Ched Evans

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
might as well start one

well personally i've listened to countless Radio Sheffield.. 1 hour phone ins over the last 6 months, they have given it some right air time.

Its a big subject this, who would like to start?
 
I will leave it to the main contributors but would just like to say I wouldn't normally begrudge anyone a second chance after they have served a punishment for there crime but if it was my club.....hmmm it just wouldn't sit comfortably with me .
 
I don't have a problem with the player being allowed to take up gainful employment after paying his debt to society.

I think the club comes out of this very badly. Plenty of us would be sacked by our employer if we'd been found guilty of lesser crimes. His club should have sacked him and left it up to someone else to take a chance on him if they were so inclined. If they did sack him why on earth did they take him back? It's not as if there aren't any better players out there.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I don't have a problem with the player being allowed to take up gainful employment after paying his debt to society.

I think the club comes out of this very badly. Plenty of us would be sacked by our employer if we'd been found guilty of lesser crimes. His club should have sacked him and left it up to someone else to take a chance on him if they were so inclined. If they did sack him why on earth did they take him back? It's not as if there aren't any better players out there.
Click to expand...

He does a job though that allows him to continue after serving time, they are the FA's rules.

I've heard the argument about if he was this or that ..would he be allowed back..the FA allow it.

My personal view of what is happening at the club..mainly via listening to this regularly on the radio.. is they haven't given a proper statement from day one..they seem to be basically waiting to see what the public reaction was..the official line was we haven't made our minds up yet..6 months seems long enough to me..unless you are sitting on the fence..which it looks like they are. They then last week let him train ..again to see what public reaction was.

So in that way..imo they have come out of it badly because they seem unable to make a decision and appear to be chancing their arm with public opinion. But the fact someone can play after a conviction is not the club allowing anything..its the FA.
 
EC1 said:
But the fact someone can play after a conviction is not the club allowing anything..its the FA.
Click to expand...

Not sure that I agree with this - if the FA had put in place a rule saying they can't, then that would be open to a legal challenge where they would need to prove that there was a reasonable reason for putting such a rule in place. I'm not convinced that such a reason exists in this instance, as it would in, say, teaching or other professions where an enhanced disclosure is required.

As for the case, I'm in the "served his time, let him get on with it" camp. I don't think he's a role model for anyone, and i certainly don't believe that anyone who wouldn't otherwise rape someone will stop to think, whilst on a drunken night with a mate and a girl, "hold on a second, it was ok for Ched Evans to serve 2 and a half years in jail after having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, so it'll be fine for me too, so I'm happy enough that I'll get 5, do 2 1/2 and then get my job back."

Or that it will have any effect whatsoever on the mind of anyone carrying out any sort of rape, anywhere, ever.
 
I think Simmo is right regarding the technicalities, as he'd fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation which carries a discriminationary tariff unless as he says (Simmo) there is enhanced discolsure concerning the nature of the employment. Equally though they could sack him for AOSR I'd have thought?.

What seems to be annoying a lot of the campaigners is the salary he can expect to earn as much as anything else. The ones I've heard when they've been challenged on this issue come over all in favour in rehabilitation etc but then footballers get paid a lot more than third sector campaigners.

I think it's also worth reflecting however that football is moral cess pit and the normal expectation that an employee would damage the employers PR wouldn't apply. I'd be very confident that were he world class player he'd be straight back into the employ on the flimsiest of excuses. He'll end up playing for Leeds, they'll take anyone!


I'm trying to remember how that Southampton case resolved itself? It was Steve Moran and a young Mark Wright wasn't it. Did the club buy the girls off in the end? Didn't result in any charges, and Wright never did time, albeit he did have to play for England
 
Last edited:
one thing that staggers me is that people think footballers are role models these days..i heard Clegg on about it other day...a politician describing a footballer as a role model..thats arse about ain't it?..its politicians that should be role models..and many patently fail..I never hear the words role & model in regard to them...when it should apply

If people believe footballers to be role models then they stay very quiet at other times about it..when other footballers are in the sundays up to the hotel stuff..or paying granny prossies..strange role models imo.

