All very good points, of course I wouldn't want charlton to sign him but I wouldn't expect half the uk to start having a say as well on what a club should do.
how can you stop a man from working when both lee Hughes and luke McCormick KILLED innocent people and are currently playing?
If they weren't stopped from playing why should ched Evans be stopped from playing?
These comparisons keep getting trotted out, and a thousand times people have knocked them back down. They're not comparable.
And again, Ched Evans isn't stopped from playing. He can play for whoever wants to sign him, as is the case right now with Oldham. FFS how many times have we gone over this?
No one is stopping Ched Evans from working, providing he can find a club to employ him. However clubs have the right not to employ him, unfortunately it appears Oldham are willing to face the backlash and deserved criticism that will come their way.
I know people say hughes and mcormick didnt intentionally commit the acts but one if not both of them knowingly fled the scene, which had they stayed at could have enabled survival of life perhaps. They should have been treated no differently to evans, but they received none of this uproar
From memory there was uproar when ironically Oldham employed Lee Hughes, maybe tempered by the fact that he did show remorse for his actions, something that Evans has not done.
I'm sure there would have been more uproar about Lee Hughes's case if Facebook and Twitter were around. But I have the opinion that if Lee Hughes can work again having committed a far worse crime, then Evans should be able to.
I know people say hughes and mcormick didnt intentionally commit the acts but one if not both of them knowingly fled the scene, which had they stayed at could have enabled survival of life perhaps. They should have been treated no differently to evans, but they received none of this uproar
mccormick did not flee the scene, and has expressed deep remorse at every turn. his actions were deeply stupid & criminal but on balance i have little problem with him returning to the game after serving punishment
I think there will be initial outcry at the games from Oldham's fans but that will slowly die off, especially if he's knocking in the goals. He will always get 'banter' from away fans for the rest of his career. I'm sure he's been advised of this.
I know people say hughes and mcormick didnt intentionally commit the acts but one if not both of them knowingly fled the scene, which had they stayed at could have enabled survival of life perhaps. They should have been treated no differently to evans, but they received none of this uproar
One fled the scene. each case is and should be judged on its own merits (or whatever the appropriate word is).
This argument about Hughes and McCormack being allowed to return is stupid.
Has no one using ever heard of the expression 'Two wrongs don't make a right'??
Yes they were allowed to return to play, but that doesn't make it right. Why doesn't the football community try and use the opportunity it has to move it's moral compass slightly closer to pointing straight again??
Because the football community stopping his employment suggests that it doesn't believe the law is doing its job at punishing and rehabiliting those under it's roof.
Because the football community stopping his employment suggests that it doesn't believe the law is doing its job at punishing and rehabiliting those under it's roof.
Rubbish. Rehabilitating doesn't mean he has a divine right to go back into exactly what he was doing before. It means he has a chance to reintegrate himself into the community by showing remorse and showing he won't reoffend. His complete lack of remorse kind of ruins that.
There are plenty of jobs that a convicted rapist is not allowed to do once leaving jail. In my, and seemingly most of Britain's, view football should be one of these as whether he wants to be or not he is a public figure and is a role model to young children. I'm dreading if we ever play Oldham while he is there and looking over and seeing 13 year old boys chanting the name of a convicted rapist.
EDIT. And I haven't even gone into the interaction off the field with young fans that footballers undertake as football looks to reach out to local communities.
I thought this was an interest read from Marian Hyde in the Grauniad, if you can't be bothered to read it this line is a good summary:
"Ched Evans: just another thing that must be banned, because people are too stupid or impressionable to be exposed to him and make intelligent judgments."
The thing that I still find the most puzzling about this whole business is how the girlfriend and her family are still sticking by him. Even if they genuinely believe he is innocent of rape, what he did was still a betrayal of her - there's no denying that. It doesn't seem as if it's about the money, based on reports that daddy is minted and as prepared to shell out hard cash to get him back to work. Weird.
