Should Ched Evans be allowed to play professional football again?
09 January 2015, 11:54 AM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should Ched Evans be allowed to play professional football again?
This is a difficult one. One the one hand, he is a convicted rapist, which I find deeply unpleasant (if the conviction is sound).
On the other, the whole point of our justice system is that you if you commit a crime, you serve a prescribed sentence and the your debt to society is paid. You should be allowed to carry on with your life.
It's quite ironic that the chairman of Oldham Athletic was threatened with having a female relative raped if they hired Evans, so what sort of twisted logic thinks that rape is such a terrible crime that the answer to it is rape?
Also, why were the British public ok with accepting Leslie Grantham as a 'star' when he was a convicted murderer? Surely this is double standards? Maybe we think that taking life is less of a crime than rape?
On the other, the whole point of our justice system is that you if you commit a crime, you serve a prescribed sentence and the your debt to society is paid. You should be allowed to carry on with your life.
It's quite ironic that the chairman of Oldham Athletic was threatened with having a female relative raped if they hired Evans, so what sort of twisted logic thinks that rape is such a terrible crime that the answer to it is rape?
Also, why were the British public ok with accepting Leslie Grantham as a 'star' when he was a convicted murderer? Surely this is double standards? Maybe we think that taking life is less of a crime than rape?
09 January 2015, 11:57 AM
#2
It's quite ironic that the chairman of Oldham Athletic was threatened with having a female relative raped if they hired Evans, so what sort of twisted logic thinks that rape is such a terrible crime that the answer to it is rape?
Illogical, vindictive, unforgiving, unable to have fun poked at them, sexist.....and better than any man at anything.
09 January 2015, 11:58 AM
#3
There are some jobs which you are prevented from carrying on when you have particular crimes on your record, such as banking, medicine, teaching I would guess too.
Should this extend to football? In my opinion no. Otherwise, by implication, you'd have to extend such a ban to all jobs in the public eye, and I think that is unreasonable.
Is Ched Evans a rapist? Having read some of what's online about the court notes, he's no more a rapist than thousands of men every weekend getting a drunk lass to sleep with them.
We have a long way to go before rape is correctly handled by society. At the moment we lump all rapists such as those jumping out of bushes, and those 'too drunk to consent' cases together, when in reality they are really quite different. But that's another topic for another day.
Should this extend to football? In my opinion no. Otherwise, by implication, you'd have to extend such a ban to all jobs in the public eye, and I think that is unreasonable.
Is Ched Evans a rapist? Having read some of what's online about the court notes, he's no more a rapist than thousands of men every weekend getting a drunk lass to sleep with them.
We have a long way to go before rape is correctly handled by society. At the moment we lump all rapists such as those jumping out of bushes, and those 'too drunk to consent' cases together, when in reality they are really quite different. But that's another topic for another day.
Last edited by ReallyReallyGoodMeat; 09 January 2015 at 12:02 PM.
09 January 2015, 12:03 PM
#4
Agreed. Which is my last comment on here on this topic.
I have withdrawn from another forum when people on the same topic starteda really nasty slur campaign against me.
THAT'S the type of people you will be up against if you aren't careful...and slung **** sticks!
I have withdrawn from another forum when people on the same topic starteda really nasty slur campaign against me.
THAT'S the type of people you will be up against if you aren't careful...and slung **** sticks!
Trending Topics
09 January 2015, 12:33 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2014
Location: sussex
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is he would be in a role model type position if he went back to being a pro footballer
I think its a grey area until his appeal is heard and he cannot admit guilt till then as it undoes his appeal so cannot give the apology people are saying he should - even if he did in teality it wouldnt help his position one jot
Personally i think his job,money and celeb status probably played a part in pulling that girl however confusing the story is - so its fair to be cautious before reinstating him in that same position of money, celeb status and wealth
I think its a grey area until his appeal is heard and he cannot admit guilt till then as it undoes his appeal so cannot give the apology people are saying he should - even if he did in teality it wouldnt help his position one jot
Personally i think his job,money and celeb status probably played a part in pulling that girl however confusing the story is - so its fair to be cautious before reinstating him in that same position of money, celeb status and wealth
09 January 2015, 12:35 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
There are some jobs which you are prevented from carrying on when you have particular crimes on your record, such as banking, medicine, teaching I would guess too.
Should this extend to football? In my opinion no. Otherwise, by implication, you'd have to extend such a ban to all jobs in the public eye, and I think that is unreasonable.
