well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
My heart goes out to her.
I thought she couldn't remember it at all? What is certainly the case is that she won't be allowed to forget that it happened due to interventions from Evans' supporters. Much of what went on and continues to go on is indefensible to civilised people.
Yes she is a victim. I don't think that means nobody should be allowed an opinion on the advisability of her behaviour. That is not to say she is to blame for what Evans did to her, but I'm not sure I'd be proud of her actions before he turned up. Feel free to slate me for questioning that.
At first I thought that as he had done his time he should be free to work. But there are strong arguments against working in football on here, not least the inevitability of it involving work with young people. So in that respect, maybe he should pursue an alternative career. Sheff U if they employ him will probably be influenced by money. After all that's what football is all about.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Not sure I totally follow you Henry, but even if she entered the hotel lobby all over Donaldson then that, in itself, does not mean consent is granted at all - this is why these 'date rape' cases are such a minefield.
It's at times like these I am relieved I was raised a strict Catholic with no sex before my wedding night.....:)
My issue with the “he shouldn’t be allowed to play again” demands is that it seems entirely arbitrary.
If he is legally entitled to work (which it seems he is whilst on licence) then who is responsible for deciding what sort of job he is or isn’t allowed to do ? How do we draw that distinction ? I would imagine due to the nature of his crime he is already barred from working with, say children or vulnerable adults. Whilst his role as a footballer could bring him into contact with those people as a part of the clubs work in the community neither is a central part of his role which is to play football and could probably be easily mitigated. Who decides and on what criteria the other jobs that we randomly decide he can no longer carry out based on no real reasoning other than we’d prefer he didn’t.
You can dislike him, think he’s scum and say “what if he did this to your mum/gran/sister/cousin” but my main issue is that by saying he shouldn’t be able to take up work now that he has been released we’re essentially punishing him in perpetuity for a crime which he has now done the (jail) time for – that seems immoral and again – using the word on purpose – arbitrary to me neither of which are a sound basis for a legal system in a civilized country.
True, but is his victim not suffering in perpetuity? She has to live the rest of her life with what happened, should he not have to live the same amount of time with some sort of consequence? He wants to go back to life as normal and resume his football career, should he not have something of, not equal but lesser (his football career), value taken from him as consequence for his actions? The punishment does not fit the crime.
While this is one side of my view, on the previous page I set out why I felt he should not be allowed to return to a position of influence and should be made to face the same restrictions as everyone else who committed a heinous crime such as rape. He should be rehabilitated but that does not mean he gets all his privileges back as if nothing happened.
But your answer supposes that being denied the chance to play football is "not equal but lesser (his football career), value" to being raped. How did you come up with that comparison ? How could one even compare the trauma of being raped to being stopped from working in a particular profession ?
And on what criteria could it realistically be applied across a legal system which has to set guidelines for the punishment of all offenders in this country not just Ched Evans ? If it couldn't then it is, again, an entirely arbitrary punishment that has been dreamt up for this particular case.
Exactly, I'm saying it isn't equal. The victim will suffer for the rest of her life, in no way does being banned from football compare to this.
My point is that he should face the same restrictions as every other rapist. If any other rapist applied to work at Sheffield United then their cv would go straight in the bin. Also, you said banning him from football was punishing him in perpetuity. I was trying to argue that was the victim not already suffering in perpetuity? Why should a rapist suffer less than his victim?
The sentence does not fit the crime. Rapists should face far more severe punishment for their crimes. But that is a discussion for another day.
Got it. I agree that whether he plays again is a moral question for the employer (the club) but that's very different to him being legally barred from carrying out a particular profession - they can throw a rapists CV in the bin but the law doesn't force them to (unless it was for a specific category of job) and it makes no sense to decide that in this instance Ched Evans should be punished in some new way that is contrary to the laws of this country.
Agree re the sentence handed down (and the time actually served) but that wasn't Evans' decision.
well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Not sure I totally follow you Henry, but even if she entered the hotel lobby all over Donaldson then that, in itself, does not mean consent is granted at all - this is why these 'date rape' cases are such a minefield.
