NFR Ched Evans- would you want him back if it was us?

[Berserker]

I know people go to prison for a crime and serve their sentence. But that's not all to being punished for a crime. If a person does something that is not acceptable by society then the villian gets a stigma and reputation attached to themselves that doesn't go away, even when the prison sentence is complete. It should be something considered and accepted by criminals, and i'm sure it is by most, that committing an offence affects their lives for the future in many, many different ways, and things will never ever go back to how they were before the crime was committed.

[alfie]

Sometimes with this sort of crime it really is  one word against another, I had a friend many years ago who was accused of rape by a girl, she done all the correct things, going to the police, giving all sorts of evidence, my friend of course denied it all, he was named she wasn't, he was found guilty, but before he received his sentence the girl admitted that she was not raped but had agreed to sex, but then felt guilty after the event. My friend was immediately acquitted but because he was named it never left him, he was treated differently even by some of his so called close friends, he eventually move abroad. Ched Evans still says he was not guilt of rape will we ever know if he is innocent?.

[Hurby]

Evans still says he was not guilt of rape will we ever know if he is innocent?.

As you know, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now reviewing Evans' sentence, i.e. checking whether the law has been applied correctly to the presented facts. This is the last chance to have his name cleared if there has been any miscarriage of justice at all. It is now a high profile case and with certain importance for judicial precedence so the review surely will be very meticulously done. I believe that Sheffield United and the professional football bodies will stay well clear of making any decisions until that review is complete whilst in the meantime are taking legal and PR advice to be prepared for any eventuality. Allowing the guy to train in the interim is fair and does not engage United or the Football League in any way. I think however that the actions and statements of some people in relation to his possible re-signing have been somewhat hasty prior to the conclusions of the review commission.

[aaronmcguigan]

She doesnt get her old life back , why should he?

[alfie]

Evans still says he was not guilt of rape will we ever know if he is innocent?.

As you know, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now reviewing Evans' sentence, i.e. checking whether the law has been applied correctly to the presented facts. This is the last chance to have his name cleared if there has been any miscarriage of justice at all. It is now a high profile case and with certain importance for judicial precedence so the review surely will be very meticulously done. I believe that Sheffield United and the professional football bodies will stay well clear of making any decisions until that review is complete whilst in the meantime are taking legal and PR advice to be prepared for any eventuality. Allowing the guy to train in the interim is fair and does not engage United or the Football League in any way. I think however that the actions and statements of some people in relation to his possible re-signing have been somewhat hasty prior to the conclusions of the review commission.

Just for clarity sake I am in no way implying that he is innocent, or guilty for that matter, I am just making the point from first hand knowledge how hard it is to prove one way or the other.

[FFC1987]

Some valid points all round. I'd still ask the question, what job is fit for a rapist that a member of society with a clean record can undertake giving the job the stigma 'fit for a rapist'. I understand not in the public eye and not a position as a role model but I also think you could damage a job's reputation by allowing such candidates to do the work.

I really think its up for the league association to step in here and say, that they feel it inappropriate for him to represent the league. Similar to say boxing, where your licence is revoked if you have such a record. If the league deny the club's application for his signing on, he won't be given the opportunity to play.

Regarding Ennis and her online scutiny, she could have posted and received abuse. Look at any politicians account, or any footballers, they just get trolled as unfortunately, social media allows it. This is wrong but i'm just highlighting that it isn't because of her support against Evan's, its just a recurrence anyway. For example. she posted how proud she was for winning her medals and some clever clogs immediately wrote 'sit on my face' and another simply wrote n*****. People are horrible and I for one, have no idea how to stop this without seriously regulating social media....which won't happen. It's wrong.

[Oakeshott]

"I'd still ask the question, what job is fit for a rapist that a member of society with a clean record can undertake giving the job the stigma 'fit for a rapist'"

With respect, I think that is the wrong question. Obviously one can't assign certain jobs as for "criminals" or more specifically "rapists", "murderers", "burglars" only, or to stigmatise such jobs for non criminals working in them by narrowing down too far what jobs are open to criminals as a general group or specific types of offenders. Surely the more realistic approach is to say that, because of the nature of the offence, offenders can't work in specific roles, either ever or for a stated period, because of the obvious risk. That a convicted paedophile can't have jobs in contact with kids makes obvious sense, but beyond that why restrict what he or she is allowed to do?