Is Ched Evans a rapist? Having read some of what's online about the court notes, he's no more a rapist than thousands of men every weekend getting a drunk lass to sleep with them.
We have a long way to go before rape is correctly handled by society. At the moment we lump all rapists such as those jumping out of bushes, and those 'too drunk to consent' cases together, when in reality they are really quite different. But that's another topic for another day.
Should this extend to football? In my opinion no. Otherwise, by implication, you'd have to extend such a ban to all jobs in the public eye, and I think that is unreasonable.
Is Ched Evans a rapist? Having read some of what's online about the court notes, he's no more a rapist than thousands of men every weekend getting a drunk lass to sleep with them.
We have a long way to go before rape is correctly handled by society. At the moment we lump all rapists such as those jumping out of bushes, and those 'too drunk to consent' cases together, when in reality they are really quite different. But that's another topic for another day.
Evans was found (and is, in my view) guilty because he let himself into his mates hotel room and raped the girl in the full knowledge that she was too drunk to even acknowledge his presence, let alone consent, after his mate had left
In my (and obviously the court's) opinion there is a massive difference between taking a drunk lass back to yours and having sex with her, and having sex with a drunk lass your mate pulled after she's passed out
Whilst I understand that Evans has the right to restart his life following his release, I find his seeming complete lack of morals extremely disturbing, and would not like to seem him even being near by my club
09 January 2015, 12:36 PM
#10
Thing is he would be in a role model type position if he went back to being a pro footballer
I think its a grey area until his appeal is heard and he cannot admit guilt till then as it undoes his appeal so cannot give the apology people are saying he should - even if he did in teality it wouldnt help his position one jot
Personally i think his job,money and celeb status probably played a part in pulling that girl however confusing the story is - so its fair to be cautious before reinstating him in that same position of money, celeb status and wealth
I think its a grey area until his appeal is heard and he cannot admit guilt till then as it undoes his appeal so cannot give the apology people are saying he should - even if he did in teality it wouldnt help his position one jot
Personally i think his job,money and celeb status probably played a part in pulling that girl however confusing the story is - so its fair to be cautious before reinstating him in that same position of money, celeb status and wealth
role models are teachers,doctors and other educated and respected professions.
09 January 2015, 12:38 PM
#11
While he's still a convicted rapist that's still serving time under licence then no he shouldn't be allowed to be in an environment where children view footballers as role models, you have to think if the victim as well as she's still a victim until the authorities say otherwise.
09 January 2015, 12:39 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
im not sure either way, also the conviction seems strange, he got found guilty but other person involved didn't despite both doing the same thing :S with the appeal pending i would have sugested he waited for that before doing anything about trying to get back.
I do think alot is being made of him not apologising though, if you didn't do something would you apologise? If he did people would also then claim, why is he apologising if he hasn't done anything?
If the appeal against the conviction fails then might change things
I do think alot is being made of him not apologising though, if you didn't do something would you apologise? If he did people would also then claim, why is he apologising if he hasn't done anything?
If the appeal against the conviction fails then might change things
09 January 2015, 01:22 PM
#16
You could still have a seat in the House of Lords as an hereditary peer as a rapist. What about those footbal diva's who have killed with cars? Been done for drugs? Fraud? Assault? Racist comments? All still playing but if it was a doctor, nurse, etc etc you are out!
They are bunch over overpaid, spoilt, fuc*wits who deserve jack sh*t but until the Judicial Review is concluded into his case I shall reserve judgement.
They are bunch over overpaid, spoilt, fuc*wits who deserve jack sh*t but until the Judicial Review is concluded into his case I shall reserve judgement.
09 January 2015, 01:28 PM
#17
What make Ched any different to the other footballers that get up to no good with various women (be it rape or not) and had no impact on their career?
Seems to be a target at the moment. UNessercerily IMO - there are worse role model in football, some still playing (the other have since retired)
Seems to be a target at the moment. UNessercerily IMO - there are worse role model in football, some still playing (the other have since retired)
09 January 2015, 01:29 PM
#18
His mate is the one who took the drunk girl back to his room and had sex with her, he got found not guilty.