You are quite right. The issue here was that as she couldn't remember and the video and other evidence suggested that she had entered the hotel willingly the jury felt that there was reasonable doubt and so acquitted Donaldson.
well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
My heart goes out to her.
Yet she cant even remember it happening?
Remembering it and knowing it happened are two different things. She will know she has been violated by him and have to carry that around with her, that will leave emotional scars. Not remembering the actual event doesn't change that. At least that is what I understand large to mean.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Not sure I totally follow you Henry, but even if she entered the hotel lobby all over Donaldson then that, in itself, does not mean consent is granted at all - this is why these 'date rape' cases are such a minefield.
You are quite right. The issue here was that as she couldn't remember and the video and other evidence suggested that she had entered the hotel willingly the jury felt that there was reasonable doubt and so acquitted Donaldson.
Righto, this would have been a very tough case for the jury to decide on, one of those where you are deciding on the balance of probabilities really.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Ormiston, you are quite right. Henry has said what I meant to say. Because of the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and other evidence gathered when she later said she hadn't consented but McDonald said she had there was enough there for the jury to think there was reasonable doubt and therefore find McDonald not guilty.
the crux of this is that she willingly went back to the hotel with McDonald and in so doing McDonald can reasonably assume that she was consenting to having sex with him by doing so. At this point there was NO suggestion that Evans would be joining them. It was only when Evans found out that McDonald was at the hotel with a girl, in response to a text asking where he was, that Evans took it upon himself to go to the hotel, ask an employee to give him access to the room, get his mates outside to film him (how sick is that) and then took it upon himself to rape her. How anyone here can defend these actions is beyond me.
Her going back to the hotel room with McDonald ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT mean she is granting her consent to sex with him (and obviously not Evans either) - in legal terms it signifies nothing of the sort and McDonald would be in all sorts of trouble if he claimed that he assumed her returning to his room denoted her consent.
Another chap used that argument in a rape case once. Chap by the name of Mike Tyson.
Her consent to sex can only be granted by her words - quite literally saying "yes" or "OK" or similar - or her actions such as pro-actively initiating intercourse.
The problem is that - given drink had been taken by all three - that nobody really has a 100% clear recollection of what exactly did take place that night, it's a complete mess.
True but if i remember correctly the evidence in court such as the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and the evidence of hotel clerk and taxi driver was enough to mean that the jury felt there was reasonable doubt. IE it suggested that she could have been willingly going to the room with Donaldson.
Ormiston, you are quite right. Henry has said what I meant to say. Because of the CCTV of them entering the hotel together and other evidence gathered when she later said she hadn't consented but McDonald said she had there was enough there for the jury to think there was reasonable doubt and therefore find McDonald not guilty.
Righto, got it. I see where you are coming from now.
Although those are perhaps not the best form of words for me to use in this particular case.
well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
My heart goes out to her.
Yet she cant even remember it happening?
Remembering it and knowing it happened are two different things. She will know she has been violated by him and have to carry that around with her, that will leave emotional scars. Not remembering the actual event doesn't change that. At least that is what I understand large to mean.
The fact she has had to move away and be given a new identity after abuse from Evans 'supporters' and will possibly have to again also means she will be living with the consequences for the rest of her life.
well said Redsox. Evans will return to playing, return to earning +5k pw, return to a life of luxury, get a bit of stick for a few months but it will die down, carry on as if nothing happened. His life isn't over.
His victim will have to live it for the rest of her life. She will never forget it. She will never get over it. It will affect her in so many ways. She will never be the same again.
My heart goes out to her.
Yet she cant even remember it happening?
But is reminded of it by twitter trolls.
She also knows there is a video of the rape. I doubt she has seen it but she knows it exist.
Many people have said that they have been very drunk at times in their lives. How would anyone on here be with waking up after a drunken night and realising that while you have no memory of what happened you have been anally raped by a man? You later find out it was a man you had never met and his mates have a video of it?
You are then accused of being a gold digger as the man is famous, you are named on twitter and twice forced to move and change your identity.
