[Closed] Ched Evans

He is a convicted rapist on licence not an innocent man wronged in error. She didn't even testify to the events, he was convicted on his own statement.

Should he play football at pro level again, in front of crowds of men, women and children sponsored by brands wanting to be associated with the team and the game? - Of course not.

Football is a morally bereft sport and as such, it's hardly surprising that they would put cash (from results, I understand that he's a decent player and would likely improve many clubs' scorelines) ahead of any kind of morals. Luckily people in general are a little more interested in the moral aspect of hiring him and don't like that.

Exactly. In the vast majority of occupations, try getting rehired after a rape conviction and see how far you get.

That he is even being considered to be resigned shows how money can be put before just about anything.

A mid-level manager gets convicted of rape = Enjoy cleaning toilets for a living.

A mid-level footballer gets convicted of rape = Well he is a good striker and could potentially score well for the club..........

Nine people were convicted with naming and harassing the victim, one was his cousin who also labeled her 'a money grabbing slut', refused to apologise and said that she didn't want to pay her the court- mandated compensation. Another couple were friends and I think one was another professional footballer?

Then that is shameful. I'm not intimate with the case, so didn't know that.

I think the question is, are convicted criminals rehabilitated by doing the time the courts set out for them to do, or not.

If not, our whole legal system is pointless and any convicted criminal may as well be put to death

The system cannot rehabilitate only the offender can rehabilitate themselves, it can only start once the offender has accepted their offence and start to show true remorse.

This as we all know is not going to happen with Chedders at the moment due to his appeal. If he had any tact/common sense he would have kept a very low profile after his release, got a nice quiet job somewhere and awaited the outcome of his appeal.
He hasnt done this probably because he is pretty stupid, this stupidity is revealed by his lack of understanding regarding the disgusting, misogynistic way he and his mates humiliated a young girl

Which just shows you how morally barren the sport is.

lunge - Member

So, let's assume for the moment he is guilty, let's also assume that as he is unrepentant he is not considered in any way rehabilitated. With that info, lets try and find a job for him that will keep the wider society safe from him re-offending.

You want a job where:
He will have minimal contact with females, non of which will be unsupervised.
His face will be well known (so people can avoid him) and he will find it very difficult to change his appearance without thousands of people noticing.
Him taking the job means his time away from work will also be closely observed.
He will earn enough that he will not be a burden on the tax payer.

You know those crews who come in at night and clean the factory after it's closed? Something like that would fulfill your criteria. But since he's been a professional footballer for several years at a high level, and since the dole is means tested, he it's fair to assume he can survive off his previous earnings thus not being a burden to the taxpayer.

Like it or not pro footballers are in the public eye and are news. The kicker here is that he is unrepentant. He genuinely still believes that he did absolutely nothing wrong. That makes him a borderline psychopath in my book. So he shouldn't be employed by a football club as a player.

If he had pleaded gullity, begged forgiveness, apologised for being young and stupid and started to behave like a changed character things would be different in my opinion. He would still be a rapist but I could live with efforts to rehabilitate him under those circumstances.

Which just shows you how morally barren the sport is.

....and of course, the club has jumped at the opportunity to release the decision to hire him on a day when the news media will be very pre-occupied.

You know those crews who come in at night and clean the factory after it's closed? Something like that would fulfil your criteria.

I think the guy is an absolute scum bag, a horrible, horrible person. But, assuming he will get work somewhere, the football pitch is a better place than most for him to do so

The kicker here is that he is unrepentant. He genuinely still believes that he did absolutely nothing wrong. That makes him a borderline psychopath in my book

But as others have stated this wasn't a clear cut case - maybe he does believe hes innocent. Strikes me his life would be made a whole lot easier if he stood up and apologised, and he surely knows this. Maybe just maybe hes refusing to do this as he is adamant he didn't rape her ?

Given the case is still up for review, what happens if it turns out hes found innocent?

unge

I think the guy is an absolute scum bag, a horrible, horrible person. But, assuming he will get work somewhere, the football pitch is a better place than most for him to do so

Why the **** does he need to work at any rate? The guy was on £20,000 a week, and incidentally he continued to be paid £20k a week by his club while in jail. If he hasn't amassed a very large fortune then you can add idiot to his list of character traits.

