Did Sheffield United help the police when the police were investigating who had named the victim? I could be wrong, but I believe it's happened on two occasions (ie once with her original name, and once with a new identity)
Did Sheffield United help the police when the police were investigating who had named the victim? I could be wrong, but I believe it's happened on two occasions (ie once with her original name, and once with a new identity)
The difference between mcormack and evans is huge, the death of two kids is the worse ending result of an action that could ever happen
Luke mcormack made a decision to drink then drive, and kids died
In would want to kill him with my bare hands
But greenie Jr if you imagine that your son made an error of judgement with regards drink driving
Would you forgive him even if the result ended the same way
It was an error of judgement
Now raping someone is not an error of judgement, it's not a mistake it's a calculated decision a choice
Now I reckon there is every chance that you or I could have found ourselves in luke mcormacks position but zero chance you or I could end up like Ched evans
I actually think you're being far too light on those who drink and drive.
Those who drive drunk have made a decision that travelling around in a manner convenient to them is more important than the lives of all the pedestrians and others drivers on the road. Those who do it should be named and shamed. The potential consequences are massive; children being mown down, whole families being wiped out. It is not a case of "oh sorry, bit of an error of judement there".
Oh, and I'd say again, what his family and his girlfriends family have done since towards the victim is totally abhorant and for that alone he shouldn't return to football.
The actions of his and his grilfriends family to the victim are potentially a crime in itself , are you suggesting he should be held responsible and punished on the strength of what others have done now , bizarre Of course he has to be punished for what he has done
The difference is that drink driving now is unacceptable and since around the 70s has been becoming more and more so but a whole generation of people probably around 60 yrs old now, it was acceptable
Drink driving is something that most people will have done, not paralytic drunk but over the limit
Many would've done it The day after
How many people are rapists or have the capacity to be one
Matthew Syed in today's Times. Another perspective.
"Churchill was right. It is the difficult cases that test our commitment to progressive ideals. It is easy to parade one’s belief in second chances when it comes to shoplifters and tax evaders. It is easier still when it comes to youth offenders and those who are still, basically, children. But what about drug dealers and murderers? What about rapists?
The more heinous the crime, the more tempting to fudge the idea of rehabilitation. That is what has happened with Ched Evans. That rape is a despicable crime is universally agreed upon. That the victim will pay the price for years to come is an agonising truth. That she has been neglected in the furore surrounding the return of the footballer to training at Sheffield United is stomach-churning. But still, the question remains: do we believe in second chances or don’t we?
“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country,” Churchill wrote. “A desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry of all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every person — these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”
The return to employment is a cornerstone of rehabilitation. Norway, which has the lowest level of recidivism in Europe, makes sure that those who leave its prisons have assistance in getting a job. They recognise that denying employment opportunities to ex-convicts feeds the cycle of crime and punishment. If plumbers and landscape gardeners deserve second chances, so too do footballers.
The crime of rape, it is worth emphasising, is savage and intimate. It is appalling that conviction rates are so low and that, for many years, the justice system often scorned women who came forward with allegations. But we signal our contempt for a crime with the severity of the sentence. We should campaign for tougher sentences and continue to educate police forces so that they investigate allegations with urgency and sensitivity. But we do none of these, none whatever, by punishing a man twice.
There is something truly saddening about the accusations of misogyny that have been levelled at those who argue that Evans should be given a chance to play football, pay taxes and reintegrate into society. It is as if Churchill had never written his warning. The idea seems to be that we show our concern for the victim by denying lawful opportunities to the perpetrator. This is both wrong and dangerous.
Due process: those are the two words that have been conspicuous by their absence in recent weeks. Evans was convicted via a fair procedure and he has now been released on licence having served half his term. He is perfectly entitled to return to work. It is ludicrous to suggest that he should only be allowed back into football once he has confessed to his crime and shown remorse. He is seeking leave to appeal his sentence via the Criminal Cases Review Board. How can a man seeking to demonstrate his innocence admit to his own guilt?
Some have pointed out that if a professional commits an offence, he can be stripped of his licence to practise. Doctors are struck off. Lawyers are disbarred. But this happens when the offence is related to their work and undermines the trust we place in someone in that position; it doesn’t happen when the offence is unrelated to their job. So, how does this reasoning apply to Evans? As David Shipley, a reader of The Times, posted: “In what way does a rape conviction undermine a manager’s confidence that a footballer can put the ball in the net?”