Unless a non paedophile murderer or rapist is regarded as an enduring danger to the public, in which case they shouldn't be released, once they are released then it seems to me that they should be able to seek any employment they wish, always remembering that seeking is one thing, getting is another. Any potential employer will obviously have regard to the offence, and to the possible damage employing such a person will cause their company's reputation. But some will be more open to the idea of second chances and, for want of a better word, redemption than others. And relevant too may be whether the individual worked for the company before the offence - someone known to be a conscientious employee with an otherwise blameless record might be more likely to be given a second chance by that company than another one where there is no knowledge of him or her except the conviction.

I don't know what is going on at SU anymore than I suspect does anyone else not connected to the Club, but it is reasonable to assume that they had found Evans a satisfactory employee prior to his arrest and although deploring his offence are open to the possibility of giving him a second chance. If so, I wouldn't criticise them for that, indeed I'd rather admire them.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on how we'd feel if one of our favourite players was in the same situation - would those who feel strongly that Evans shouldn't play again - for SU or any professional club - be as firm in their views if it was someone who'd played for us for several years? Or might some take the view that here was a young man, no doubt like many another rather puffed up by his earning power and position as minor public figure, who was convicted of a rape in, as far as we know, non violent circumstances, was sentenced at the lighter end of the scale reflecting the judge's view of the seriousness of the offence, who has served his sentence without causing trouble, been released quite early and who very likely will never offend again. In those circumstances I'd be open to giving the player concerned a chance to redeem himself.

[epsomraver]

"I'd still ask the question, what job is fit for a rapist that a member of society with a clean record can undertake giving the job the stigma 'fit for a rapist'"

With respect, I think that is the wrong question. Obviously one can't assign certain jobs as for "criminals" or more specifically "rapists", "murderers", "burglars" only, or to stigmatise such jobs for non criminals working in them by narrowing down too far what jobs are open to criminals as a general group or specific types of offenders. Surely the more realistic approach is to say that, because of the nature of the offence, offenders can't work in specific roles, either ever or for a stated period, because of the obvious risk. That a convicted paedophile can't have jobs in contact with kids makes obvious sense, but beyond that why restrict what he or she is allowed to do?

Unless a non paedophile murderer or rapist is regarded as an enduring danger to the public, in which case they shouldn't be released, once they are released then it seems to me that they should be able to seek any employment they wish, always remembering that seeking is one thing, getting is another. Any potential employer will obviously have regard to the offence, and to the possible damage employing such a person will cause their company's reputation. But some will be more open to the idea of second chances and, for want of a better word, redemption than others. And relevant too may be whether the individual worked for the company before the offence - someone known to be a conscientious employee with an otherwise blameless record might be more likely to be given a second chance by that company than another one where there is no knowledge of him or her except the conviction.

I don't know what is going on at SU anymore than I suspect does anyone else not connected to the Club, but it is reasonable to assume that they had found Evans a satisfactory employee prior to his arrest and although deploring his offence are open to the possibility of giving him a second chance. If so, I wouldn't criticise them for that, indeed I'd rather admire them.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on how we'd feel if one of our favourite players was in the same situation - would those who feel strongly that Evans shouldn't play again - for SU or any professional club - be as firm in their views if it was someone who'd played for us for several years? Or might some take the view that here was a young man, no doubt like many another rather puffed up by his earning power and position as minor public figure, who was convicted of a rape in, as far as we know, non violent circumstances, was sentenced at the lighter end of the scale reflecting the judge's view of the seriousness of the offence, who has served his sentence without causing trouble, been released quite early and who very likely will never offend again. In those circumstances I'd be open to giving the player concerned a chance to redeem himself.