The Daily Fail has published an article decrying the 'lynch mob mentality' that is the 'hounding' of Evans

Satire is now officially dead. RIP.

Served his sentence

Need consistency - agree on double standards

Let him seek to play and let clubs decide if they want to employ him

If not footie, he can always work for Jamie O

and since the dole is means tested, he it's fair to assume he can survive off his previous earnings thus not being a burden to the taxpayer.

did I miss the bit where we were discussing sectarian chanting at Old Firm games and not chants in support of a convicted unrepentant rapist still serving his sentence?

Perhaps (and I tend to agree) but it is the media that is causing the frenzy

I think its the various clubs own supporters who are getting passionate about the issue, its not something dreamed up entirely by the press.

Supporters want to be able to cheer for their players.

Why the **** does he need to work at any rate? The guy was on £20,000 a week. If he hasn't amassed a very large fortune then you can add idiot to his list of character traits.

I'll reiterate, I think he is pond life but he is pond life that will sooner or later have to find work, and football is a very good option for him when looked at objectively.

jimjam - Member

Exchange the word footballer for MP

MPs are public representatives in a position of trust, footballers aren't. I don't think it's equivalent.

TBH I think anyone that considers modern footballers to be role models, should probably be locked up. Past that, it's messy. He seems like a total shitehawk and I wouldn't want my ticket money to go to him, and personally I wouldn't want to work with him, but I think the basic rights and wrongs are, he still has a right to work and his job isn't one that requires him to be a good person.

. Whereas (quite rightly) turning up after someone is too drunk to consent and having sex with them is bang out of order (to put it mildly).

She asked Evans to perform oral sex on her and he obliged , that then became intercourse . If I had been in his position I would have assumed consent was given although I would have baulked at the original request given that my mate had been there very recently .

maybe he does believe hes innocent

That's sort of the point - he raped someone but thinks he didn't. That's why he's unfit for re-integration into society.

Only way I can see is that the court were happy that buying someone a few drinks and snogging them earlier on in the night* gives some sort of consent in advance.

The girl met Evans mate outside a kebab shop, no drinks were bought, no snogging was done afaik. The girl didn't drink more between meeting Evans mate and Evans showing up.

If I had been in his position I would have assumed consent was given

Really? I think most people here would have said "put some clothes on luv, let's get you home".

He can get a job in football doing all sorts of other things that don't pay 20k a week. Like a groundsman for example.

it wasn't that long ago historically speaking he could of been hung, the still hung rapists way in to the 20th century! o the good old days 🙂

Tpbiker - I was very briefly a semi-pro sportsman. I was around guys like this , what I read about the culture and circumstances regarding this case was so familiar from a small hardcore of guys I knew. They shamlessly used drunk and silly young women. They knew what they were doing, They knew it was on the 'edge' of what was right. They justified it partly because of herd mentality and partly because they were having sunshine blown up their arses as young pro rugby players. They stopped doing it after a while because it was cruel and nasty. But they didn't get 'caught'. He did. And what he did was wrong both morally and in the eyes of the law. And he had probably been doing it for years.

And he had probably been doing it for years.

Details

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

Balance of probability for me is that the room was hired for exactly the purpose it was used for.

thm, as has been pointed out multiple times, he is still serving his sentence. Do keep up.

JY, you're missing my point - though I'm sure it's not deliberate on your part. I'm not bothered whose fault the chants are. They wouldn't be there if there wasn't a convicted unrepentant rapist whose victim is arguably made to suffer more than him. That's my issue. If it takes moral outrage to hound him from the game, then so be it. It's the one time (that I can think if recently) in which it's entirely justified. He's a scumbag of the lowest order, and there are multiple reasons why he shouldn't be on a pitch being cheered by the general public. Btw, I googled for stuff that has been sung, not what had been made up on the Internet. Not sure what your point was there.