In all seriousness, she might be so desperate to be a WAG that she is prepared to tolerate any footballer at all.
Being a 'celebrity' whatever the cost seems to be a major
Yeah that Guardian article is great. I remember as a child having a poster of Dirty Den up on my bedroom wall and getting into fisticuffs in the playground as I wanted other kids panini Lesley Grantham stickers as they were the best swaps to have. Great comparison.
Yeah that Guardian article is great. I remember as a child having a poster of Dirty Den up on my bedroom wall and getting into fisticuffs in the playground as I wanted other kids panini Lesley Grantham stickers as they were the best swaps to have. Great comparison.
It does lose it's way at the end, like she was desperately trying to get three more paragraphs out of it.
If they weren't stopped from playing why should ched Evans be stopped from playing?
Look it's not that he's being stopped per se, is it?
Ched isn't the only one who has a choice - everyone does. Oldham's sponsors, supporters, corporate hospitality users, etc, etc can all make a choice as to whether or not they pay their filthy lucre across to a football club and whether they will continue to do so. Similarly team members, both current and prospective, can decided whether they want to be associated with a club. The Oldham Athletic ladies team might like to change their name. parents might not want their kids joining an academy. Supporters can go and buy a shirt with the relevant number and "RAPIST" emblazoned on it. Meanwhile, the owl on the club logo might be feeling a little queasy - he certainly looks it.
The thing I've found most interesting is the complete silence from players. There have been protests at the various clubs linked with him, from supporters, sponsors and local politicians, but not a word from players at the clubs in question, or indeed from any of the big name players who are always tweeting their views. If all the players at one of the clubs had put out a statement stating they didn't want Evans to join, the club would have to cancel any contract talks, but they haven't. Are they afraid of jeopardising their own careers... or do they secretly support Evans?
Sure she would feel the same if it was her or her family member he done it too
Her article shows her up not those that dispise rapists and scum like evans
Did you even read it? She's not trying to show up people who "despise rapists and scum like Evans", she's pointing out that:
1) sentences for rapists are too lenient. 2) it isn't up to a football club, or for that matter any employer, to determine guilt or not. 3) we as individuals are actually responsible enough to understand the differences between good and bad, you know don't rape people, and that Evans signing for Oldham won't lead to a spate of supporters going out and raping people.
Then she waffles on a bit at the end, which I mentioned before.
No football clubs are trying to determine guilt, the courts have already done.
What the article is saying, and I've paraphrased it quite badly, is that we shouldn't be allowing football clubs to aggravate the law, by politicising Oldham's decision. However, this is really a side point within the article which focuses mainly upon the fact that nobody is protesting the length of his sentence, which seems awfully short for somebody who's shown no remorse, and that allowing Ched Evans to return to professional doesn't stop us understanding the difference between right and wrong.
No football clubs are trying to determine guilt, the courts have already done.
What the article is saying, and I've paraphrased it quite badly, is that we shouldn't be allowing football clubs to aggravate the law, by politicising Oldham's decision. However, this is really a side point within the article which focuses mainly upon the fact that nobody is protesting the length of his sentence, which seems awfully short for somebody who's shown no remorse, and that allowing Ched Evans to return to professional doesn't stop us understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Any employer can set a policy that says they will not employ people convicted of certain serious offences.
Banks will not employ fraudsters.
Schools will not employ sex offenders
I don't see any problem with that.
Personally, I think Evans should be able to work as a professional footballer if he chooses.
But I also hope that no decent football club would consider employing him.
I thought this was an interest read from Marian Hyde in the Grauniad, if you can't be bothered to read it this line is a good summary:
"Ched Evans: just another thing that must be banned, because people are too stupid or impressionable to be exposed to him and make intelligent judgments."
No football clubs are trying to determine guilt, the courts have already done.