Evans was found (and is, in my view) guilty because he let himself into his mates hotel room and raped the girl in the full knowledge that she was too drunk to even acknowledge his presence, let alone consent, after his mate had left
Evans was found (and is, in my view) guilty because he let himself into his mates hotel room and raped the girl in the full knowledge that she was too drunk to even acknowledge his presence, let alone consent, after his mate had left
If anything his mate behaved worse as he went looking for drunk girls to pick up off the street (almost literally)! That's opportunism no?!
Last edited by ReallyReallyGoodMeat; 09 January 2015 at 01:31 PM.
09 January 2015, 01:31 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
At risk of de-railing the topic slightly, I don't understand the jury on this. It was deemed rape as she was too drunk to consent. But, if she was too drunk to consent to Evans, how was she NOT too drunk to consent with his mate too?! Yet he got off?
If anything his mate behaved worse as he went looking for drunk girls to pick up off the street (almost literally)! That's opportunism no?!
If anything his mate behaved worse as he went looking for drunk girls to pick up off the street (almost literally)! That's opportunism no?!
09 January 2015, 01:58 PM
#21
He was defended by Julia Brewer-Hartley on QT last night. She said had she been on the jury she would have returned a not guilty verdict on the weight of evidence provided. The lad's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Tough situation and personally I feel sorry for him.
09 January 2015, 02:43 PM
#24
I find the implications of this case a little worrying.
It seems that the basic facts are as follows (although coverage of actual evidence seems to have been very patchy).
McDonald and Evans had been drinking together. Evans decides he's had enough and is going home. McDonald bumps into the woman and takes her back to his hotel room and texts Evans to say he's pulled. Evans goes to the hotel, cons the receptionist into giving him the key card and walks in on McDonald and the woman having sex. According to both men, McDonald asks the woman if Evans can join in and she agrees and asks Evans to do certain things to her. When she wakes up she has no memory of what happened.
Now there have been plenty of other cases where the prosecution's case is that the woman didn't give consent, and the case from both sides depends on whether you believe her saying she didn't consent or him saying she did. But in this case it seems the prosecution is saying that it doesn't matter if she did give consent, because she was that drunk they should have ignored her.
Cocaine was found in her blood stream and she denies taking it (lets face it, no-one is likely to admit it) there is no evidence that they gave it to her. She admits to drinking large amounts of alcohol and not remembering anything after about 3am, she didn't get to the hotel until after 4am. There are no forensics suggesting force.
So here is what worries me:
Is the law now saying
A) That if you are drunk enough not to remember then your actions are not your responsibility?
B) That if two people are drunk, the slightly more sober one is expected to take responsibility for the less sober one?
C) That if a man and woman are both drunk the man is expected to be more responsible than the woman?
Is there another option I haven't considered, or have I understood the case wrong?
Either of these options seem to have some rather disturbing implications. I have dealt with any number of drunken people that have been given advice by either doorstaff or friends that they ignore and thus get themselves into problems. I have heard all sorts of stories from people who have done things they can't remember whilst drunk, from the innocent getting a take-away that they don't even like, to having sex with someone they shouldn't have. If a woman can not be considered to be consenting if she can't remember it, do we also consider that a man who can't remember having sex with a female can't be found guilty of rape if she claims she didn't consent, or just doesn't remember?
In an ideal world people would not get so drunk or high that they would get themselves into these predicaments, and they wouldn't have sex with people they just met either. But then this is reality not an ideal world.
On the other topic from this - role models
How do we defend the actions of say Cheryl Cole and Melanie Sykes - both guilty of assault and domestic assault respectively, yet we accept them back with open arms as role models and faces on TV. Kelly Brook laughing during a TV interview about punching her partners in the face on numerous occasions.
It seems that the basic facts are as follows (although coverage of actual evidence seems to have been very patchy).
McDonald and Evans had been drinking together. Evans decides he's had enough and is going home. McDonald bumps into the woman and takes her back to his hotel room and texts Evans to say he's pulled. Evans goes to the hotel, cons the receptionist into giving him the key card and walks in on McDonald and the woman having sex. According to both men, McDonald asks the woman if Evans can join in and she agrees and asks Evans to do certain things to her. When she wakes up she has no memory of what happened.
Now there have been plenty of other cases where the prosecution's case is that the woman didn't give consent, and the case from both sides depends on whether you believe her saying she didn't consent or him saying she did. But in this case it seems the prosecution is saying that it doesn't matter if she did give consent, because she was that drunk they should have ignored her.
