• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The whole Ched Evans thing

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Modo

Modo

A contentious scando
Member
Should he just quit playing football? Cause, it seems like there's no way back for him.

Now I'm not saying that he's innocent. He's been convicted of the crime and served time for it but he still hasn't admitted it, yet.
The papers however seems to be going out of their way in labelling him a rapist even the BBC (the guys who covered for Jimmy Saville). The headlines are "Rapist Ched Evans....", "Rapist footballer Ched Evans" etc. I don't want to call him a victim because the real victim is the girl who got raped, but its like a public execution.

So, should he not be allowed to play football again?
Cause Lee Hughes did, and he actually killed someone.

There was a similar case in Sweden. Miko Albornoz a Swedish fullback, born in Sweden to a Chilean father and a Finnish mother, was convicted of statutory rape after sleeping with a minor. It was deemed consensual.
The Swedish media basically ran him out of the country. He switched national teams, got picked for Chile in the World cup and left to play in Germany.
 
Modo said:
There was a similar case in Sweden. Miko Albornoz a Swedish fullback, born in Sweden to a Chilean father and a Finnish mother, was convicted of statutory rape after sleeping with a minor. It was deemed consensual.
The Swedish media basically ran him out of the country. He switched national teams, got picked for Chile in the World cup and left to play in Germany.
Click to expand...


Sounds like it ended up being a great career move for him.
 
Firstly: the BBC is a huge organisation. Unless you have a pea-sized brain, that doesn't make it collectively 'the guys who covered for Jimmy Savile'. Secondly: by referring to the ludicrous canard that the BBC, in whatever form, 'covered' for Savile (who also, if you're being picky, 'still hasn't admitted it, yet') you're using the same 'public execution' to defend your own argument.
 
gkmacca said:
Firstly: the BBC is a huge organisation. Unless you have a pea-sized brain, that doesn't make it collectively 'the guys who covered for Jimmy Savile'. Secondly: by referring to the ludicrous canard that the BBC, in whatever form, 'covered' for Savile (who also, if you're being picky, 'still hasn't admitted it, yet') you're using the same 'public execution' to defend your own argument.
Click to expand...
It's not about the BBC.
 
Then don't mention it, clot head. You've returned from your ban even madder than before.
 
I think he should be allowed to play. The main uproar came from the women in prominent roles at Utd - their patron who and Jessica Ennis.

Their complaint should be with the justice system.
 
A couple of points:

1. It isn't a simple case of "he hasn't admitted it". He's always said that he's innocent, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission is about to look into it, so that's not something I'd want to comment on until their investigation is completed.

2. Innocent or guilty, like it or not, society can't permanently deny him the opportunity to make a living. He's served his time, it's on his record (pending the outcome of the CCRC investigation) and IMHO that should now be the end of it.
 
gkmacca said:
Then don't mention it, clot head. You've returned from your ban even madder than before.
Click to expand...

I actually have a great argument, but I don't feel like sidetracking the thread. So I'll be a clot head today.
It was mentioned and it remains mentioned.
 
You actually have a great argument but you don't want to sidetrack the thread! Fantastic! Worthy of Nigel Farage. You sidetrack every other damn thread so I can only welcome this sudden change of heart.
 
Something seems really off about the whole thing, he got convicted because he admitted to having what he thought was consensual sex, and despite the victim having no memory of the events, it was deemed non consensual, it's weird. I'm not saying that he's innocent and she's done something wrong, obviously it's been decided in a court of law that he's guilty, it just seems like a very bizarre case, that or I just haven't read enough into it..

As for him being a professional footballer again, I didn't realise he'd got a life sentence, what's the point of a judicial system if you're still treated like a criminal after you've served your time? Saying that, I probably wouldn't be thinking this if he was coming back to Liverpool.
 
Quite. Which is why I found it unhelpful to treat a wildly dodgy and scattershot paedophilia case as eminently uncontroversial in order to defend the subject of an alleged rape case. Personally I thought that sidetracked the thread somewhat.
 
He was convicted of an offence. He served the sentence. That is it.

If he worked in a factory he would have gone back to work and no one would have paid a blind bit of attention. His job is as a footballer. That is what he does.

So I am afraid it comes down to jealousy. People don't like the fad that he will go back to earning lots of money.

The line about him failing to show remorse is a little desperate. He believes he is innocent and the case is being appealed. Not everyone even CAN appeal, so there must be an element of doubt. I think it is quite reasonable that someone who truly believes that they are innocent does not have to admit to something they believe they didn't do just to suit others.

The problem Evans has come up against is that this has come at the time of Twitter and, more so, Change.org.
If you have the means to get petitions out to thousands and thousands of people, then chances are you will get thousands and thousands of people to sign it, especially when it involves being harsh on a convicted criminal who is also wealthy. You have the left wing 'hate the rich' and right wing 'hang em and flog em' audience all in one go there!
 
As usual, there's an elaborate skein of humbug and hypocrisy developing in the football world. Take the club - naming a stand after some flavour of the month TV insurance saleswoman and part-time athlete was a silly bit of opportunism in the first place, so they've brought her belated bout of moral umbrage upon themselves. The same goes for their involvement with all of the other seemingly random 'patrons'.

Then there's the opprobrium that slips up like sick from the Premier League's Richard Scudamore, a man whose own proven sexism remains completely unpunished because, er, he's considered too important to sack. And all of this covered by a group of sports hacks who have bent over backwards to quietly rehabilitate one of their own, Rob Shepherd, after re-emerging from the clink after biting the ear off a rival for his 'bird'. And so it goes on.