Anyway, sectarian chants - was there a thread on that or can we stick to the persecution of poor Ched?

the guy was found guilty hes served his time. time to move on.

it wasn't that long ago historically speaking he could of been hung, the still hung rapists way in to the 20th century! o the good old days 

Pictures are hung, people are hanged. Hanging is even more abhorrent than the crime he committed. How would that make it right.

road map to verdict

1 did the complainant consent to sex if yes not guilty
2 if no did the defendant on reasonable grounds believe the complainant consented to sex if yes not guilty.
3 only if you are sure the complainant did not consent to sex and the defendant did not on reasonable grounds believe she consented can you return a verdict of guilty.

so football man number one I met this bird took her back to the hotel she seemed up for it we had sex she was keen logical verdict not guilty even if the jury believed she was not in fact giving meaningful consent.
so football man number two my mate was shagging this bird in a hotel so me and two others sneaked round while he was doing it never met her before, never spoke to her but it was obvious she would want it cos I'm a dead famous footballer so I had her too then ran away before she sobered up . not unsurprising that the jury convict footballer number two even if they cant be sure of number ones guilt.

As to employment he has been released at the automatic half way point there has been no risk assessment . If his release was discretionary he would have been assessed as unsuitable for release as he was not acknowledging guilt or expressing remorse the system views someone who refuses to accept their proven acts to be wrong as a continuing danger. He ought to be employed it would be beneficial but he has no right to be employed in any particular profession and indeed many professions including football would bar him from certain roles .

It is entirely understandable that some one seeking employment in a "public" role will be subject to public scrutiny and debate and that some employers will not want that sort of publicity.

His supporters website and their actions are beneath contempt .

hes served his time

That's true, modulo the 'released on licence' thang, but that doesn't mean he has the right to walk right back into his old life.

It was not deliberate DD and I, now, understand your view.
One of those if you feel this strongly, and I see why, you need to campaign for a change in law.

You are right it wont be pretty when he plays and he is a scumbag but even scumbags are allowed to work.

That's sort of the point - he raped someone but thinks he didn't. That's why he's unfit for re-integration into society.

Or think of it another way

Well, anyone can invent a scenario, but it seems a bit pointless. The best we know about the case is what the court decided, based on evidence including Evans's account.

I was being devil's advocate there. Only three people really know what happened and people are rightly/wrongly convicted all the time. No-one can assume he was guilty simply based on the assumption that he's a bit of a **** footballer.

so football man number two my mate was shagging this bird in a hotel so me and two others sneaked round while he was doing it never met her before, never spoke to her but it was obvious she would want it cos I'm a dead famous footballer so I had her too then ran away before she sobered up . not unsurprising that the jury convict footballer number two even if they cant be sure of number ones guilt.

That's not quite correct (or at least not what was stated in court) - both the footballers say she consented with Evans and I don't thing there was any strong dispute of that (as the victim says she can't remember anything). The jury (and the judge) said that it should have been obvious to Evans that she couldn't consent. Evans view (and the recollection of McDonald) is that she consented and actively participated. A hotel member who was listening outside(!) thought the sex sounded consentual as well.

It's a confused situation though because effectively what the jury found is that at the moment Evans walked into the room McDonald and the victim were engaged in consentual sex, but on Evans asking if he could have sex with her too (and getting told yes) that sex was non consentual and therefore rape.

He has been released and should be free to play football again. However I dont want to pay to watch him do it and I'm not alone in this.

You are right it wont be pretty when he plays and he is a scumbag but even scumbags are allowed to work.

I don't disagree. I don't feel he is entitled to work on a football field (ok he can cut the grass while nobody's there). (And I do feel that the fact that his job was being a footballer is a special case, yes.)

As I (think) I said earlier, I couldn't give two hoots about the law in this case...I'm happy for public outrage (and it is the public and sponsors, not the media) to cause what needs to be done to be done. I won't be campaigning for a change - maybe the outrage will lead to something. Clearly, this case is showing that there are nuances not previously examined.

Only three people really know what happened and people are rightly/wrongly convicted all the time.

Probably only two people know what happened as the girl says she remembers nothing. The odd thing here is that the folks that do know what happened didn't think there was any offence because in their view the girl saying yes was her giving consent. The law and the jury disagreed however.

I sincerely hope that if I ever have the misfortune to appear before a court of law in this country that the jury isn't comprised entirely of STW members 😀

Hung jury after 27 weeks deliberation

Hung jury after 27 weeks deliberation

The only evidence I'd need to clear or convict is what size wheels does his mountain bike have and what tyres are fitted.