And you have to stand up in court and talk about it while people question your morals because you had too much too drink.
Not defending or accusing anyone, but is simply going back to someone's room enough to be considered consent?
No it's not.
Without knowing the full facts of the case, that's why I found it strange that they both weren't convicted.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
Try thinking instead of 'seeing' and you might come to a different conclusion.
He means legally, not morally.
If you think Evans should, or can, be legally banned from playing professional football again then please explain the mechanism by which that could be done.
In an ideal world, none of the likes of Hughes, King or McCormick should have played again but that is not the way the real world works.
There are, in fact, people on this site who have done time for a variety of offences - yet they seem to have resumed their lives post-custody.
Unless you want to keep people in jail forever then what is the realistic choice?
He doesn't have to stay in jail forever but that doesn't mean that a football club should employ him, they should use the same criteria they do with a youth team coach if he passes that then employ him if he doesn't he can go and do something else.
As other posters have stated there are plenty of professions from which his conviction would exclude him, those people have to find something else to do, no one is stopping them working just not in their pre-conviction profession.
I have no issue with him working again but it's galling to think that he is going back to a very well paid job, to a very luxurious lifestyle and, wrongly, to be idolised again by a great many fans at whichever Club he pops up at.
In my opinion doing a normal job might actually be better for him.
Not defending or accusing anyone, but is simply going back to someone's room enough to be considered consent?
No it's not.
Without knowing the full facts of the case, that's why I found it strange that they both weren't convicted.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
Try thinking instead of 'seeing' and you might come to a different conclusion.
He means legally, not morally.
If you think Evans should, or can, be legally banned from playing professional football again then please explain the mechanism by which that could be done.
In an ideal world, none of the likes of Hughes, King or McCormick should have played again but that is not the way the real world works.
There are, in fact, people on this site who have done time for a variety of offences - yet they seem to have resumed their lives post-custody.
Unless you want to keep people in jail forever then what is the realistic choice?
I don't think you could legally ban him from playing football again, but depending on how the football league/FA/premier league etc are set up could he be banned from joining a member part? A bit like the NFL indefinitely suspending someone because it is a franchise. The person isn't banned from playing but they cannot be a member and therefore cannot represent part of the franchise.
This is all hypothetical by the way, I don't know nearly enough about employment laws and whether this is a feasible option. Another way would be an unspoken agreement that he isn't banned yet at the same time no one would sign him to a contract. Impractical but feasible.
Colt, how would you feel about Charlton employing him? Or do you only think he should be allowed to play football for someone else, personally I could not sit behind the goal and cheer on a convicted rapist.
Not defending or accusing anyone, but is simply going back to someone's room enough to be considered consent?
No it's not.
Without knowing the full facts of the case, that's why I found it strange that they both weren't convicted.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
Try thinking instead of 'seeing' and you might come to a different conclusion.
No need for a personal attack. It's all about our own opinions, and in mine he should be allowed to play football again.
Fair do's, my apologies if you felt it was a personal attack. It was a tad sharp but it's annoying when a lot of people spend time teasing out the complexities of an ethical problem and some people just carry on as though they've not read a single word. Having opinions is fine but I like to know what those opinions are and why they feel that other people's opinions are invalid.
Colt, how would you feel about Charlton employing him? Or do you only think he should be allowed to play football for someone else, personally I could not sit behind the goal and cheer on a convicted rapist.
me neither. In fact I'd find it very difficult to actually go.
Not defending or accusing anyone, but is simply going back to someone's room enough to be considered consent?
No it's not.
Without knowing the full facts of the case, that's why I found it strange that they both weren't convicted.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
Try thinking instead of 'seeing' and you might come to a different conclusion.
He means legally, not morally.
If you think Evans should, or can, be legally banned from playing professional football again then please explain the mechanism by which that could be done.
In an ideal world, none of the likes of Hughes, King or McCormick should have played again but that is not the way the real world works.
There are, in fact, people on this site who have done time for a variety of offences - yet they seem to have resumed their lives post-custody.
Unless you want to keep people in jail forever then what is the realistic choice?