And consider this too. Professional licences are revoked with at least a nod to due process. Doctors and teachers are fully aware of the crimes that will terminate their employment indefinitely. There are appeals procedures and frameworks to ensure that the rules are applied fairly and without individual rights being trampled by the rush to judgment. In other words, it is the polar opposite of what is happening today with Evans.
Take a step back and witness what mob justice looks like in the media age. A convict’s employment prospects as a footballer are being determined not by agreed procedures, but by social hysteria, media frenzy, online petitions, and the actions of celebrities. To be clear: everyone has a right to express an opinion. But only a fool would deny that this process is dangerously arbitrary. Is this how we are going to determine employment prospects for all released criminals, or only for those considered newsworthy by the media?
The most egregious argument I save till last. Footballers, we are told, are role models. It is remarkable that this ludicrous red herring still does the rounds. Footballers have not auditioned to be role models and, in many cases, do not wish to be role models. If kids look up to them, it is up to adults to explain that just because someone is good at kicking a ball, it doesn’t mean they should be looked to for moral guidance. We should never tire of repeating the words of Charles Barkley, the NBA player: “I am not a role model . . . I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball, doesn’t mean I should raise your kids.”
The only possible lesson that youngsters are going to take from the Evans affair is that if you commit rape, you will go to jail and your reputation will be rightly shredded. But if he is afforded the right to return as a footballer, they will glimpse another precious message too: once you have been released from prison, you will be given a second chance.
The Evans case is important in its own right, but it has come to symbolise much more than the future of the 25-year-old. Ultimately, it is about our capacity to separate our abhorrence at the nature of a crime from our commitment to second chances. When these things blur, rehabilitation dies. And without a commitment to due process, as Churchill rightly argued, justice is a sham."
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
if I'm correct, her argument was that she was too drink to consent. How did she consent with the other guy then? IMO there's too many holes in the case to fully say he's guilty.
You are NOT correct. You are entirely wrong. She did not make that argument. (In fact unless she was a lawyer specialising in criminal cases, particularly sexual offences, it is very unlikely she would have even realised the significance of the consent issue under current legislation - why would she?) Her position was that she could remember nothing of the events and thought/wondered whether her drink had been spiked. End of.
The police constructed the rape case based upon what Evans admitted and the other evidence available from his friend, etc, etc.
Fact is, they've already had the trial, and he was convicted. He had an appeal, and it was turned down.
Don't think anyone is arguing that even if he was innocent he still shouldn't play football. People seem to be focusing on the details of the case when its all been done.
The argument should be whether a convicted rapist should be allowed to come back to the sport after serving half his time. For me, that's a no.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
He didn't ignore it, he addressed it. How can a man intending to appeal state anything but his innocence? Of course that very fact is another reason his return to football should be entertained neither by club nor player.
Syed makes a compelling case - he is a thoughtful and excellent writer - but I couldn't disagree more with him on the question of being a role model: because Charles Barkley was a reluctant one doesn't stop kids seeing him that way.
And when Evans is next sent into a school to take football training with the girls, which parent isn't going to have an issue with that? (EDIT Or which father will want his son to be influenced by the way Evans thinks?). His role is similar to a profession: it is public facing, influential and players carry the reputation of their clubs on their shoulders. Anyone think Sheffield Utd are delighted with their decision to let him train with them again? They should have sacked him on conviction in my view.
Syed is persuasive and made me think - but the words of a wise old preacher spring to mind: forgiveness doesn't require trust. Society may come to forgive, but trusting him as if it had never happened is in my view inappropriate for Evans, football, society - and most importantly his victim.
I had sought to aid the process of debate by adding some clarity to the issues at hand, something I do not seem to have achieved. I will offer a few further comments.
The definition of rape shown above is NOT the legal definition. The following is the clarification of current legal definition of rape as recorded by the Rape Crisis Centre.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force on 1st May 2004. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen and modernise the law on sexual offences, whilst improving preventative measures and the protection of individuals from sexual offenders .......
