't believe in the cause. A vocal minority can only get so far before being dismissed as cooks and crazies, there needs to be a "mob" before anyone can claim mob rule.

"We live in a democracy and so should accept the law as laid out for us by the government" is a reasonable statement to make but technically inaccurate. We live in a representative democracy... we elect people who we think will generally do things we would agree with, but we aren't canvased on every decision and so we take a lot on trust. Every once in a while, our government (or other democratic bodies) do something (or don't do something) that a significant proportion of people aren't prepared to accept because it doesn't represent their view. They have the right, indeed the requirement, to start petitions, write to their MP, write to the media and otherwise "launch a crusade" to make sure their voice is heard and acknowledged.

It would be difficult to deny that their is a large swathe of the public who find the idea of Ched Evans being employed as a professional footballer as abhorrent and there are a number of reasons that they will cite as their motivation. IMO this issue won't go away unless Ched opts to take up a different career. Even if he is granted an appeal and wins, I think that there will be enough people who will argue Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent and unless some devastating new evidence is presented, he will be widely vilified and become a pantomime villain damaging the brand of any club he plays for regardless of his legal status.

If he chooses to disappear quietly then the FA might get away with not having to do anything, but if not, I think "mob rule" [or public opinion if you like!] will mean they have to change their own rules and have him (and other who will inevitably follow) excluded from the pro game through a "code of conduct" being introduced.

 

[dazzer6666]

With regard to this comment and a number of previous comments referencing mob rule.

Yes, its very easy for people to "launch a crusade through social media", however, for it to become popular opinion and turn into "mob rule" it needs to actually be widely supported.

Many people launch crusades that fall flat on their face within days because the wider community don't believe in the cause. A vocal minority can only get so far before being dismissed as cooks and crazies, there needs to be a "mob" before anyone can claim mob rule.

"We live in a democracy and so should accept the law as laid out for us by the government" is a reasonable statement to make but technically inaccurate. We live in a representative democracy... we elect people who we think will generally do things we would agree with, but we aren't canvased on every decision and so we take a lot on trust. Every once in a while, our government (or other democratic bodies) do something (or don't do something) that a significant proportion of people aren't prepared to accept because it doesn't represent their view. They have the right, indeed the requirement, to start petitions, write to their MP, write to the media and otherwise "launch a crusade" to make sure their voice is heard and acknowledged.

It would be difficult to deny that their is a large swathe of the public who find the idea of Ched Evans being employed as a professional footballer as abhorrent and there are a number of reasons that they will cite as their motivation. IMO this issue won't go away unless Ched opts to take up a different career. Even if he is granted an appeal and wins, I think that there will be enough people who will argue Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent and unless some devastating new evidence is presented, he will be widely vilified and become a pantomime villain damaging the brand of any club he plays for regardless of his legal status.

If he chooses to disappear quietly then the FA might get away with not having to do anything, but if not, I think "mob rule" [or public opinion if you like!] will mean they have to change their own rules and have him (and other who will inevitably follow) excluded from the pro game through a "code of conduct" being introduced.

Very well put.......

 

[Triggaaar]

IMO this issue won't go away unless Ched opts to take up a different career. Even if he is granted an appeal and wins, I think that there will be enough people who will argue Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent

Maybe you're not thinking straight, you're undoing all your sensible points. Since the jury can't say someone's innocent, and Not Guilty is the best they can offer to those who are innocent, it truly would be mob rule if an innocent man is prevented from continuing with his career. If that happened there really would be a shit storm.

he will be widely vilified and become a pantomime villain damaging the brand of any club he plays for regardless of his legal status.

If a brand withdraws support even when someone is innocent, that will damage the brand, it would be disgraceful.

If he chooses to disappear quietly then the FA might get away with not having to do anything, but if not, I think "mob rule" [or public opinion if you like!] will mean they have to change their own rules and have him (and other who will inevitably follow) excluded from the pro game through a "code of conduct" being introduced.

I think a retrospective code of conduct would be open to legal challenges.

 

[father_and_son]

Maybe you're not thinking straight, you're undoing all your sensible points. Since the jury can't say someone's innocent, and Not Guilty is the best they can offer to those who are innocent, it truly would be mob rule if an innocent man is prevented from continuing with his career. If that happened there really would be a shit storm.

I'm not suggesting its right or wrong, but I do think that enough 'evidence' is in the public domain that even if the courts overturn the original verdict, he will still be toxic. I'm also not talking about trial transcripts or anything factual, but IMO only a substantial piece of new evidence (which I can't see being anything other than the victim being caught saying she made it up, frankly!) will be enough to stop people saying "...well maybe not to the legal definition, but he did rape her" whenever his future innocence (if he wins his appeal) is discussed!

Call it mob rule or trial by media or whatever you want (and again I hasten to add that I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of it) but I think that there's a groundswell of opinion that enough is enough with professional footballers (or anyone in the public eye) behaving in completely unacceptable ways just because they are rich/famous.

Its just my opinion, but whether his appeal is successful or not, he will always be "guilty" to many because people want a scapegoat for all the ills associated with 'celebrity' and Ched is now it. Maybe the real Ched can disappear into obscurity and have a normal life as an innocent man in the eyes of the law but I think we are past the point where professional footballer Ched can rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the public. Something about this case and the fallout from his release and attempts to re-enter the game just seem to have created the perfect storm of controversy that won't easily go away.

Maybe you are right Trig. Maybe I'm talking out of my ar$e or maybe all my friends/colleagues are closet lynch mob members and I never noticed before, but from the conversations I have had on the subject, I do think that Ched will be "lynched" regardless of the appeal court.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not suggesting its right or wrong

Well do you think it would be right or wrong?

people saying "...well maybe not to the legal definition, but he did rape her"

And those people could be sued for slander.

Call it mob rule or trial by media or whatever you want (and again I hasten to add that I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of it) but I think that there's a groundswell of opinion that enough is enough with professional footballers (or anyone in the public eye) behaving in completely unacceptable ways just because they are rich/famous.

They're clearly isn't, because a huge amount of celebrities behave in an unacceptable way, and they don't get stopped.

Its just my opinion, but whether his appeal is successful or not, he will always be "guilty" to many because people want a scapegoat for all the ills associated with 'celebrity' and Ched is now it.

He could be guilty in some people's minds, but that wouldn't stop him getting a job, it wouldn't stop him scoring, and it wouldn't stop fans cheering for him. All this is probably immaterial, as he probably won't get an appeal, but if he did, and won, of course he'd return to football, and quite rightly.

Maybe the real Ched can disappear into obscurity and have a normal life as an innocent man in the eyes of the law but I think we are past the point where professional footballer Ched can rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the public. Something about this case and the fallout from his release and attempts to re-enter the game just seem to have created the perfect storm of controversy that won't easily go away.

I think you've misjudged the way the public work. People don't have the energy to be bothered about something for that long, and if he got found not guilty then people wouldn't be able to fight a case against him as they'd look like fools.

 

[Mellotron]

Should Roman Polanski have been allowed to go back to making films?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Should Roman Polanski have been allowed to go back to making films?

He was never allowed to return to the States was he, or make films in any country that might extradite him.

 

[symyjym]

Should Roman Polanski have been allowed to go back to making films?

Good question. Probably not, but we live in different times now, and I believe he could still face sentencing.

If, as I believe, Oldham based their decision on finances, rightly or wrongly Polanski is more financially viable than Ched.