I don't think you could legally ban him from playing football again, but depending on how the football league/FA/premier league etc are set up could he be banned from joining a member part? A bit like the NFL indefinitely suspending someone because it is a franchise. The person isn't banned from playing but they cannot be a member and therefore cannot represent part of the franchise.
This is all hypothetical by the way, I don't know nearly enough about employment laws and whether this is a feasible option. Another way would be an unspoken agreement that he isn't banned yet at the same time no one would sign him to a contract. Impractical but feasible.
Interesting point, here in Oz the National Rugby League can - and have - de-registered players and refused to allow some players to be registered to play if they have poor off-field behaviour.
Indeed, right now, a clutch of clubs are trying to sign a convicted felon by the name of Russell Packer - but the NRL are saying they won't register him.
Colt, how would you feel about Charlton employing him? Or do you only think he should be allowed to play football for someone else, personally I could not sit behind the goal and cheer on a convicted rapist.
A politely worded question so I'll respond to this one.
Imo him being allowed to play and whether I would be happy for him to play for Charlton are two separate issues. I think once someone has served their time for committing a crime then they should be allowed to continue with their life. I can understand why certain professions you would not be allowed to continue with and that makes sense. But he's a footballer. To me it seems there are two reasons people are not happy for him to play football again.
First, the role model excuse. Come on. How many footballers can be considered role models? If kids do look at all footballers as role models then parents need to take a look at themselves. There are far more people we should be pointing out are better human beings and whose lead to follow.
Second, money and fame. I sense that because he earns a decent wage people feel he shouldn't be allowed to do so again after being in prison. Personally I feel this excuse is just based on jealousy. On the fame side, I've read articles on violence against women groups saying that allowing him to play again will set an example that it is ok for men to do this. Well to me it looks as if a man committed a crime and was sent to prison, I wouldn't say that is justifying anything.
As for playing for Charlton. On an ethical standpoint I wouldn't be too happy if we signed him. however, like I've said I wouldn't say we or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to sign him. There's quite a difference.
Not defending or accusing anyone, but is simply going back to someone's room enough to be considered consent?
No it's not.
Without knowing the full facts of the case, that's why I found it strange that they both weren't convicted.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
Try thinking instead of 'seeing' and you might come to a different conclusion.
He means legally, not morally.
If you think Evans should, or can, be legally banned from playing professional football again then please explain the mechanism by which that could be done.
In an ideal world, none of the likes of Hughes, King or McCormick should have played again but that is not the way the real world works.
There are, in fact, people on this site who have done time for a variety of offences - yet they seem to have resumed their lives post-custody.
Unless you want to keep people in jail forever then what is the realistic choice?
I don't think you could legally ban him from playing football again, but depending on how the football league/FA/premier league etc are set up could he be banned from joining a member part? A bit like the NFL indefinitely suspending someone because it is a franchise. The person isn't banned from playing but they cannot be a member and therefore cannot represent part of the franchise.
This is all hypothetical by the way, I don't know nearly enough about employment laws and whether this is a feasible option. Another way would be an unspoken agreement that he isn't banned yet at the same time no one would sign him to a contract. Impractical but feasible.
IMO football clubs are there to serve their communities, and employing sex offenders in organisations and companies that serve the community should be forbidden.
I said much earlier in this discussion that football should be self policing on this issue, give him the right to play but decline to employ him. If every club took that stance he would have no where to go and no one to complain to it would be each clubs personal decision. Unfortunately we do not live in that sort of world and I am sure some club be it Sheffield United or anyone else will give him a contract, I am confident that it will not be Katrien who will be doing that, hopefully I am right as I could not support a team with him in it.
I said much earlier in this discussion that football should be self policing on this issue, give him the right to play but decline to employ him. If every club took that stance he would have no where to go and no one to complain to it would be each clubs personal decision. Unfortunately we do not live in that sort of world and I am sure some club be it Sheffield United or anyone else will give him a contract, I am confident that it will not be Katrien who will be doing that, hopefully I am right as I could not support a team with him in it.
