Ched Evans

[Jurgen the German]

Couldn't see a thread for him. Personally, I'm glad Sheffield United have retracted their offer to allow him to train with the club. Normally I like to give people a 2nd chance, but when it comes to this scenario, I'm just not comfortable with a convicted rapist being allowed to play football professionally and potentially score goals and see him celebrate. Plus he has shown absolutely no remorse whatsoever and no apology to the victim. It's like he believes he has been wronged rather than the victim.

Also, fair play to Jessica Ennis and Charlie Webster. I'm sure some people might be cynical about their reasons for doing what they did, but I applaud them.

 

[Baleforce]

I wouldn't want anything to do with him. But, i'm not comfortable with the idea of him not being allowed to work again. Sheffield United is a bit too close a bit too soon, but I don't believe it should be the end of his career.

 

[treepits]

I wouldn't want anything to do with him. But, i'm not comfortable with the idea of him not being allowed to work again. Sheffield United is a bit too close a bit too soon, but I don't believe it should be the end of his career.

The problem with that is then we're starting to implement ad-hoc rules. Which club(s) should he be allowed to sign for?

 

[Jordinho]

Couldn't see a thread for him. Personally, I'm glad Sheffield United have retracted their offer to allow him to train with the club. Normally I like to give people a 2nd chance, but when it comes to this scenario, I'm just not comfortable with a convicted rapist being allowed to play football professionally and potentially score goals and see him celebrate. Plus he has shown absolutely no remorse whatsoever and no apology to the victim. It's like he believes he has been wronged rather than the victim.

Also, fair play to Jessica Ennis and Charlie Webster. I'm sure some people might be cynical about their reasons for doing what they did, but I applaud them.

If his version of events is correct I can see why.

 

[LutonSpurs]

His version of events has little importance unless the conviction is overturned. He is a convicted rapist.

He should be allowed to work of course but I can see why him playing football at such a high level is an issue to many.

 

[Baleforce]

The problem with that is then we're starting to implement ad-hoc rules. Which club(s) should he be allowed to sign for?

He should be allowed to sign for anyone thats wants to sign him. Whats the option, tell him he's banned from ever working again and to get on the dole?

 

[treepits]

He should be allowed to sign for anyone thats wants to sign him. Whats the option, tell him he's banned from ever working again and to get on the dole?

Thats the problem - noone is going to want to sign him because of the all the furore that will ensue. I agree with you - he should be allowed to play football again but I'm not comfortable with people saying he shouldn't be allowed to play for this or that club, or at a particular level. He's done his time (ridiculously short IMO but that's a different thread) and he should be allowed back into work

The OP suggested that he didn't feel comfortable 'with a convicted rapist being allowed to play football professionally and potentially score goals and see him celebrate' which, to me, is a ludicrous argument

 

[Jurgen the German]

Thats the problem - noone is going to want to sign him because of the all the furore that will ensue. I agree with you - he should be allowed to play football again but I'm not comfortable with people saying he shouldn't be allowed to play for this or that club, or at a particular level. He's done his time (ridiculously short IMO but that's a different thread) and he should be allowed back into work

The OP suggested that he didn't feel comfortable 'with a convicted rapist being allowed to play football professionally and potentially score goals and see him celebrate' which, to me, is a ludicrous argument

It's the idea of kids cheering him when he scores. If he had shown even an ounce of contrition then I would feel different.

 

[jts1882]

These cases are tricky. He is a convicted rapist but has served his sentence. If he deserves a more severe penalty, then it is up to the judicial system to give him a longer sentence and keep him in prison. As it stands he has been granted parole and needs to be able to work to become a fully functioning member of society. It is not up to football clubs or celebrities or the social media to decide he deserves an extra punishment.

That said, I wouldn't want him associated with our club. Hypocrisy? Probably. Perhaps there is some wiggle-room by saying he hasn't completed the parole period without re-offending so hasn't fully discharged his sentence and punishment. Such an argument, though, rather undermines the purpose of parole, as it is supposed to be part of the rehabilitation process and working is part of that.

I find the argument about not showing remorse troubling. If I understand correctly, he is appealing the conviction in some way because he claims he is innocent. If he is innocent, then it is ridiculous to expect him to show remorse. If the parole board feel he has received adequate punishment, and they presumably considered the remorse aspect, then he has to be allowed to work.

From the perspective of Sheffield United, it was a completely avoidable controversy. They didn't need to let him train. I assume this wasn't altruism on their part and that they were testing the water and him about a possible return. They got their answer. Perhaps Dave Whelan can help.

 

[Jordinho]

His version of events has little importance unless the conviction is overturned. He is a convicted rapist.

He should be allowed to work of course but I can see why him playing football at such a high level is an issue to many.

Yes, he was convicted, but what he did wasn't much different to what a lot of pro footballers get up to regularly.

Any club playing the moral card need to be very careful going forward IMO. What baggage is okay and what isn't?

 

[treepits]

It's the idea of kids cheering him when he scores. If he had shown even an ounce of contrition then I would feel different.

I don't feel that's a proper argument though. What if he was a rugby player? Or a cricketer. Or a volleyballer(?) Kids go to their matches too so are we saying any sportsman convicted of rape can no longer play a sport where kids might cheer when they score a goal, try, run, whatever volleyball people score?

 

[Baleforce]

It's the idea of kids cheering him when he scores. If he had shown even an ounce of contrition then I would feel different.

they'd be cheering the goal not the man

 

[monkeybarry]

Yes, he was convicted, but what he did wasn't much different to what a lot of pro footballers get up to regularly.

Any club playing the moral card need to be very careful going forward IMO. What baggage is okay and what isn't?