0001.jpeg

[FFC1987]

"I'd still ask the question, what job is fit for a rapist that a member of society with a clean record can undertake giving the job the stigma 'fit for a rapist'"

With respect, I think that is the wrong question. Obviously one can't assign certain jobs as for "criminals" or more specifically "rapists", "murderers", "burglars" only, or to stigmatise such jobs for non criminals working in them by narrowing down too far what jobs are open to criminals as a general group or specific types of offenders. Surely the more realistic approach is to say that, because of the nature of the offence, offenders can't work in specific roles, either ever or for a stated period, because of the obvious risk. That a convicted paedophile can't have jobs in contact with kids makes obvious sense, but beyond that why restrict what he or she is allowed to do?

Unless a non paedophile murderer or rapist is regarded as an enduring danger to the public, in which case they shouldn't be released, once they are released then it seems to me that they should be able to seek any employment they wish, always remembering that seeking is one thing, getting is another. Any potential employer will obviously have regard to the offence, and to the possible damage employing such a person will cause their company's reputation. But some will be more open to the idea of second chances and, for want of a better word, redemption than others. And relevant too may be whether the individual worked for the company before the offence - someone known to be a conscientious employee with an otherwise blameless record might be more likely to be given a second chance by that company than another one where there is no knowledge of him or her except the conviction.

I don't know what is going on at SU anymore than I suspect does anyone else not connected to the Club, but it is reasonable to assume that they had found Evans a satisfactory employee prior to his arrest and although deploring his offence are open to the possibility of giving him a second chance. If so, I wouldn't criticise them for that, indeed I'd rather admire them.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on how we'd feel if one of our favourite players was in the same situation - would those who feel strongly that Evans shouldn't play again - for SU or any professional club - be as firm in their views if it was someone who'd played for us for several years? Or might some take the view that here was a young man, no doubt like many another rather puffed up by his earning power and position as minor public figure, who was convicted of a rape in, as far as we know, non violent circumstances, was sentenced at the lighter end of the scale reflecting the judge's view of the seriousness of the offence, who has served his sentence without causing trouble, been released quite early and who very likely will never offend again. In those circumstances I'd be open to giving the player concerned a chance to redeem himself.

I'd say its a very valid discussion point actually because in saying a footballer can't play football but is fit to be say, a bin man, you are doing exactly as I said, applying a stigma to a job and its worth to society. My view is, they should be allowed to apply for said jobs but whether they get taken on is another matter entirely and again, is down to the league to enforce, not the court of law. I appreciate the concept of sensitively and the appropriateness of people working in places that isn't suitable, teachers etc if you have an offence. I don't think that side of the argument is necessarily applicable here unless you go down the route of role model to children and someone with this kind of offence certainly falls foul to.

Personally, i've been down the route of devil's advocate here as I understand the legal and moral dilemma's here but still think he should be given the opportunity to apply and its up to the league to enforce. However, I can tell you now, I would be against say [insert Fulham legends name] returning to the club if he was a convicted rapist.

[TonyGilroy]

 However, I can tell you now, I would be against say xxxx returning to the club if he was a convicted rapist.
[/quote]

Moderators all scream in unison.

[dannyboi-ffc]

"I'd still ask the question, what job is fit for a rapist that a member of society with a clean record can undertake giving the job the stigma 'fit for a rapist'"

With respect, I think that is the wrong question. Obviously one can't assign certain jobs as for "criminals" or more specifically "rapists", "murderers", "burglars" only, or to stigmatise such jobs for non criminals working in them by narrowing down too far what jobs are open to criminals as a general group or specific types of offenders. Surely the more realistic approach is to say that, because of the nature of the offence, offenders can't work in specific roles, either ever or for a stated period, because of the obvious risk. That a convicted paedophile can't have jobs in contact with kids makes obvious sense, but beyond that why restrict what he or she is allowed to do?

Unless a non paedophile murderer or rapist is regarded as an enduring danger to the public, in which case they shouldn't be released, once they are released then it seems to me that they should be able to seek any employment they wish, always remembering that seeking is one thing, getting is another. Any potential employer will obviously have regard to the offence, and to the possible damage employing such a person will cause their company's reputation. But some will be more open to the idea of second chances and, for want of a better word, redemption than others. And relevant too may be whether the individual worked for the company before the offence - someone known to be a conscientious employee with an otherwise blameless record might be more likely to be given a second chance by that company than another one where there is no knowledge of him or her except the conviction.

