Ched Evans

[drew]

You mean the website that is run by his family/friends, hardly a source of unbiased evidence.

Have you had a look at some of the stuff on the site? Yes, it is run by family and friends who believe he is innocent. Why would it be run by anyone else. The crux of the case as far as I'm aware is that the alleged victim was too drunk to give her consent and claimed not to remember anything from the time she left the night club to the time she woke up in the morning. Take a look at the video on the website and decide for yourself if she is paralytic when she arrives at the hotel! That's not to say she didn't have few from the mini bar but the video seems to refute what she originally claimed. Now I'm not saying he is innocent but it remains to be seen if there is a case review. Having said that, if she was too drunk to give consent, how did the other guy get off the same charge?

 

[Tooting Gull]

If both he and the employing club can cope with what's coming their way (and they are big 'ifs'), then once he's done his time agree with Pavilionaire, should be allowed to play.

But if I was him purely on how to get back in the game, I'd make my next playing move abroad. The abuse will be that little bit more diluted in another country to start with, because his crime wasn't so close to home. And if he ever came back, it might have died down a bit here - although it will never go away.

 

[father_and_son]

I'm in agreement with a few people on here...

Ched has served his time and in accordance with the law he should be allowed back to work. Unless the PFA/FA have, and wish to exercise, a "bring the game into disrepute" clause in the licence then it is right that he be allowed to rejoin the ranks of the PFA.

By the same token, Rolf Harris (and all the others like him have a right to job as an entertainer appearing on tv provided they don't breach bail/RoO/SO register regulations.


However, having said that, being allowed to work in a profession and getting a job are two different things...

No production company would employ Rolf because they'd never sell the program they made.


Football, rightly or wrongly, is an entertainment industry and they have a product to sell. I would hope that every chairman in the PL/FL would come to the same conclusion... a product involving Ched won't sell. The loss of customers would be too high.



Therefore, legally, he can come back to the game as having paid his debt to the letter of the law, but I wouldn't want him to get a profession game ever again because no club will offer a contract.


If however, a club do break ranks and employ him, I hope that they are boycotted by the fans, face an unending media backlash and end in financial ruin because no one will part with a penny for as long as he retains a contract.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Have you had a look at some of the stuff on the site? Yes, it is run by family and friends who believe he is innocent. Why would it be run by anyone else. The crux of the case as far as I'm aware is that the alleged victim was too drunk to give her consent and claimed not to remember anything from the time she left the night club to the time she woke up in the morning. Take a look at the video on the website and decide for yourself if she is paralytic when she arrives at the hotel! That's not to say she didn't have few from the mini bar but the video seems to refute what she originally claimed. Now I'm not saying he is innocent but it remains to be seen if there is a case review. Having said that, if she was too drunk to give consent, how did the other guy get off the same charge?

Yes i did look at the website and thought similar things to you however i haven't seen all the evidence unlike the jury and so the evidence must of been enough to convict him and appeals have been rejected i believe.

 

[Braggfan]

Have you had a look at some of the stuff on the site? Yes, it is run by family and friends who believe he is innocent. Why would it be run by anyone else. The crux of the case as far as I'm aware is that the alleged victim was too drunk to give her consent and claimed not to remember anything from the time she left the night club to the time she woke up in the morning. Take a look at the video on the website and decide for yourself if she is paralytic when she arrives at the hotel! That's not to say she didn't have few from the mini bar but the video seems to refute what she originally claimed. Now I'm not saying he is innocent but it remains to be seen if there is a case review. Having said that, if she was too drunk to give consent, how did the other guy get off the same charge?

Just to point out, she's not an "alleged" victim. She IS a victim of a hideous crime. Something which was decided in a court of law by a jury who had all the evidence available to them. There is nothing alleged about it.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

This debate always crops up when a footballer is convicted of something serious. I remember almost identical arguments going on involving Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, albeit for very different offences.

My take on it is that once someone has served the sentence deemed appropriate by a judge- and whether that's long enough is a completely separate argument- they are released and are free, within the confines of any restrictions imposed by their sentence, to do what they wish with their lives, whether you like it or not. There has to be a line somewhere, assuming an individual isn't locked up for life.