Cocaine was found in her blood stream and she denies taking it (lets face it, no-one is likely to admit it) there is no evidence that they gave it to her. She admits to drinking large amounts of alcohol and not remembering anything after about 3am, she didn't get to the hotel until after 4am. There are no forensics suggesting force.
So here is what worries me:
Is the law now saying
A) That if you are drunk enough not to remember then your actions are not your responsibility?
B) That if two people are drunk, the slightly more sober one is expected to take responsibility for the less sober one?
C) That if a man and woman are both drunk the man is expected to be more responsible than the woman?
Is there another option I haven't considered, or have I understood the case wrong?
Either of these options seem to have some rather disturbing implications. I have dealt with any number of drunken people that have been given advice by either doorstaff or friends that they ignore and thus get themselves into problems. I have heard all sorts of stories from people who have done things they can't remember whilst drunk, from the innocent getting a take-away that they don't even like, to having sex with someone they shouldn't have. If a woman can not be considered to be consenting if she can't remember it, do we also consider that a man who can't remember having sex with a female can't be found guilty of rape if she claims she didn't consent, or just doesn't remember?
In an ideal world people would not get so drunk or high that they would get themselves into these predicaments, and they wouldn't have sex with people they just met either. But then this is reality not an ideal world.
On the other topic from this - role models
How do we defend the actions of say Cheryl Cole and Melanie Sykes - both guilty of assault and domestic assault respectively, yet we accept them back with open arms as role models and faces on TV. Kelly Brook laughing during a TV interview about punching her partners in the face on numerous occasions.
09 January 2015, 03:05 PM
#25
Agree with all you've said there Felix, and I'd also add about McDonald being found not guilty due to her 'implying consent' by going back to the hotel with him. What the hell is that? And when can it be implied and when can't it?
But people hear the word "rape" and conjure up images of him aggressively or violently dominating a woman, or jump out of a bush, when in this case it sounds nothing of the sort.
But people hear the word "rape" and conjure up images of him aggressively or violently dominating a woman, or jump out of a bush, when in this case it sounds nothing of the sort.
09 January 2015, 03:18 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
He was defended by Julia Brewer-Hartley on QT last night. She said had she been on the jury she would have returned a not guilty verdict on the weight of evidence provided. The lad's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Tough situation and personally I feel sorry for him.
He was stupid enough to get himeself in a situation that was always likely to end up badly.
Should have known better. Too much money and arrogance.
Zero sympathy from me. Guilty or not what he failed to do was take any responsibility for his actions then or subsequently.
He's a fud, and deserves whatever comes his way.
09 January 2015, 03:24 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Lets look at it another way.
Say your wives/girlfriends are out and get a bit too drunk. Lets say its not even all of their doing - someone spikes a drink, or gives them something a little extra. To the point of being too drunk to have complete understanding of her situation.
I've been in that state, and I'm sure many of you have too, so lets not get all holier than thou.
Some pissed up **** decides he's going to take advantage and has sex with her.
Ask yourself this - how does that make you feel?
Say your wives/girlfriends are out and get a bit too drunk. Lets say its not even all of their doing - someone spikes a drink, or gives them something a little extra. To the point of being too drunk to have complete understanding of her situation.
I've been in that state, and I'm sure many of you have too, so lets not get all holier than thou.
Some pissed up **** decides he's going to take advantage and has sex with her.
Ask yourself this - how does that make you feel?
09 January 2015, 03:25 PM
#28
And this will also apply within marriage too
09 January 2015, 03:33 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
I find the implications of this case a little worrying.
It seems that the basic facts are as follows (although coverage of actual evidence seems to have been very patchy).
McDonald and Evans had been drinking together. Evans decides he's had enough and is going home. McDonald bumps into the woman and takes her back to his hotel room and texts Evans to say he's pulled. Evans goes to the hotel, cons the receptionist into giving him the key card and walks in on McDonald and the woman having sex. According to both men, McDonald asks the woman if Evans can join in and she agrees and asks Evans to do certain things to her. When she wakes up she has no memory of what happened.
Now there have been plenty of other cases where the prosecution's case is that the woman didn't give consent, and the case from both sides depends on whether you believe her saying she didn't consent or him saying she did. But in this case it seems the prosecution is saying that it doesn't matter if she did give consent, because she was that drunk they should have ignored her.
Cocaine was found in her blood stream and she denies taking it (lets face it, no-one is likely to admit it) there is no evidence that they gave it to her. She admits to drinking large amounts of alcohol and not remembering anything after about 3am, she didn't get to the hotel until after 4am. There are no forensics suggesting force.