I don't know what is going on at SU anymore than I suspect does anyone else not connected to the Club, but it is reasonable to assume that they had found Evans a satisfactory employee prior to his arrest and although deploring his offence are open to the possibility of giving him a second chance. If so, I wouldn't criticise them for that, indeed I'd rather admire them.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on how we'd feel if one of our favourite players was in the same situation - would those who feel strongly that Evans shouldn't play again - for SU or any professional club - be as firm in their views if it was someone who'd played for us for several years? Or might some take the view that here was a young man, no doubt like many another rather puffed up by his earning power and position as minor public figure, who was convicted of a rape in, as far as we know, non violent circumstances, was sentenced at the lighter end of the scale reflecting the judge's view of the seriousness of the offence, who has served his sentence without causing trouble, been released quite early and who very likely will never offend again. In those circumstances I'd be open to giving the player concerned a chance to redeem himself.

I'd say its a very valid discussion point actually because in saying a footballer can't play football but is fit to be say, a bin man, you are doing exactly as I said, applying a stigma to a job and its worth to society. My view is, they should be allowed to apply for said jobs but whether they get taken on is another matter entirely and again, is down to the league to enforce, not the court of law. I appreciate the concept of sensitively and the appropriateness of people working in places that isn't suitable, teachers etc if you have an offence. I don't think that side of the argument is necessarily applicable here unless you go down the route of role model to children and someone with this kind of offence certainly falls foul to.

Personally, i've been down the route of devil's advocate here as I understand the legal and moral dilemma's here but still think he should be given the opportunity to apply and its up to the league to enforce. However, I can tell you now, I would be against say xxxx returning to the club if he was a convicted rapist. ( I'm using  an example of a club hero returning, hopefully no law suite to follow!)

I don't believe it! I actually agree with you again.

I think he has a cheek for trying to get his career back but him trying to be a footballer again isn't my problem. My problem is the club that dares to give him the opportunity. Football should close the door in his face but that's for the clubs/ fa to do and not him himself.

I'm glad you'd be against a Fulham player in these circumstances and I hope everyone would. But to those who don't want a Fulham player but will turn a blind eye to another club. That's just being a hypocrite.  

But I agree it's the league/ clubs responsibility to ban him and not Evans himself

[FFC1987]

 However, I can tell you now, I would be against say a club legend returning to the club if he was a convicted rapist.
[/quote]

Moderators all scream in unison.
[/quote]

In all seriousness, would you accept a club legend back if he had this conviction on his head?

Edit: I should note, I don't think evans is obviously considered a club legend either.

[TonyGilroy]

Would I accept a club legend back if he had a rape conviction?  No

Would I as a moderator (which I'm not, thank God) be relaxed about postings imagining Fulham players as hypothetical rapists? No again. In spades.

[FFC1987]

Would I accept a club legend back if he had a rape conviction?  No

Would I as a moderator (which I'm not, thank God) be relaxed about postings imagining Fulham players as hypothetical rapists? No again. In spades.

Oh, you were actually being serious. I'll amend the original post to [insert Fulham legends name] to appease this but I think you're being rather pedantic.

[TonyGilroy]

Would I accept a club legend back if he had a rape conviction?  No

Would I as a moderator (which I'm not, thank God) be relaxed about postings imagining Fulham players as hypothetical rapists? No again. In spades.

Oh, you were actually being serious. I'll amend the original post to [insert Fulham legends name] to appease this but I think you're being rather pedantic.

I'm a lawyer. Of course I'm pedantic

[FFC1987]

Would I accept a club legend back if he had a rape conviction?  No

Would I as a moderator (which I'm not, thank God) be relaxed about postings imagining Fulham players as hypothetical rapists? No again. In spades.

Oh, you were actually being serious. I'll amend the original post to [insert Fulham legends name] to appease this but I think you're being rather pedantic.

I'm a lawyer. Of course I'm pedantic

Well its changed so all is well again in the world.