I find it very worrying that people like Miliband and Cameron are weighing in on a subject like this and offering their opinion. I don't see how one individual can be treated differently by the judicial system to everybody else.

The judicial system that found him guilty and punished him is the same judicial system that allows him to re-enter employment as part of his rehabilitation.

It's surely the only apparatus that can take such a decision, and it already has- he is able to return to work, the same as everybody else who fulfils the relevant criteria of their sentence.

There's a strong argument that like education or social care or whatever, football should be an industry where people who are convicted of such crimes should be banned for life. This is where people need to direct their energy in my opinion, and not at an individual person via some kind of internet witch-hunt.

Whether the guy is a likeable person or not and all the rest of it is totally irrelevant.

It can't possibly be right for the legal system to be subverted just because a lot of people don't like it.

Apparently the police commisioner of northumberland contacted mike ashley (whos company sponser oldham) urging him to pull the plug on the 1mil deal he has with the club if they go ahead with the signing

That is wrong on so many levels

Epicsteve the jury may well have found that she was not consenting to sex with McDonald and still aquited him of rape see point two on my roadmap.

[i]Really? I think most people here would have said "put some clothes on luv, let's get you home". [/i]

Maybe if married, but when young and single?

Although that could be down to my age, as stuff that was ok when I was his age, ain't now (according to my kids when they watch old TV shows).

@Duggan I'm not sure this guy is receiving special attention from the judicial system. I couldn't return to my job if I had been convicted of the same crime as he has. I can't speak for any other industry but I'm sure it would bar you from many other walks of life. So why not football. The 'he's done his time' argument just doesn't add up.

@Duggan I'm not sure this guy is receiving special attention from the judicial system. I couldn't return to my job if I had been convicted of the same crime as he has. I can't speak for any other industry but I'm sure it would bar you from many other walks of life. So why not football. The 'he's done his time' argument just doesn't add up.

But in his case, the judicial system has decided that he [i]is[/i] able to return to his job. So for me, the only relevant apparatus able to take such a complex decision has already spoken.

There are doubtless plenty of jobs where you can't return to work after such a conviction. But it's been decided that his isn't one of them by the very judicial system that we devised to make these decisions.

Why not football? It probably should be- so in this case, we should aim to amend the legal system to include football as such a job where you cannot play if convicted of sexual assault. But we can surely only expect Evans to be treated as per the law in force at the time.

Really? I think most people here would have said "put some clothes on luv, let's get you home

Tomkerton, Duggan, I'm still really struggling as to why football is an unsuitable job for a convicted rapist. The jobs that are deemed unsuitable are mainly to protect the public from this kind of person. Footballers don't come into contact with vulnerable people so why should it be on the list?

No-one can assume he was guilty simply based on the assumption that he's a bit of a **** footballer.

I dunno, I kind of assume 'guilty' if they've been found guilty and had an appeal turned down.

Tomkerton, Duggan, I'm still really struggling as to why football is an unsuitable job for a convicted rapist. The jobs that are deemed unsuitable are mainly to protect the public from this kind of person. Footballers don't come into contact with vulnerable people so why should it be on the list?

Most footballers come into contact with young people all the time- they are CRB checked and endlessly visiting hospitals and many charitable and PR causes at the behest of their sponsors and clubs. Doubtless, convicted rapists could be excepted from such activities, I agree.

A footballer may not come into contact with vulnerable people as part of their job but surely their famous status and natural position as a role model makes them far more of a threat to vulnerable people than say, a fisherman?

lunge
Footballers don't come into contact with vulnerable people so why should it be on the list?

[img] [/img]

Fame is an interesting one, can you name another League 2 player? Me neither. Let not think he's going to play in the premier league in front of 40k people each week earning £100k per week, he's not. He's signing for Oldham in league 2, they'll get 1500 fans a week at a guess, he'll earn in the region of £1k per week at a guess.

Edit, Jimjam, fair but as it's not a core part of a footballers job I'm sure he could be removed from thus duty.

As noted it i s unlikely he will ever be doing the community work and he may be spotted were he to try.
As for the anoymous fisherman who recognises him ?