But football can't have it both ways. It's knowingly and eagerly encouraged the intensification of public interest, and hype, in its game, which has made it a quite exceptional (and stunningly lucrative) industry, so it can't then demand that no light be let in upon magic when it wants to hide its dirty little secrets. If you hype up the good things, the bad things will be hyped up, too. Send a text calling someone a 'chink'? That'll get more publicity than if it's done by little Barry at a Colchester call centre. Bite someone on the arm? It'll attract more outrage than if it's done in a Sunday league game.

So it's hardly a surprise that this case gets treated more prominently than in most other professions. That doesn't make it right, but you can't pick and choose what to like about football's obscenely hyped environment. If you're in that context, you need to understand it and deal with it, not whine that it wouldn't happen like that to an employee of ASDA or somewhere else. If you step under the magnifying glass, don't moan if you feel something is being magnified.
 
The bandwagon jumpers and constant fear of being involved in a scandals these days fucks me off.

Jessica Ennis saying take my name off the stand, sponsors pulling out. I dont get it.

Why is footy any different to being a workman. After prison you can return to your trade. Footballers are not role models they are people good at footy.

We now have sponsors pulling out of Wigan.

Everyone is scared to be associated with something the press jump on

Of course he should be allowed to play. He has served his time.
 
Fox said:
Why is footy any different to being a workman..
Click to expand...

I tried to explain why above. Football's not entirely on its own in this. I doubt posting a snap of a white van on twitter would be considered a matter for resignation in most professions, but it seemingly is in politics. The idea that everyone, regardless of public prominence, can and will be treated exactly the same is just naive. The 'role model' angle is a red herring. If you're in a public profession, regardless of whether you are a role model or not, you'll be treated differently. The old Irish travel advice, 'Well, If I were you, I wouldn't start from here,' is not without its logic, but it's just not very helpful for the here and now. As Macauley observed more than a century ago, there is 'no sight more ridiculous than the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality' - it's still true today.
 
He is out on licence so is still serving his time.

He should not have his right to work taken away from him but I would not want the cunt playing for us. He is shite for a start.

I also would not want Leroy Fer or Yann M'Vila as they are a bit noncey.
 
Richey said:
He was convicted of an offence. He served the sentence. That is it.

If he worked in a factory he would have gone back to work and no one would have paid a blind bit of attention. His job is as a footballer. That is what he does.

So I am afraid it comes down to jealousy. People don't like the fad that he will go back to earning lots of money.

The line about him failing to show remorse is a little desperate. He believes he is innocent and the case is being appealed. Not everyone even CAN appeal, so there must be an element of doubt. I think it is quite reasonable that someone who truly believes that they are innocent does not have to admit to something they believe they didn't do just to suit others.

The problem Evans has come up against is that this has come at the time of Twitter and, more so, Change.org.
If you have the means to get petitions out to thousands and thousands of people, then chances are you will get thousands and thousands of people to sign it, especially when it involves being harsh on a convicted criminal who is also wealthy. You have the left wing 'hate the rich' and right wing 'hang em and flog em' audience all in one go there!
Click to expand...

I think this post is filled with horseshit.
 
gkmacca said:
I tried to explain why above. Football's not entirely on its own in this. I doubt posting a snap of a white van on twitter would be considered a matter for resignation in most professions, but it seemingly is in politics. The idea that everyone, regardless of public prominence, can and will be treated exactly the same is just naive. The 'role model' angle is a red herring. If you're in a public profession, regardless of whether you are a role model or not, you'll be treated differently. The old Irish travel advice, 'Well, If I were you, I wouldn't start from here,' is not without its logic, but it's just not very helpful for the here and now. As Macauley observed more than a century ago, there is 'no sight more ridiculous than the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality' - it's still true today.
Click to expand...


Good post.
 
I think it depends on what career you're in though, I've known civil servants to be disciplined & having lost their jobs following guilty verdicts for a crime, because it's in the contract that you won't behave in a manner that may reflect poorly on the civil service.

I'd assume footy players have a similar thing in their contracts.

How it effects their employment chances afterwards would probably be dealt with similarly.
 
Richey said:
He was convicted of an offence. He served the sentence. That is it.



If he worked in a factory he would have gone back to work and no one would have paid a blind bit of attention.
Click to expand...

If he worked in a factory he would have been sacked for not turning up to work for two years, and he would have found it next to impossible to find another job when he got out of Jail

"I looked at your CV - why did you leave your last job?"
" I was sacked"
"OK; then there are two years with nothing in your career history - what were you doing?"
"Time"
"Well, sounds fair enough to me. When can you start?"
 
Being a footballer isn't a normal job though is it? You are being paid shit loads, kids wear their idols name on their shirt, he will be in the paper most weekends, t.v. every month (or so). Its easy to say well if he was a milk man no one would give a shit but he's not. Imagine If he is guilty and that was your daughter. I actually don't know where I stand on this, just playing devils advocate!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

the count
    • Like
  • Locked
Sean cox- Five years on
Replies
1
Views
472
LeTallecWiz
LeTallecWiz
Rosco
  • Locked
Ched's advice to women
Replies
8
Views
953
localny
localny
localny
  • Locked
The Definitive Article on The Cover-up - David Conn
Replies
14
Views
1K
Avmenon
Avmenon
Pesam
  • Locked
Ched Evans guilty of rape.
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Piedro
Piedro
red_maradona
  • Locked
John Barnes - Legend
Replies
7
Views
633
red_maradona
red_maradona
Back
Top Bottom