Role models are teachers & parents..they should role model children to understand that footballers and popstars in the main are dickheads and are the worse possible role models

i don't accept these overpaid numpties as being role models..and no parent should let their kids think for one minute they are....or they themselves are failing as role models allowing such silly thoughts
 
Last edited:
No i weren't saying it should be in place Simmo..just saying that the club are allowed to let him play because that rule doesn't exist..its nothing to do with them re letting him play..they are allowed to..unlike in other jobs where with that conviction you'd have no chance of the job back

like i say..the club have gone months now sat on the fence..just seeing if there would be any oppo to him coming back..poorly judged episode for them imo.

its funny because about a couple of days before they announced he would train with them...i think it were Cloughy mentioned after the previous game that they badly needed a striker..i said straight away to our bloss..you know whats coming next don't you?..and sure enough there it was..the next step...they will leave it a wekk or two now...see what feedback is..up to press a bombs gone off hasn't it?
 
Last edited:
It's a question of how you define role model, EC1. I'd argue that by definition a role model is someone in a job/position that young people would aspire to be like. Who would aspire to be like a politician? They are boring farts to young people. They do NOT want to be like them. They DO want to be celebrated for being successful, rich, popular, etc.

Parents obviously should be role models, as should teachers, as should politicians... as should all adults.
 
I know this isn't going that way yet, but can I just remind people, do not publish the victims name (or new name) or any details that could be used to identify her please.

Quote from the link above
TV presenter Charlie Webster resigned yesterday as patron of the club. “I don’t believe a convicted rapist should go back into the community to represent the community,” she said.
I understand why women like Webster take an uncompromising position on rape.
Click to expand...

She must be quite selective about the rapists she doesn't like, as she doesn't mind some

attachment.php


I cant get my head round how consent was given for one man but not the second, I honestly don't understand how one can be guilty but not the other.
 

Attachments

  • rh8kr4.jpg
    rh8kr4.jpg
    92 KB · Views: 93
Are the legal papers online anywhere to read or would they be private due to the likelihood of an appeal?
My understanding was that the other footballer went back to the hotel room with the girl and had sex with her. (CCTV shows her looking fine at this point) - see link: http://chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself

He then rang Ched to see if he wanted a go, saying she was up for it. Ched comes round and has a go. She says she can't remember having sex with Ched, was too drunk to consent. He gets time and the other lad doesn't as she willingly went back to the hotel with him.

I'm pretty sure an expert spoke in favour of Ched, saying based on what she had drunk and the time period that she would have been sobering up by the time she had sex with Ched Evans. If she was really drunk and passed out after sex with the 1st guy and then Ched went round and had sex with a virtually comatose girl then he's bang to rights but it sounds like she was quite awake and aware at the time. If she had drunk loads of alcohol in the hotel room that could explain her drunken state by the time Ched arrived but I have no idea if that happened or not.

I can't help but feel he has been made a scapegoat, partly due to his employment. There is a message loud and clear that rape is taken seriously but I don't believe she ever went to the police with a rape complaint did she? She said she couldn't remember having sex with him or the other guy but only one got convicted, how?

The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was no complaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.
Click to expand...

The other footballer supports Ched and says he's innocent: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...on-mcdonald-midland-footballer-speaks-6788373

The woman put stuff on twitter about "winning big" and buying matching cars for her and a friend. I really can't believe Clayton McDonald was found innocent and Ched Evans was found guilty. In no way could anyone ever condone rape or sex without consent due to intoxication. I personally think he's innocent and I hope his appeal is successful.
 
mowgli77 said:
The woman put stuff on twitter about "winning big" and buying matching cars for her and a friend.
Click to expand...

If she's been paid (and that shouldn't be too difficult to establish) then that's prostitution and a contract isn't it?
 
I suggest that people should be extremely careful before they make allegations of that nature on here .

On top of that "The woman " is offensive " the victim " I think is the proper description - it is hardly a surprise that the number of female members of this forum has dwindled so markedly .

Thirdly, suggesting such things were put on twitter refers to possible unlawful disclosure of her name

Finally , unless Mr Evans is acquitted on a further appeal then his conviction will never be spent under the Rehab of Offenders Act 1974 as it is for more than four years .

Most sensible thing I suggest would be to close this thread before anyone posts something particularly stupid .
 