The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief consent.The word 'consent' in the context of the offence of rape is now defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A person consents if she or he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The essence of this definition is the agreement by choice. The question of whether the victim consented is a matter for a jury to decide,
I referred to the basis of the case and the conviction on an earlier post. I confess to being uncomfortable with many of the "noises off" surrounding this case though the issue of rehabilitation is valid. I see 4 issues;
1. We need to be careful on passing judgement on the court process involved in any trial. I have served on a jury. Remember for all we see in print, the nature of testimony given by each & every party can give a notably different interpretation of evidence. We were not party to jury deliberations and any emphasis they chose to put an any piece of evidence or testimony.
We come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences and live in a society allowing us to decide our own values on which we base our decisions. We are however governed by laws which at some level date to the 11th century. They now reflect the "case law wisdom" created by respective societies ever since. It is not perfect but it is based on "a duty of care for each citizen to do no harm to others." It is no bad starting point.
2. Evans was given a prison sentence in line with prevailing judicial practice. He has served the sentence in line with prevailing custodial practice. In law he is entitled to return any gainful employment he is legally able to follow. We may not like it but we cannot seek to retry him via a court of public opinion. That is akin to the law of a lynch mob.
3. However that does not diminish the seriousness of the conviction nor should it impact on our own civil liberties. In pursuing a football career you are governed by the disciplines of that career. The very framework of the profession publicly links you indelibly to and positions you as a paid representative of a specific club. It is entirely reasonable for people linked with a club to express opinion on any employee of the club and the behavioural standards to which they are being linked.
That is the nature of the employment Evans chose to pursue. That not unreasonably places him, not unlike other professions, with an additional duty of care, which you breach at your peril. Regrettably for Evans that may mean his road to rehabilitation may need to follow a different path.
4. This recent attention has arisen because the PFA has sought to pressure Sheffield U to allow Evans to return to training. Why was that necessary? How is that in the interest of the club, the game or the reputation of the PFA? It forces people to make decisions on Evans as a convicted rapist. Why, if his legal team are preparing a case for the Case Review Commission to overturn the conviction and seem confident of such an outcome?
The "something that is not right here" I suggest covers this approach. The cynic in me suggests a calculated move to "normalize" the situation evidencing Evans had the support of the wider community and his profession.
I am not familiar with the actions of his friends, family or supporters but perhaps those seeking to create a groundswell of "public opinion" by whatever methods need reminding such opinion will be irrelevant to the outcome.
If his legal team are able to present additional evidence to the court in respect of the events of that evening, which the court may consider to have changed the verdict THAT IS A MATTER FOR LEGAL PROCESS.
No matter the imperfections of our legal system I think we should all be grateful for that.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
Your point two. What you say is correct. Save that it is NOT "the law of the lynch mob" for Sheff Utd to consider, in the cold light of day, that it would not be in their best interests to re-employ him. The factors they should be taking into account are numerous but should certainly include commercial considerations (like would we ever get any sponsors ever again?) and more generally, their public image.
Your point four. Is that correct? I assumed the Case Review Commission had no power to overturn a verdict. Are not their options either to turn down the application or to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal?
BTW, here's the Commission's stats since it started work:
Case Statistics - Figures to 31 October 2014 Total applications*: 18513 Cases waiting: 688 Cases under review: 835 Completed: 16990 (incl. ineligible), 565 referrals Heard by Court of Appeal: 543 (374 quashed, 153 upheld)
So, of 16990 completed cases only 374 have been successfully taken through to the Courts. A success rate of 2.20%! I hope Mr Evans isn't holding his breath! (Although, I've no doubt his legal team are enjoying the fees they are receiving!)
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans).
He clearly believes he is innocent, why then would he show remorse for something he believes he hasn't done? "I'm sorry for what happened but I'm still innocent." Doesn't really have the desired effect does it?
cafc - Fair comment - In procedural terms you are correct but the rationale for the CCRC to refer any case back to the Court of Appeal is as follows
"The CCRC has the power to send, or refer, a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in that case.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
Fine, that is his right - but in the meantime it renders him virtually unemployable in his chosen profession where all domestic potential employers have a relatively high degree of community consciousness and profile.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
How many appeals have to fail before you and many others accept his guilt? 2? 5? 30?
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
How many appeals have to fail before you and many others accept his guilt? 2? 5? 30?
Why can you not engage in debate without putting words in peoples mouths, you have continually done it on this thread. Where the fuck did I say I don't accept he is guilty or I accept he is guilty? Its about Evans accepting his guilt. And while he is appealing/engaging in an appeal process (as he is entitled to do) any intelligent person would sit back and await the outcome before hanging him.
Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
Fine, that is his right - but in the meantime it renders him virtually unemployable in his chosen profession where all domestic potential employers have a relatively high degree of community consciousness and profile.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
I made no comment whatsoever on the apology issue. And still don't. It is, as far as I am concerned, a red herring.
For the sake of clarity, I merely tried to correct your assertion that he "has another appeal pending". This misinformed on the process. His appeals have been dismissed. What we have here is a last desperate throw of the dice. There will not be an "appeal pending" unless the CCRC makes a referral. It has not yet done so and statistics indicate that is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will. (Rather the opposite in fact.) I hope you understand now?
Sorry, I confused your sons post for yours, my mistake. "If he's guilty" ~ being the post I was referring to. My understanding was he had already been found guilty and has offered nothing to suggest any further appeal would even be heard.
Others have said they'd accept it after - another - appeal, I was curious as to how many appeals it would take to convince them of his guilt. What if the CCRC refuse his appeal? What then?
One of the blokes saying none of it made sense wasn't even aware of some of the most basic facts of the case.
We're all still going around in circles, I believe no convicted rapist should be allowed to work for any community orientated organisation, others disagree, I can't see anyone changing their opinion, myself included.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
How many appeals have to fail before you and many others accept his guilt? 2? 5? 30?
Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
but then surely they should be able to appeal the 15 years after they've lost their previous appeal? APPEAL-CEPTION
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
I made no comment whatsoever on the apology issue. And still don't. It is, as far as I am concerned, a red herring.
For the sake of clarity, I merely tried to correct your assertion that he "has another appeal pending". This misinformed on the process. His appeals have been dismissed. What we have here is a last desperate throw of the dice. There will not be an "appeal pending" unless the CCRC makes a referral. It has not yet done so and statistics indicate that is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will. (Rather the opposite in fact.) I hope you understand now?
Sorry, I confused your sons post for yours, my mistake. "If he's guilty" ~ being the post I was referring to. My understanding was he had already been found guilty and has offered nothing to suggest any further appeal would even be heard.
Others have said they'd accept it after - another - appeal, I was curious as to how many appeals it would take to convince them of his guilt. What if the CCRC refuse his appeal? What then?
One of the blokes saying none of it made sense wasn't even aware of some of the most basic facts of the case.
We're all still going around in circles, I believe no convicted rapist should be allowed to work for any community orientated organisation, others disagree, I can't see anyone changing their opinion, myself included.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
How many appeals have to fail before you and many others accept his guilt? 2? 5? 30?
Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
but then surely they should be able to appeal the 15 years after they've lost their previous appeal? APPEAL-CEPTION
I thought I wrote following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law Ive just checked, and yes I did, shame you didn't see it as well.....oh well I guess a career as a referee awaits. ;o)
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
I made no comment whatsoever on the apology issue. And still don't. It is, as far as I am concerned, a red herring.
For the sake of clarity, I merely tried to correct your assertion that he "has another appeal pending". This misinformed on the process. His appeals have been dismissed. What we have here is a last desperate throw of the dice. There will not be an "appeal pending" unless the CCRC makes a referral. It has not yet done so and statistics indicate that is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will. (Rather the opposite in fact.) I hope you understand now?
Sorry, I confused your sons post for yours, my mistake. "If he's guilty" ~ being the post I was referring to. My understanding was he had already been found guilty and has offered nothing to suggest any further appeal would even be heard.
Others have said they'd accept it after - another - appeal, I was curious as to how many appeals it would take to convince them of his guilt. What if the CCRC refuse his appeal? What then?
One of the blokes saying none of it made sense wasn't even aware of some of the most basic facts of the case.
We're all still going around in circles, I believe no convicted rapist should be allowed to work for any community orientated organisation, others disagree, I can't see anyone changing their opinion, myself included.
Syed writes well but ignores the issue of remorse (or lack thereof in the case of Evans). Just as civilised societies should give second chances in most cases, the right to the second chance surely requires acknowledgement by the offender that what they did was repugnant.