The only reason this argument even crops up is because football is perceived to be a fun and often lucrative career. If Ched Evans had previously worked in a petrol station, or as an airline pilot or a bank manager, nobody would be questioning his eligibility to resume his career after a rape conviction. They wouldn't pay him any attention at all in fact. He might find prospective employers put off by his criminal record, understandably, and thus struggle to find a job, but nobody would be having online debates about whether he should be allowed to work again.

Where this "he shouldn't be allowed" argument falls down for me is on the subjectivity of it all. Say we went down that road of restricting jobs for rapists, killers and so on*- how do we decide which jobs are acceptable for them to do and which aren't? Is it only jobs that pay over a certain amount they can't do? Jobs that are perceived to have nice perks? Jobs that are deemed to be more "fun" than others? How much fun is permitted, exactly? If he's not allowed to be a footballer, should he be allowed to be a football coach, for example?

I don't really have an issue with the bloke resuming his career, to be honest, though I'd like to think he'd do it with a degree of humility, unlike some characters already mentioned. I actually think this is a good opportunity for the clubs to make a point here, not the player. If nobody actually offered him a contract, I think it would send the strongest message of all. I don't have much faith in that happening though. Someone somewhere- probably a club facing a relegation struggle and in need of cheap goals- will pick him up. Such is the way of the world.


*obviously I'm not referring to legitimate restrictions, such as banning convicted paedophiles from working with children, before anyone asks...

 

[Grombleton]

This debate always crops up when a footballer is convicted of something serious. I remember almost identical arguments going on involving Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, albeit for very different offences.

My take on it is that once someone has served the sentence deemed appropriate by a judge- and whether that's long enough is a completely separate argument- they are released and are free, within the confines of any restrictions imposed by their sentence, to do what they wish with their lives, whether you like it or not. There has to be a line somewhere, assuming an individual isn't locked up for life.

The only reason this argument even crops up is because football is perceived to be a fun and often lucrative career. If Ched Evans had previously worked in a petrol station, or as an airline pilot or a bank manager, nobody would be questioning his eligibility to resume his career after a rape conviction. They wouldn't pay him any attention at all in fact. He might find prospective employers put off by his criminal record, understandably, and thus struggle to find a job, but nobody would be having online debates about whether he should be allowed to work again.

Where this "he shouldn't be allowed" argument falls down for me is on the subjectivity of it all. Say we went down that road of restricting jobs for rapists, killers and so on*- how do we decide which jobs are acceptable for them to do and which aren't? Is it only jobs that pay over a certain amount they can't do? Jobs that are perceived to have nice perks? Jobs that are deemed to be more "fun" than others? How much fun is permitted, exactly? If he's not allowed to be a footballer, should he be allowed to be a football coach, for example?

I don't really have an issue with the bloke resuming his career, to be honest, though I'd like to think he'd do it with a degree of humility, unlike some characters already mentioned. I actually think this is a good opportunity for the clubs to make a point here, not the player. If nobody actually offered him a contract, I think it would send the strongest message of all. I don't have much faith in that happening though. Someone somewhere- probably a club facing a relegation struggle and in need of cheap goals- will pick him up. Such is the way of the world.


*obviously I'm not referring to legitimate restrictions, such as banning convicted paedophiles from working with children, before anyone asks...

Edna has summed it up much more succinctly than I was able to.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Have you had a look at some of the stuff on the site? Yes, it is run by family and friends who believe he is innocent. Why would it be run by anyone else. The crux of the case as far as I'm aware is that the alleged victim was too drunk to give her consent and claimed not to remember anything from the time she left the night club to the time she woke up in the morning. Take a look at the video on the website and decide for yourself if she is paralytic when she arrives at the hotel! That's not to say she didn't have few from the mini bar but the video seems to refute what she originally claimed. Now I'm not saying he is innocent but it remains to be seen if there is a case review. Having said that, if she was too drunk to give consent, how did the other guy get off the same charge?