Last edited:
Warbler didn't accuse anyone of anything, he said IF

why is "the woman" offensive?..was it a woman?

female members have diminished because a female is referred to as a woman?..what?

no one has referred to her name..you are saying no one should ever refer to twitter any more then in case there is something bad on there.

why should anyone say something particularly stupid?..are members here stupid?

everything discussed here is in the public domain..should those court documents be removed then?..in case someone says something stupid?

this is a topic that is being discussed in many places...but we can't do it here in your opinion..why?..its been on Radio Sheffield for months with many hourly live discussions with calls from the public..but we should close a thread?
 
Last edited:
I think your post is a pretty clear indication why .

1 The woman is an objectifying term - she was a victim of rape .

2 Mowgli and Warbler's posts should be read together to understand what they might appear to mean

3 Just read the rest of the Chit Chat section to answer the question whether we have members who post stupid things .
 
the woman is an objectifying term..oh dear..political correctness gone daft

my post indicates what exactly?

there is not one word on this thread yet that is out of order...unless the reader has problems with reading meanings into normal terms of description..like you seem to have

you are a patronising person from what i can see

close it down for all i care...but its a sad effort if that does happen just on the say of someone who could take offence at anything by the looks of it

what do we call females now if we can't use women any more?.maybe you could list politically correct words for us all to use..deary me.
 
I have no strong feelings either way on this but a quick look at the net and her twitter post is easy to find. Doesn't exactly look good does it? As far as i a concerned she put herself in the spotlight by boasting about "buying two mini coopers" publicly and might be considered fortunate to still be entitled to anominity

No one has named her here (easy to find though) so i see no reason why the details of the case should not be discussed. Plenty of other cases for all sorts of crimes have been on these threads with no comment.

Maybe instead of woman she should have been described as "a lady" but....
 
I have no strong feelings either way on this but a quick look at the net and her twitter post is easy to find. Doesn't exactly look good does it? As far as i a concerned she put herself in the spotlight by boasting about "buying two mini coopers" publicly and might be considered fortunate to still be entitled to anominity

No one has named her here (easy to find though) so i see no reason why the details of the case should not be discussed. Plenty of other cases for all sorts of crimes have been on these threads with no comment.
 
clivex said:
I have no strong feelings either way on this but a quick look at the net and her twitter post is easy to find. Doesn't exactly look good does it? As far as i a concerned she put herself in the spotlight by boasting about "buying two mini coopers" publicly and might be considered fortunate to still be entitled to anominity

No one has named her here (easy to find though) so i see no reason why the details of the case should not be discussed. Plenty of other cases for all sorts of crimes have been on these threads with no comment.

Maybe instead of woman she should have been described as "a lady" but....
Click to expand...

can someone tell me when the word woman was deemed wrong? i must have missed that ...is "man" also banned in certain circles

this country is getting dafter Clive isn't it?..the PC brigade will completely trash the place eventually...they've trashed Rotherham with this sort of nonsense
 
Last edited:
I have no idea. Shall we have a look at some of the names Thatcher was called here? And a few other women (can i say that? ) too

I think its well out of order to suggest a thread should be closed because posters "cant be trusted". Everyone should be aware that naming her will be trouble but that is all that needs to be said. The rest is opinion and from ive seen, opinion based on publicly available facts.
 
Ardross I am monitoring the thread, hence the warning earlier. I don't think making references to twitter in general would fall foul of the law, as national newspapers have mentioned her tweets and they aren't in court over it.
I'm not really a fan of stifling discussions of a story that is already out there, and as long as it stays on topic, without any of the usual arguments, and no one posts anything that could identify the victim, then I see no reason to close it.
 
EC1 said:
Warbler didn't accuse anyone of anything, he said IF

why is "the woman" offensive?..was it a woman?

female members have diminished because a female is referred to as a woman?..what?

no one has referred to her name..you are saying no one should ever refer to twitter any more then in case there is something bad on there.

why should anyone say something particularly stupid?..are members here stupid?

everything discussed here is in the public domain..should those court documents be removed then?..in case someone says something stupid?

this is a topic that is being discussed in many places...but we can't do it here in your opinion..why?..its been on Radio Sheffield for months with many hourly live discussions with calls from the public..but we should close a thread?
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
Back
Top