Fame is an interesting one, can you name another League 2 player? Me neither. Let not think he's going to play in the premier league in front of 40k people each week earning £100k per week, he's not. He's signing for Oldham in league 2, they'll get 1500 fans a week at a guess, he'll earn in the region of £1k per week at a guess.

But you're just focusing on one individual?! My only statement that was that there is an argument for footballers not to be able to return to work after a conviction of sexual assault, like say the education sector.

It's pretty obvious that in future, the same crime could be committed by somebody who is very famous and is a household name.

Or, again very obvious in my opinion, a footballer could be league 2 at the time of conviction and a premier league star five or ten years later.

I've already stated that I think Evans should be able to return to work.

Hmmm, oak or fir, I wonder?

Duggan

But in his case, the judicial system has decided that he is able to return to his job. So for me, the only relevant apparatus able to take such a complex decision has already spoken.

There are doubtless plenty of jobs where you can't return to work after such a conviction. But it's been decided that his isn't one of them by the very judicial system that we devised to make these decisions.

The judicial system has said he can go back to work, but his previous employers had the option to employ him or not. What outraged so many people (most of whom would automatically forfeit their jobs and their careers after such a conviction) was that not not only had his club never considered sacking him, they were actually paying him while he was incarcerated.

Consider Rolf Harris or Dave Lee Travis. When they've served their time should they be allowed back into their old jobs?

Duggan wrote - Why not football? It probably should be- so in this case, we should aim to amend the legal system to include football as such a job where you cannot play if convicted of sexual assault. But we can surely only expect Evans to be treated as per the law in force at the time.

Good point, well made. I can't argue with your logic here mate.

As noted it i s unlikely he will ever be doing the community work and he may be spotted were he to try.
As for the anoymous fisherman who recognises him ?

Nobody, which is why he would be able to return to work?

Please note I've already stated that I think Ched Evans should be able to return to work.

Graham Rix was able to return to football management after he was released from prison, however the FA banned him from working with your players under 16. Something similar could be done with Evans if he was considered a risk.

He had that overturned . by the FA, on appeal FWIW

so if the sex offender cannot be recognised its safer for him to go to work?

A footballer may not come into contact with vulnerable people as part of their job but surely their famous status and natural position as a role model makes them far more of a threat to vulnerable people than say, a fisherman?

Junkyard- interesting, never thought of it from that angle, though I'm not sure I agree.

I'm going to leave this one here now anyway, final thought below.

Regardless of whether footballers should be able to play after such a conviction, I think there is a debate to be had here and that those who are angry re: the Ched Evans case should direct their energy at the legal framework as we've discussed above and not at an individual imo.

I wonder how broadcasters feel....despite all the saville stuff they will still be broadcasting and paying an unrepentant rapist.

Very odd.

I wonder how broadcasters feel....despite all the saville stuff they will still be broadcasting and paying an unrepentant rapist.

Probably not worth worrying about their feelings until they stop playing Roman Polanski movies.

I wonder how broadcasters feel....despite all the saville stuff they will still be broadcasting and paying an unrepentant rapist.

Very odd.

It's a confused situation though because effectively what the jury found is that at the moment Evans walked into the room McDonald and the victim were engaged in consentual sex, but on Evans asking if he could have sex with her too (and getting told yes) that sex was non consentual and therefore rape.

@epicsteve

Yep I think more people should read the court paper on it....

its actually a surprisingly short read and tbh I'd be very worried about going to court for anything vaguely sex related.

Do we think convicted criminals should be allowed to work or not? My answer would be yes. What we think of him and what that job is is largely irrelevant. The guy is probably a vile human being but we don't get to choose who we like and don't like and arbitrarily apply special rules to them

The main problem here is the idea that footballers are supposed to be role models.

What we think of him and what that job is is largely irrelevant. The guy is probably a vile human being but we don't get to choose who we like and don't like and arbitrarily apply special rules to them

It's not irrelevant at all. Which is why we arbitrarily apply rules to sex offenders.

It's not irrelevant at all. Which is why we arbitrarily apply rules to sex offenders.

That's different and not arbitrary - rules apply to sex offenders to prevent them working with vulnerable people etc. I don't see how that applies in this case.

