Ched Evans

[dom9]

Should he get a second chance? Are people/media overusing the 'rape' word?

My opinion:

1. He's been convicted, served his punishment, and deserves a chance to rehabilitate himself.

2. He also has the right to maintain his innocence, and if the law allows, then appeal the decision. If he is convinced he is innocent, then that is up to him.

3. For the rest of us, he is a convicted rapist until such time as he has a successful appeal. No ifs. No buts. He has been convicted of the crime by a jury. Whether you think the evidence was strong enough is irrelevant in the wider picture. You're entitled to your opinion however.

4. He has acquired a new title "Convicted rapist" Ched Evans. His name is rarely now mentioned in the media without that title. That title will follow him until his dying day, unless he somehow gets acquitted in the meantime. That's the way the modern media works. Is it right to do that? It's debatable.

[Venton]

My opinion:

1. He's been convicted, served his punishment, and deserves a chance to rehabilitate himself.

2. He also has the right to maintain his innocence, and if the law allows, then appeal the decision. If he is convinced he is innocent, then that is up to him.

3. For the rest of us, he is a convicted rapist until such time as he has a successful appeal. No ifs. No buts. He has been convicted of the crime by a jury. Whether you think the evidence was strong enough is irrelevant in the wider picture. You're entitled to your opinion however.

4. He has acquired a new title "Convicted rapist" Ched Evans. His name is rarely now mentioned in the media without that title. That title will follow him until his dying day, unless he somehow gets acquitted in the meantime. That's the way the modern media works. Is it right to do that? It's debatable.

I'd agree with that, but with one amendment and one addition. Firstly he hasn't served his punishment yet, he is allowed out of prison on licence, with conditions, until he has served it.

And the addition is, do we look at certain crimes with such revulsion that we want people who have committed them to be role models and entertainers afterwards? For example, when Rolf Harris comes out, do we think it's right for him to be given a show again? I'm all for rehabilitation through work (it's essential) but are there certain jobs excluded depending on the crime?

[Boogs]

My opinion:

1. He's been convicted, served his punishment, and deserves a chance to rehabilitate himself.

2. He also has the right to maintain his innocence, and if the law allows, then appeal the decision. If he is convinced he is innocent, then that is up to him.

3. For the rest of us, he is a convicted rapist until such time as he has a successful appeal. No ifs. No buts. He has been convicted of the crime by a jury. Whether you think the evidence was strong enough is irrelevant in the wider picture. You're entitled to your opinion however.

4. He has acquired a new title "Convicted rapist" Ched Evans. His name is rarely now mentioned in the media without that title. That title will follow him until his dying day, unless he somehow gets acquitted in the meantime. That's the way the modern media works. Is it right to do that? It's debatable.

He hasn't served his punishment though. He's done half of the time given to him by the judge and he is out on licence. While he is on licence, I personally don't think he should be allowed to kick a ball. The rest I agree though

[dom9]

I'd agree with that, but with one amendment and one addition. Firstly he hasn't served his punishment yet, he is allowed out of prison on licence, with conditions, until he has served it.

And the addition is, do we look at certain crimes with such revulsion that we want people who have committed them to be role models and entertainers afterwards? For example, when Rolf Harris comes out, do we think it's right for him to be given a show again? I'm all for rehabilitation through work (it's essential) but are there certain jobs excluded depending on the crime?

He hasn't served his punishment though. He's done half of the time given to him by the judge and he is out on licence. While he is on licence, I personally don't think he should be allowed to kick a ball. The rest I agree though

Fair points.

[Ams12]

This may sound bad, but after reading the lowered tone in this thread (i've only read the last few pages properly so apologies if i offend anyone, i am not intending to), here is what a couple of us were discussing at work the other day, (and i dont recall every outcome of the case)...she was willing to go back with him knowing full well the possible outcome. She went to his hotel, hotels have staff there. If he was mistreating her surely they would have said/done something? This kind of thing is happening every weekend at least! A drunk young girl goes home with a drunk young guy or vice versa for purely one reason only...not like anybody in that state usually takes some back home to play scrabble or what have you. I think it's a little unfair...maybe she thought she could get some money out of him as he was a footballer.
(Please correct me if i am wrong on any details of the case as like i said i dont know the full details. I also think raping someone is wrong. But i do know that there is a culture of casual 'happenings' and maybe this case is trying to claim rape over a casual encounter due to the people involved.

[Venton]

You are getting the details of the case wrong, you need to go and read it.

[Ams12]

Thank you, i will take some time to go through the details

[Venton]

Link is here (to the appeal, which he lost).

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

[Doc_Piptorious]

He is what 24 or 25? Surely if he is so keen to rehabilitate he could learn some new skills and work away from footy, or get a non skilled job somewhere.