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Exactly so, NYA.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings. Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
The reason he has shown no remorse or empathy is because he considers himself innocent and has another appeal pending. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
He does NOT have another appeal pending. His legal team are making desperate pleas to the body mentioned above who MAY (but statistics indicate probably won't) refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if they consider any new evidence (if it is relevant evidence or indeed even evidence) may be relevant. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
FFS here we go, you have just written why he will have no remorse or empathy. OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do. I hope you understand now? If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
How many appeals have to fail before you and many others accept his guilt? 2? 5? 30?
Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
but then surely they should be able to appeal the 15 years after they've lost their previous appeal? APPEAL-CEPTION
I thought I wrote following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law Ive just checked, and yes I did, shame you didn't see it as well.....oh well I guess a career as a referee awaits. ;o)
but if they're convicted and sentanced to 4 years, appeal and appeal again, surely its a right to then appeal if your sentance is then automatically increased to 15 years.
But but but..... I never said any of that I said 'Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
Where did I say increase a sentence? For new cases of rape, 15 years should be minimum.
Comments
Those who drive drunk have made a decision that travelling around in a manner convenient to them is more important than the lives of all the pedestrians and others drivers on the road. Those who do it should be named and shamed. The potential consequences are massive; children being mown down, whole families being wiped out. It is not a case of "oh sorry, bit of an error of judement there".
Of course he has to be punished for what he has done
Drink driving is something that most people will have done, not paralytic drunk but over the limit
Many would've done it The day after
How many people are rapists or have the capacity to be one
"Churchill was right. It is the difficult cases that test our commitment to progressive ideals. It is easy to parade one’s belief in second chances when it comes to shoplifters and tax evaders. It is easier still when it comes to youth offenders and those who are still, basically, children. But what about drug dealers and murderers? What about rapists?
The more heinous the crime, the more tempting to fudge the idea of rehabilitation. That is what has happened with Ched Evans. That rape is a despicable crime is universally agreed upon. That the victim will pay the price for years to come is an agonising truth. That she has been neglected in the furore surrounding the return of the footballer to training at Sheffield United is stomach-churning. But still, the question remains: do we believe in second chances or don’t we?
“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country,” Churchill wrote. “A desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry of all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every person — these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”
The return to employment is a cornerstone of rehabilitation. Norway, which has the lowest level of recidivism in Europe, makes sure that those who leave its prisons have assistance in getting a job. They recognise that denying employment opportunities to ex-convicts feeds the cycle of crime and punishment. If plumbers and landscape gardeners deserve second chances, so too do footballers.
The crime of rape, it is worth emphasising, is savage and intimate. It is appalling that conviction rates are so low and that, for many years, the justice system often scorned women who came forward with allegations. But we signal our contempt for a crime with the severity of the sentence. We should campaign for tougher sentences and continue to educate police forces so that they investigate allegations with urgency and sensitivity. But we do none of these, none whatever, by punishing a man twice.
There is something truly saddening about the accusations of misogyny that have been levelled at those who argue that Evans should be given a chance to play football, pay taxes and reintegrate into society. It is as if Churchill had never written his warning. The idea seems to be that we show our concern for the victim by denying lawful opportunities to the perpetrator. This is both wrong and dangerous.
Due process: those are the two words that have been conspicuous by their absence in recent weeks. Evans was convicted via a fair procedure and he has now been released on licence having served half his term. He is perfectly entitled to return to work. It is ludicrous to suggest that he should only be allowed back into football once he has confessed to his crime and shown remorse. He is seeking leave to appeal his sentence via the Criminal Cases Review Board. How can a man seeking to demonstrate his innocence admit to his own guilt?
Some have pointed out that if a professional commits an offence, he can be stripped of his licence to practise. Doctors are struck off. Lawyers are disbarred. But this happens when the offence is related to their work and undermines the trust we place in someone in that position; it doesn’t happen when the offence is unrelated to their job. So, how does this reasoning apply to Evans? As David Shipley, a reader of The Times, posted: “In what way does a rape conviction undermine a manager’s confidence that a footballer can put the ball in the net?”
And consider this too. Professional licences are revoked with at least a nod to due process. Doctors and teachers are fully aware of the crimes that will terminate their employment indefinitely. There are appeals procedures and frameworks to ensure that the rules are applied fairly and without individual rights being trampled by the rush to judgment. In other words, it is the polar opposite of what is happening today with Evans.