That is an excellent point.

We have a judicial system and he has served his time.
It bothers me in this country that a criminal conviction closes so many employment doors.
He did his time, and no matter how abhorant his crime, it is for the courts to decide - not the selective moral high ground of the press and people who think they are above the law

 

[chicken_badge]

I'd not want to see him playing for my team, or have my son cheer him. But where do you draw the line?

Should Tony Adams have been stopped from playing professional football, he went to jail for drink driving?
And then Jonathon Woodgate, convicted of affray?

Personally, yes I do see Evan's crime as worse. But I can't see how or where a line is drawn.

 

[Baleforce]

I don't think his crime and the possible similar actions of other players is a relevant point, if others have "got away with it" it's not less of a crime

he was found guilty of a crime, he's served his punishment, the legal system has done as it has seen fit

he's out the other side of that now and he shouldn't be treated any differently from anybody else

I completely agree about the playing of the moral card though, once there is a line its easily moved

 

[nelto]

It might be different if he'd accepted the guilty verdict passed on him, if he'd shown remorse and apologised. But he is appealing the conviction and is unrepentant. No club should employ him until the result of an appeal is heard. At the moment he is a convicted rapist, guilty of an awful crime.

 

[Superted]

Yes, he was convicted, but what he did wasn't much different to what a lot of pro footballers get up to regularly.

Any club playing the moral card need to be very careful going forward IMO. What baggage is okay and what isn't?

I find the whole "too drunk to provide consent" argument very contentious. I get why it's there, but I don't think it should be classified as "rape" particularly when the accused could argue they were also intoxicated, but that's not seen as a mitigating factor in their defence.

I don't like this whole idea that men/boys have to recognise a girl is too drunk to consent, especially when that girl is egging them on into having sex with her.

Yes, a real man would say no, but I'm struggling with the idea that they should have a legal responsibility to do so.

So I can certainly see why Ched is strong in his conviction that he is innocent and if his side of the story is true, and this is just a girl who woke up and regretted her night before or even more likely, is being pushed around by parents who refuse to believe that their little princess gets up to such shenanigans, then isn't Ched a victim also?

 

[Robspur12]

I find the whole "too drunk to provide consent" argument very contentious. I get why it's there, but I don't think it should be classified as "rape" particularly when the accused could argue they were also intoxicated, but that's not seen as a mitigating factor in their defence.

I don't like this whole idea that men/boys have to recognise a girl is too drunk to consent, especially when that girl is egging them on into having sex with her.

Yes, a real man would say no, but I'm struggling with the idea that they should have a legal responsibility to do so.

So I can certainly see why Ched is strong in his conviction that he is innocent and if his side of the story is true, and this is just a girl who woke up and regretted her night before or even more likely, is being pushed around by parents who refuse to believe that their little princess gets up to such shenanigans, then isn't Ched a victim also?

Mate I think you are missing some important facts in this case. It's not a case of a ****ed up shag. Evans and Clayton McDonald preyed on this girl. They were looking for someone to have sex with. They did not know her. When Mcdonald picked her up she was already ****ed he was not. Witnesses claimed she could barely walk let alone consent to having sex. McDonald walked her to the hotel room then he had sex with her. Then Evans turned up and had sex with her when she was out of it. Now there is a different discussion about why a girl was so bladdered that she was out of control but that does not make her fair game. For me this was a particularly heinous crime. He is a sex offender. Being a footballer comes with a lot of community responsibility possibly with children IMO he cannot fulfil those. I am all for rehabilitation but there are a number of jobs a sex offender cannot do even after "doing his time" football should be one of them. Don't let the fact that this is a rich guy who can afford the best lawyers confuse you and wrap the case up with legalese. This was sex without consent because the girl was in no fit state to refuse.

 

[nelto]

I find the whole "too drunk to provide consent" argument very contentious. I get why it's there, but I don't think it should be classified as "rape" particularly when the accused could argue they were also intoxicated, but that's not seen as a mitigating factor in their defence.

I don't like this whole idea that men/boys have to recognise a girl is too drunk to consent, especially when that girl is egging them on into having sex with her.

Yes, a real man would say no, but I'm struggling with the idea that they should have a legal responsibility to do so.

So I can certainly see why Ched is strong in his conviction that he is innocent and if his side of the story is true, and this is just a girl who woke up and regretted her night before or even more likely, is being pushed around by parents who refuse to believe that their little princess gets up to such shenanigans, then isn't Ched a victim also?

You really should read the case details:

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

What you are arguing against is the law, so your opinion isn't an argument at all.

 

[Superted]

I know the details of the case and that link only strengthens my thoughts on this. It is not a crime for young men to go out on the town with a view to finding a lady to shag. Often they are drunk. Sometimes they are kinky as **** and don't mind your mate getting involved. Multiply by 11 when footballers are involved.

I fail to see how these two "preyed on her" when their initial encounter was random. These boys met her once she was drunk - if her drinks had been spiked, they had nothing to do with it.

Further, in the case of Evans, he didn't have the background of seeing her falling over in the kebab shop or other signs of drunkenness. His only interaction was walking in on her shagging his mate and her consenting to him joining in. But the law and the court said he must have known she was too drunk to consent? How?? That's a lot of responsibility to put on a boy whose had a few drinks himself.

And as said in that link, drunken consent is still consent.

Look, Evans may be a bit of a nob for this but I don't think it's appropriate to label him as a "rapist". Let's leave that for the scoundrels who violently have sex with women without their consent, with them verbally and physically struggling for them to stop, and inflicting a lifetime of suffering as a result. Those people are rapists. Evans is not one of them.