And that's a decision for the relevant authorities/employers not the newspapers/the mob.

its actually a surprisingly short read and tbh I'd be very worried about going to court for anything vaguely sex related.

Ched Evans' situation is significantly worse because he shows no remorse. Thing is, I'm not convinced he's guilty. Guilty of being involved in a sleazy incident, probably not a nice person, but rape.....Rape cases like this are torrid affairs.

Damn copy and paste glitch...

In the case of football clubs, it's also for supporters (call them customers if we must) and sponsors to decide. Clearly, lots of supporters of the clubs for which he's been a prospective signing have decided they don't want to cheer Evans, and presumably see their ticket money paying his wages.

In the case of football clubs, it's also for supporters (call them customers if we must) and sponsors to decide. Clearly, lots of supporters of the clubs for which he's been a prospective signing have decided they don't want to cheer Evans, and presumably see their ticket money paying his wages.

OK, that's their right I suppose - but is it just sex offences that are considered unacceptable? Would we see the same level of outrage if he'd killed someone drink-driving or speeding for instance? I suspect not.

I just think you're on slightly dodgy ground when you start trying to make moral judgements about people based on what you've read about them in newspapers.

I just think you're on slightly dodgy ground when you start trying to make moral judgements about people based on what you've read about them in newspapers.

I'll assume you mean "one is on slightly dodgy ground" rather than me, as I've read little about Evans in newspapers (I have, however, read some opinion pieces by commentators whose opinions I might respect) but most of what I know about him I've gleaned from the court stuff available to read. I'm quite comfortable making moral judgements about the likes of Ched Evans. And I also think he should be treated differently as a rapist - as society generally deals differently with sex offenders, even after they've served their time (which of course, Evans hasn't yet). Many fans of these clubs are women, plenty of young women, and I'd hazard, some who'll have been a victim of rape and not have been or felt able to do much about it. Who knows how they'd feel listening to the chants (accepting JY's earlier comments that the chants aren't necessarily his fault)?

I guess I'm just trying to explain why I feel this case isn't just a simple returning-to-work-after-jail thing, as bleeding heart liberal as I am, believing that very few are beyond redemption. My one conflict about Evans is, while I don't want to see him play football, he's never going to be able to self-impose a level of anonymity to do any other work now. The clubs, whether they like it or not, have to take into account their supporters' views, their sponsors' views and the views of the sizeable chunk of the general population who are morally outraged by this. I'm no fan of moral outrage in general, but I'm cool with men and women being a bit outraged about rape.

As for the other crimes, I dunno tbh. What ever happened with the Plymouth Argyle keeper? I think he went back to work for them didn't he? But I can't remember if he displayed contrition or not afterwards. My opinion on Evans' "right" to work as a footballer is based as much on his actions (or lack thereof) subsequent to his release.

I think it's a bit hypocritical the whole mob justice thing going on over this. We don't see it for footballers when they're done for drink driving or assaulting people yet this IMO isn't acceptable behaviour for role models to be showing.

He's served the time given him by the courts so he should have every right to seek employment. If someone chooses to employ him it's not up to mob justice to see that they don't.

He's served the time

😆

How many more times...??

I'll assume you mean "one is on slightly dodgy ground" rather than me

Yup.

Many fans of these clubs are women, plenty of young women, and I'd hazard, some who'll have been a victim of rape and not have been or felt able to do much about it. Who knows how they'd feel listening to the chants (accepting JY's earlier comments that the chants aren't necessarily his fault)?

That's an appalling scenario but isn't that a football/football fans problem? I can see where you're coming from but I still think it's dodgy to say he shouldn't be allowed to play football.

My one conflict about Evans is, while I don't want to see him play football, he's never going to be able to self-impose a level of anonymity to do any other work now.

This is the thing - what work should he do if not football? I'm not sure if it applies exactly in this scenario but I believe in general criminals are more likely to reoffend if they are marginalised/unemployed etc.

I wonder if all the general public who are condemning him will be able to apologise to him if the Criminal cases review commission process ends up finding him not guilty ultimately? It's interesting that he gets a lot of stick for never admitting guilt or apologising as he believes he is innocent, yet I wonder if they will behave just like he did?