So here is what worries me:
Is the law now saying
A) That if you are drunk enough not to remember then your actions are not your responsibility?
B) That if two people are drunk, the slightly more sober one is expected to take responsibility for the less sober one?
C) That if a man and woman are both drunk the man is expected to be more responsible than the woman?
Is there another option I haven't considered, or have I understood the case wrong?
Either of these options seem to have some rather disturbing implications. I have dealt with any number of drunken people that have been given advice by either doorstaff or friends that they ignore and thus get themselves into problems. I have heard all sorts of stories from people who have done things they can't remember whilst drunk, from the innocent getting a take-away that they don't even like, to having sex with someone they shouldn't have. If a woman can not be considered to be consenting if she can't remember it, do we also consider that a man who can't remember having sex with a female can't be found guilty of rape if she claims she didn't consent, or just doesn't remember?
In an ideal world people would not get so drunk or high that they would get themselves into these predicaments, and they wouldn't have sex with people they just met either. But then this is reality not an ideal world.
On the other topic from this - role models
How do we defend the actions of say Cheryl Cole and Melanie Sykes - both guilty of assault and domestic assault respectively, yet we accept them back with open arms as role models and faces on TV. Kelly Brook laughing during a TV interview about punching her partners in the face on numerous occasions.
It seems that the basic facts are as follows (although coverage of actual evidence seems to have been very patchy).
McDonald and Evans had been drinking together. Evans decides he's had enough and is going home. McDonald bumps into the woman and takes her back to his hotel room and texts Evans to say he's pulled. Evans goes to the hotel, cons the receptionist into giving him the key card and walks in on McDonald and the woman having sex. According to both men, McDonald asks the woman if Evans can join in and she agrees and asks Evans to do certain things to her. When she wakes up she has no memory of what happened.
Now there have been plenty of other cases where the prosecution's case is that the woman didn't give consent, and the case from both sides depends on whether you believe her saying she didn't consent or him saying she did. But in this case it seems the prosecution is saying that it doesn't matter if she did give consent, because she was that drunk they should have ignored her.
Cocaine was found in her blood stream and she denies taking it (lets face it, no-one is likely to admit it) there is no evidence that they gave it to her. She admits to drinking large amounts of alcohol and not remembering anything after about 3am, she didn't get to the hotel until after 4am. There are no forensics suggesting force.
So here is what worries me:
Is the law now saying
A) That if you are drunk enough not to remember then your actions are not your responsibility?
B) That if two people are drunk, the slightly more sober one is expected to take responsibility for the less sober one?
C) That if a man and woman are both drunk the man is expected to be more responsible than the woman?
Is there another option I haven't considered, or have I understood the case wrong?
Either of these options seem to have some rather disturbing implications. I have dealt with any number of drunken people that have been given advice by either doorstaff or friends that they ignore and thus get themselves into problems. I have heard all sorts of stories from people who have done things they can't remember whilst drunk, from the innocent getting a take-away that they don't even like, to having sex with someone they shouldn't have. If a woman can not be considered to be consenting if she can't remember it, do we also consider that a man who can't remember having sex with a female can't be found guilty of rape if she claims she didn't consent, or just doesn't remember?
In an ideal world people would not get so drunk or high that they would get themselves into these predicaments, and they wouldn't have sex with people they just met either. But then this is reality not an ideal world.
On the other topic from this - role models
How do we defend the actions of say Cheryl Cole and Melanie Sykes - both guilty of assault and domestic assault respectively, yet we accept them back with open arms as role models and faces on TV. Kelly Brook laughing during a TV interview about punching her partners in the face on numerous occasions.
Well the answer to that is Women can do what the hell they like and get away with it where if a bloke does exactly the same thing they get the book thrown at them and are never allowed to forget it.
09 January 2015, 03:33 PM
#30
That isn't the situation here.
She was drunk, and was picked up non-threateningly in the street, they shared pizza, then McDonald went took her to a hotel.
If that was the situation with my missus, I'd be wondering why the hell she was so hammered she went to a hotel with a stranger.
She was drunk, and was picked up non-threateningly in the street, they shared pizza, then McDonald went took her to a hotel.
If that was the situation with my missus, I'd be wondering why the hell she was so hammered she went to a hotel with a stranger.