Take a step back and witness what mob justice looks like in the media age. A convict’s employment prospects as a footballer are being determined not by agreed procedures, but by social hysteria, media frenzy, online petitions, and the actions of celebrities. To be clear: everyone has a right to express an opinion. But only a fool would deny that this process is dangerously arbitrary. Is this how we are going to determine employment prospects for all released criminals, or only for those considered newsworthy by the media?
The most egregious argument I save till last. Footballers, we are told, are role models. It is remarkable that this ludicrous red herring still does the rounds. Footballers have not auditioned to be role models and, in many cases, do not wish to be role models. If kids look up to them, it is up to adults to explain that just because someone is good at kicking a ball, it doesn’t mean they should be looked to for moral guidance. We should never tire of repeating the words of Charles Barkley, the NBA player: “I am not a role model . . . I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball, doesn’t mean I should raise your kids.”
The only possible lesson that youngsters are going to take from the Evans affair is that if you commit rape, you will go to jail and your reputation will be rightly shredded. But if he is afforded the right to return as a footballer, they will glimpse another precious message too: once you have been released from prison, you will be given a second chance.
The Evans case is important in its own right, but it has come to symbolise much more than the future of the 25-year-old. Ultimately, it is about our capacity to separate our abhorrence at the nature of a crime from our commitment to second chances. When these things blur, rehabilitation dies. And without a commitment to due process, as Churchill rightly argued, justice is a sham."
It is clear Evans has been advised terribly - even if he didn't truly believe it, any PR expert would have told him to come straight out of jail and express how ashamed he was.
I presume the lack of remorse reflects his genuine belief that no crime was committed (I suspect he is too dumb to understand the specifics of the law but anyhow). In the meantime let him continue to weigh up his right to show a lack of remorse against the rights of community conscious football clubs not to employ him. The clock is ticking on his career.
Don't think anyone is arguing that even if he was innocent he still shouldn't play football. People seem to be focusing on the details of the case when its all been done.
The argument should be whether a convicted rapist should be allowed to come back to the sport after serving half his time. For me, that's a no.
Syed makes a compelling case - he is a thoughtful and excellent writer - but I couldn't disagree more with him on the question of being a role model: because Charles Barkley was a reluctant one doesn't stop kids seeing him that way.
And when Evans is next sent into a school to take football training with the girls, which parent isn't going to have an issue with that? (EDIT Or which father will want his son to be influenced by the way Evans thinks?). His role is similar to a profession: it is public facing, influential and players carry the reputation of their clubs on their shoulders. Anyone think Sheffield Utd are delighted with their decision to let him train with them again? They should have sacked him on conviction in my view.
Syed is persuasive and made me think - but the words of a wise old preacher spring to mind: forgiveness doesn't require trust. Society may come to forgive, but trusting him as if it had never happened is in my view inappropriate for Evans, football, society - and most importantly his victim.
The definition of rape shown above is NOT the legal definition. The following is the clarification of current legal definition of rape as recorded by the Rape Crisis Centre.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force on 1st May 2004. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen and modernise the law on sexual offences, whilst improving preventative measures and the protection of individuals from sexual offenders .......
The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief consent.The word 'consent' in the context of the offence of rape is now defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A person consents if she or he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The essence of this definition is the agreement by choice. The question of whether the victim consented is a matter for a jury to decide,
I referred to the basis of the case and the conviction on an earlier post. I confess to being uncomfortable with many of the "noises off" surrounding this case though the issue of rehabilitation is valid. I see 4 issues;
1. We need to be careful on passing judgement on the court process involved in any trial. I have served on a jury. Remember for all we see in print, the nature of testimony given by each & every party can give a notably different interpretation of evidence. We were not party to jury deliberations and any emphasis they chose to put an any piece of evidence or testimony.
We come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences and live in a society allowing us to decide our own values on which we base our decisions. We are however governed by laws which at some level date to the 11th century. They now reflect the "case law wisdom" created by respective societies ever since. It is not perfect but it is based on "a duty of care for each citizen to do no harm to others." It is no bad starting point.
2. Evans was given a prison sentence in line with prevailing judicial practice. He has served the sentence in line with prevailing custodial practice. In law he is entitled to return any gainful employment he is legally able to follow. We may not like it but we cannot seek to retry him via a court of public opinion. That is akin to the law of a lynch mob.