I've read the website. This case is by no means simple or black and white. In fact I find some of it very disturbing in relation to the possibility an innocent man could have been wrongly jailed. I'm reserving judgement on Ched until a decision on an appeal and it's subsequent outcome is made. If an appeal is rejected, I suppose I'll wearily grab a stone and line up with the rest of the NSC self righteous as I consider what irreparable damage will be done to my close family and friends if he were ever to wear the stripes. More likely though is a season long deal with Blackpool playing up front with his partner in crime, Ranger.

 

[Seasidesage]

This debate always crops up when a footballer is convicted of something serious. I remember almost identical arguments going on involving Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, albeit for very different offences.

My take on it is that once someone has served the sentence deemed appropriate by a judge- and whether that's long enough is a completely separate argument- they are released and are free, within the confines of any restrictions imposed by their sentence, to do what they wish with their lives, whether you like it or not. There has to be a line somewhere, assuming an individual isn't locked up for life.

The only reason this argument even crops up is because football is perceived to be a fun and often lucrative career. If Ched Evans had previously worked in a petrol station, or as an airline pilot or a bank manager, nobody would be questioning his eligibility to resume his career after a rape conviction. They wouldn't pay him any attention at all in fact. He might find prospective employers put off by his criminal record, understandably, and thus struggle to find a job, but nobody would be having online debates about whether he should be allowed to work again.

Where this "he shouldn't be allowed" argument falls down for me is on the subjectivity of it all. Say we went down that road of restricting jobs for rapists, killers and so on*- how do we decide which jobs are acceptable for them to do and which aren't? Is it only jobs that pay over a certain amount they can't do? Jobs that are perceived to have nice perks? Jobs that are deemed to be more "fun" than others? How much fun is permitted, exactly? If he's not allowed to be a footballer, should he be allowed to be a football coach, for example?

I don't really have an issue with the bloke resuming his career, to be honest, though I'd like to think he'd do it with a degree of humility, unlike some characters already mentioned. I actually think this is a good opportunity for the clubs to make a point here, not the player. If nobody actually offered him a contract, I think it would send the strongest message of all. I don't have much faith in that happening though. Someone somewhere- probably a club facing a relegation struggle and in need of cheap goals- will pick him up. Such is the way of the world.


*obviously I'm not referring to legitimate restrictions, such as banning convicted paedophiles from working with children, before anyone asks...

This is so obviously the correct way of looking at this. I find it incredible the hand wringing and I'll burn my season ticket brigade that come on everytime something like this is mentioned. I may not choose to go down the pub with this fella, but he has served his sentence and surely he is entitled to pursue his chosen career afterwards. If he was a dustman would there be a petition? Why is football expected to adopt a moral position on this when society does not?

 

[Hillian1]

This is so obviously the correct way of looking at this. I find it incredible the hand wringing and I'll burn my season ticket brigade that come on everytime something like this is mentioned. I may not choose to go down the pub with this fella, but he has served his sentence and surely he is entitled to pursue his chosen career afterwards. If he was a dustman would there be a petition? Why is football expected to adopt a moral position on this when society does not?

When was the last time you stood outside your house with your children on bin day, wearing a HV vest with the name of your favourite bin man on, cheering him as he went about his work?

That, is the difference.

 

[brightn'ove]

This is so obviously the correct way of looking at this. I find it incredible the hand wringing and I'll burn my season ticket brigade that come on everytime something like this is mentioned. I may not choose to go down the pub with this fella, but he has served his sentence and surely he is entitled to pursue his chosen career afterwards. If he was a dustman would there be a petition? Why is football expected to adopt a moral position on this when society does not?

Because footballers are, to many young people across the country, role models. Thousands of children/teenagers would be watching Ched Evans every week wherever he played. Football IS in a different moral position to normal working society, they are very much in the public eye, which brings with it moral responsibilities.

 

[Napper]

If he was scoring I wouldn't care . Doubt he will cut it now so it's a no on that basis

 

[drew]

Just to point out, she's not an "alleged" victim. She IS a victim of a hideous crime. Something which was decided in a court of law by a jury who had all the evidence available to them. There is nothing alleged about it.

On one side of the fence she is a victim and on the other she is an alleged victim. To date, he hasn't had an appeal. The right to an appeal was turned down and that decision was upheld. He has a legal team looking at seeking a case review. Are you saying the Guildford 4 and Birmingham six are guilty of bombing? If I recall they were all convicted.