I don't particularly agree with that either. Does it go for all professions or just football? Does it go for all crimes or just those we deem serious?
For me prison should be as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment. Otherwise what's the point? Someone makes a mistake at a young age and then no one employs them after? Hardly any sort of incentive to rehabilitate.
Comments
Yes she is a victim. I don't think that means nobody should be allowed an opinion on the advisability of her behaviour. That is not to say she is to blame for what Evans did to her, but I'm not sure I'd be proud of her actions before he turned up. Feel free to slate me for questioning that.
At first I thought that as he had done his time he should be free to work. But there are strong arguments against working in football on here, not least the inevitability of it involving work with young people. So in that respect, maybe he should pursue an alternative career. Sheff U if they employ him will probably be influenced by money. After all that's what football is all about.
It's at times like these I am relieved I was raised a strict Catholic with no sex before my wedding night.....:)
Agree re the sentence handed down (and the time actually served) but that wasn't Evans' decision.
Although those are perhaps not the best form of words for me to use in this particular case.
Either way, Evans was convicted, has served his time, imo he should be able to play football. I see very little argument against it.
She also knows there is a video of the rape. I doubt she has seen it but she knows it exist.
Many people have said that they have been very drunk at times in their lives. How would anyone on here be with waking up after a drunken night and realising that while you have no memory of what happened you have been anally raped by a man? You later find out it was a man you had never met and his mates have a video of it?
You are then accused of being a gold digger as the man is famous, you are named on twitter and twice forced to move and change your identity.
And you have to stand up in court and talk about it while people question your morals because you had too much too drink.
If you think Evans should, or can, be legally banned from playing professional football again then please explain the mechanism by which that could be done.
In an ideal world, none of the likes of Hughes, King or McCormick should have played again but that is not the way the real world works.
There are, in fact, people on this site who have done time for a variety of offences - yet they seem to have resumed their lives post-custody.
Unless you want to keep people in jail forever then what is the realistic choice?
As other posters have stated there are plenty of professions from which his conviction would exclude him, those people have to find something else to do, no one is stopping them working just not in their pre-conviction profession.
In my opinion doing a normal job might actually be better for him.
This is all hypothetical by the way, I don't know nearly enough about employment laws and whether this is a feasible option. Another way would be an unspoken agreement that he isn't banned yet at the same time no one would sign him to a contract. Impractical but feasible.
Indeed, right now, a clutch of clubs are trying to sign a convicted felon by the name of Russell Packer - but the NRL are saying they won't register him.
Imo him being allowed to play and whether I would be happy for him to play for Charlton are two separate issues. I think once someone has served their time for committing a crime then they should be allowed to continue with their life. I can understand why certain professions you would not be allowed to continue with and that makes sense. But he's a footballer. To me it seems there are two reasons people are not happy for him to play football again.
First, the role model excuse. Come on. How many footballers can be considered role models? If kids do look at all footballers as role models then parents need to take a look at themselves. There are far more people we should be pointing out are better human beings and whose lead to follow.
Second, money and fame. I sense that because he earns a decent wage people feel he shouldn't be allowed to do so again after being in prison. Personally I feel this excuse is just based on jealousy. On the fame side, I've read articles on violence against women groups saying that allowing him to play again will set an example that it is ok for men to do this. Well to me it looks as if a man committed a crime and was sent to prison, I wouldn't say that is justifying anything.
As for playing for Charlton. On an ethical standpoint I wouldn't be too happy if we signed him. however, like I've said I wouldn't say we or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to sign him. There's quite a difference.
I also think football clubs with any conscience wouldn't let him play for them.
But how many Club are there with a conscience? Not many IMHO. I really hope we would be one.
Unfortunately we do not live in that sort of world and I am sure some club be it Sheffield United or anyone else will give him a contract, I am confident that it will not be Katrien who will be doing that, hopefully I am right as I could not support a team with him in it.
For me prison should be as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment. Otherwise what's the point? Someone makes a mistake at a young age and then no one employs them after? Hardly any sort of incentive to rehabilitate.