3. However that does not diminish the seriousness of the conviction nor should it impact on our own civil liberties. In pursuing a football career you are governed by the disciplines of that career. The very framework of the profession publicly links you indelibly to and positions you as a paid representative of a specific club. It is entirely reasonable for people linked with a club to express opinion on any employee of the club and the behavioural standards to which they are being linked.
That is the nature of the employment Evans chose to pursue. That not unreasonably places him, not unlike other professions, with an additional duty of care, which you breach at your peril. Regrettably for Evans that may mean his road to rehabilitation may need to follow a different path.
4. This recent attention has arisen because the PFA has sought to pressure Sheffield U to allow Evans to return to training. Why was that necessary? How is that in the interest of the club, the game or the reputation of the PFA? It forces people to make decisions on Evans as a convicted rapist. Why, if his legal team are preparing a case for the Case Review Commission to overturn the conviction and seem confident of such an outcome?
The "something that is not right here" I suggest covers this approach. The cynic in me suggests a calculated move to "normalize" the situation evidencing Evans had the support of the wider community and his profession.
I am not familiar with the actions of his friends, family or supporters but perhaps those seeking to create a groundswell of "public opinion" by whatever methods need reminding such opinion will be irrelevant to the outcome.
If his legal team are able to present additional evidence to the court in respect of the events of that evening, which the court may consider to have changed the verdict THAT IS A MATTER FOR LEGAL PROCESS.
No matter the imperfections of our legal system I think we should all be grateful for that.
Part of rehabilitation is showing remorse; not the slightest sign of regret, apology or even empathy with the plight of the woman he raped has been shown and no recognition of the seriousness of his failings.
Had there been suitable contrition, I suspect the reaction would be different. There is no evidence of his turning over a new leaf - he just seems to have viewed the time spent at Her Majesty's Pleasure as a brief hiatus in his footballing career.
Your point two. What you say is correct. Save that it is NOT "the law of the lynch mob" for Sheff Utd to consider, in the cold light of day, that it would not be in their best interests to re-employ him. The factors they should be taking into account are numerous but should certainly include commercial considerations (like would we ever get any sponsors ever again?) and more generally, their public image.
Your point four. Is that correct? I assumed the Case Review Commission had no power to overturn a verdict. Are not their options either to turn down the application or to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal?
BTW, here's the Commission's stats since it started work:
Case Statistics - Figures to 31 October 2014
Total applications*: 18513
Cases waiting: 688
Cases under review: 835
Completed: 16990 (incl. ineligible), 565 referrals
Heard by Court of Appeal: 543 (374 quashed, 153 upheld)
So, of 16990 completed cases only 374 have been successfully taken through to the Courts. A success rate of 2.20%! I hope Mr Evans isn't holding his breath! (Although, I've no doubt his legal team are enjoying the fees they are receiving!)
"The CCRC has the power to send, or refer, a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in that case.
OK I'll try again. He is looking to appeal, he's not going to show remorse for something he considers he did not do.
I hope you understand now?
If his application for appeal is turned down then he should offer remorse. Whether he will or not who knows?
Where the fuck did I say I don't accept he is guilty or I accept he is guilty?
Its about Evans accepting his guilt. And while he is appealing/engaging in an appeal process (as he is entitled to do) any intelligent person would sit back and await the outcome before hanging him.
Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
For the sake of clarity, I merely tried to correct your assertion that he "has another appeal pending". This misinformed on the process. His appeals have been dismissed. What we have here is a last desperate throw of the dice. There will not be an "appeal pending" unless the CCRC makes a referral. It has not yet done so and statistics indicate that is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will. (Rather the opposite in fact.) I hope you understand now?
Others have said they'd accept it after - another - appeal, I was curious as to how many appeals it would take to convince them of his guilt. What if the CCRC refuse his appeal? What then?
One of the blokes saying none of it made sense wasn't even aware of some of the most basic facts of the case.
We're all still going around in circles, I believe no convicted rapist should be allowed to work for any community orientated organisation, others disagree, I can't see anyone changing their opinion, myself included.
But but but.....
I never said any of that I said 'Just so you understand my stance on rape....any rapist who is found guilty after following all the due processes of appeal as laid out in UK and European law should be given a minimum of 15 years and should serve 15 years.
Where did I say increase a sentence? For new cases of rape, 15 years should be minimum.