Read the website and see whether it raises any questions as to your view if this was a safe conviction. Having said that, maybe you were there so perhaps you know better than I. So, as far as I'm concerned, she remains an alleged victim.

 

[Invicta]

No never

 

[Barrel of Fun]

On one side of the fence she is a victim and on the other she is an alleged victim. To date, he hasn't had an appeal. The right to an appeal was turned down and that decision was upheld. He has a legal team looking at seeking a case review. Are you saying the Guildford 4 and Birmingham six are guilty of bombing? If I recall they were all convicted.

Read the website and see whether it raises any questions as to your view if this was a safe conviction. Having said that, maybe you were there so perhaps you know better than I. So, as far as I'm concerned, she remains an alleged victim.

She doesn't remain an alleged victim at all. Not until the case is reviewed. Don't get sucked in by a website run by his lady friend and family.

 

[Hugo Rune]

She doesn't remain an alleged victim at all. Not until the case is reviewed. Don't get sucked in by a website run by his lady friend and family.

I don't think he has. Read below for the plain facts. This is a very complicated case and raises serious issues about consent when drunk. The victim claimed she had memory loss yet the jury found she had consented (in the same state of drunkenness) to one man but not to another.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I don't think he has. Read below for the plain facts. This is a very complicated case and raises serious issues about consent when drunk. The victim claimed she had memory loss yet the jury found she had consented (in the same state of drunkenness) to one man but not to another.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

The link doesn't work for me. She consented to sex with the first chap, but not the second. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Seasidesage]

Because footballers are, to many young people across the country, role models. Thousands of children/teenagers would be watching Ched Evans every week wherever he played. Football IS in a different moral position to normal working society, they are very much in the public eye, which brings with it moral responsibilities.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion.

IMO that is a media invention. It's a job nothing more nothing less...

Kids moral compass is grounded by their parents and their peers, not by some bloke running around a football pitch that they do not know...

 

[Seasidesage]

When was the last time you stood outside your house with your children on bin day, wearing a HV vest with the name of your favourite bin man on, cheering him as he went about his work?

That, is the difference.

If I thought it would get our bins emptied I might...

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

This debate always crops up when a footballer is convicted of something serious. I remember almost identical arguments going on involving Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, albeit for very different offences.

My take on it is that once someone has served the sentence deemed appropriate by a judge- and whether that's long enough is a completely separate argument- they are released and are free, within the confines of any restrictions imposed by their sentence, to do what they wish with their lives, whether you like it or not. There has to be a line somewhere, assuming an individual isn't locked up for life.

The only reason this argument even crops up is because football is perceived to be a fun and often lucrative career. If Ched Evans had previously worked in a petrol station, or as an airline pilot or a bank manager, nobody would be questioning his eligibility to resume his career after a rape conviction. They wouldn't pay him any attention at all in fact. He might find prospective employers put off by his criminal record, understandably, and thus struggle to find a job, but nobody would be having online debates about whether he should be allowed to work again.

Where this "he shouldn't be allowed" argument falls down for me is on the subjectivity of it all. Say we went down that road of restricting jobs for rapists, killers and so on*- how do we decide which jobs are acceptable for them to do and which aren't? Is it only jobs that pay over a certain amount they can't do? Jobs that are perceived to have nice perks? Jobs that are deemed to be more "fun" than others? How much fun is permitted, exactly? If he's not allowed to be a footballer, should he be allowed to be a football coach, for example?

I don't really have an issue with the bloke resuming his career, to be honest, though I'd like to think he'd do it with a degree of humility, unlike some characters already mentioned. I actually think this is a good opportunity for the clubs to make a point here, not the player. If nobody actually offered him a contract, I think it would send the strongest message of all. I don't have much faith in that happening though. Someone somewhere- probably a club facing a relegation struggle and in need of cheap goals- will pick him up. Such is the way of the world.


*obviously I'm not referring to legitimate restrictions, such as banning convicted paedophiles from working with children, before anyone asks...

very, very well put. Agree with every point.