This line that footy is his trade and he cannot do anything else is laughable (That horrible little agent, Eric whatshisname, was trying to bleat on about that the other day).


He is a young man who has been found guilty of a pretty horrible crime. His age means there are loads of options open to him if he wants to learn a new trade so this footy is his trade shyte does not wash with me.

[Venton]

He is what 24 or 25? Surely if he is so keen to rehabilitate he could learn some new skills and work away from footy, or get a non skilled job somewhere.




This line that footy is his trade and he cannot do anything else is laughable (That horrible little agent, Eric whatshisname, was trying to bleat on about that the other day).


He is a young man who has been found guilty of a pretty horrible crime. His age means there are loads of options open to him if he wants to learn a new trade so this footy is his trade shyte does not wash with me.

I agree with that. Not quite sure where pursuing a profession of one's choosing suddenly made it onto the statute books as a human right. Tell that to a couple of hundred thousand miners.

[ChesterDave]

Not really a similar comparison. Nobody banned miners from a closed pit working in another. If they had been banned from taking a job as a miner that was on offer then it would be a valid comparison

[Doc_Piptorious]

Not really a similar comparison. Nobody banned miners from a closed pit working in another. If they had been banned from taking a job as a miner that was on offer then it would be a valid comparison

But he is not banned from playing football. The issue for him is that people are against the idea of a convicted rapist playing for the club they support and/or advertise through.

If a club really wanted him then he would be kicking a ball now, but to date clubs are deciding that taking him on would not be worth the hassle it would cause.

It is not really something unique to football either. I am sure if a convicted rapist rocked up to Tesco looking for work, then people there would have to weigh up whether or not hiring him was going to be good or bad for their store.


It is up to Evans to show that he is willing to adapt and rehabilitate. If he is not wanted in football then he should be trying to do something with himself to show that he is making an effort. Then maybe in the future that effort at rehabilitation would allow him to get back into football.

But he does not have some sort of right to be allowed to play football and not attempt to try for something else. Smacks of him wanting to be back on the gravy train and not being willing to try and do a "regular" job or train to get a new skill.


As things stand he can rightly apply to join any football club he likes, but no club is obliged to take him on. Maybe if he was a top class player some club would suddenly forget about his crime and hire him, but he is not a top player so the crime he was convicted of sees him treated pretty much how any other convicted rapist would be by a potential employer.


I have very little sympathy for him though. He seemed to care little for the woman he was with that night and what was done to her, and care even less about his own partner that he was doing the dirt on.

[ChesterDave]

I'd agree with that, but with one amendment and one addition. Firstly he hasn't served his punishment yet, he is allowed out of prison on licence, with conditions, until he has served it.

And the addition is, do we look at certain crimes with such revulsion that we want people who have committed them to be role models and entertainers afterwards? For example, when Rolf Harris comes out, do we think it's right for him to be given a show again? I'm all for rehabilitation through work (it's essential) but are there certain jobs excluded depending on the crime?

I'd rather the responsibility of teaching children who is an appropriate role model fell to the parents than the governing body of a sport.

Parents should be teaching their sons to respect women (or even more appealingly their children to respect people regardless of gender).

Floyd Mayweather has 3 convictions for beating women and TV companies are falling over themselves to pay him £30m to show his fights. Leslie Grantham is a familiar face on TV and stage... And a convicted murderer. You could probably produce a list as long as your arm of musicians who have convictions that would see them firmly implanted in the "**** who should not be considered a role model" circle of the Venn diagram although those seem to have had a vastly different reaction to their pursuance of their career

He should have the same right as any convicted criminal of pursuing a career that is not at complete odds with his conviction - ie a teacher convicted of having sex with underage girls should not be allowed in the classroom, a barrister convicted or perjury; don't allow him to practice law.

[Fivex]

I had absolutely no idea Grantham had a murder conviction

In terms of Ched Evans, I can't get my head around why, if he maintains his innocence, why he's not been advised to lay low and keep out of the media until his appeal is heard. Anyone on the planet could have predicted the furore he's experiencing now so why hasn't he been advised to wait until his conviction is overturned if he's so certain that it's going to be?

[Chazza]

I had absolutely no idea Grantham had a murder conviction

In terms of Ched Evans, I can't get my head around why, if he maintains his innocence, why he's not been advised to lay low and keep out of the media until his appeal is heard. Anyone on the planet could have predicted the furore he's experiencing now so why hasn't he been advised to wait until his conviction is overturned if he's so certain that it's going to be?

The really weird bit for me is his girlfriend's (who he was in a relationship with at the time of the event) old man starting up a website protesting Evans innocence.

http://chedevans.com/

At the very least Evans has cheated on your daughter and you go to the effort of making a website to try and show he is not a rapist. Why are you not giving him a slap and telling him to **** off out of your lives?