What the article is saying, and I've paraphrased it quite badly, is that we shouldn't be allowing football clubs to aggravate the law, by politicising Oldham's decision. However, this is really a side point within the article which focuses mainly upon the fact that nobody is protesting the length of his sentence, which seems awfully short for somebody who's shown no remorse, and that allowing Ched Evans to return to professional doesn't stop us understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Any employer can set a policy that says they will not employ people convicted of certain serious offences.
Banks will not employ fraudsters.
Schools will not employ sex offenders
I don't see any problem with that.
Personally, I think Evans should be able to work as a professional footballer if he chooses.
But I also hope that no decent football club would consider employing him.
Ahhh we've all focused on the employment bit, and ignored the main bit about sentencing and our societies nature so ban anything we don't like rather than combat it with intellectual discourse.
I do however, agree with your last two sentence though Henry.
On a side note at times this thread can be quite a hostile place, as though we must all put ourselves into the "Evans is innocent" or "Evans should rot in hell" camps and I think we could all do with being a bit more open minded before we start tapping away on our keys.
I thought this was an interest read from Marian Hyde in the Grauniad, if you can't be bothered to read it this line is a good summary:
"Ched Evans: just another thing that must be banned, because people are too stupid or impressionable to be exposed to him and make intelligent judgments."
The point there is that banning him to stop people being influenced by his actions isn't necessary when any right-minded individual can tell what a piece of work he is themselves. I don't need to have Ched Evans banned for me to know that I'll never give Oldham a penny of my money and I'll never attend a match Evans is involved in.
As Henry said above, let him be 'allowed' to play football, then let every decent club turn their back on him and let the clubs with no moral code and sense of community show themselves up for what they are. I can't think of a better outcome than Ched Evans being told he can resume being a footballer but then finding out that no-one wants to be associated with him; a lot more powerful than a ban. If only Oldham hadn't shown themselves up.
I thought this was an interest read from Marian Hyde in the Grauniad, if you can't be bothered to read it this line is a good summary:
"Ched Evans: just another thing that must be banned, because people are too stupid or impressionable to be exposed to him and make intelligent judgments."
What offends you about it? It's clearly written to be tongue in cheek, maybe she shouldn't have put it so sarcastically, something which is so difficult to convey via text.
The implication is that actually we don't have to "ban" Ched Evans, we are able to have an intelligent debate about this and that nobody will suddenly think that raping someone is right just because he's signed a contract for a professional football team.
Don't agree with what he has done , but don't the government have ways of getting people back into work, ie the ones who have commited serious crimes including rapists and murderers in trades they know or have learned while inside , is the Evans case any different ?
Don't agree with what he has done , but don't the government have ways of getting people back into work, ie the ones who have commited serious crimes including rapists and murderers in trades they know or have learned while inside , is the Evans case any different ?
These people are prohibited from many jobs due to their crimes, as it stands there is nothing to stop a club taking Evans on, some of us think that's wrong.
Comments
And again, Ched Evans isn't stopped from playing. He can play for whoever wants to sign him, as is the case right now with Oldham. FFS how many times have we gone over this?
Has no one using ever heard of the expression 'Two wrongs don't make a right'??
Yes they were allowed to return to play, but that doesn't make it right. Why doesn't the football community try and use the opportunity it has to move it's moral compass slightly closer to pointing straight again??
There are plenty of jobs that a convicted rapist is not allowed to do once leaving jail. In my, and seemingly most of Britain's, view football should be one of these as whether he wants to be or not he is a public figure and is a role model to young children. I'm dreading if we ever play Oldham while he is there and looking over and seeing 13 year old boys chanting the name of a convicted rapist.
EDIT. And I haven't even gone into the interaction off the field with young fans that footballers undertake as football looks to reach out to local communities.
"Ched Evans: just another thing that must be banned, because people are too stupid or impressionable to be exposed to him and make intelligent judgments."
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde
Being a 'celebrity' whatever the cost seems to be a major
Her article shows her up not those that dispise rapists and scum like evans
Ched isn't the only one who has a choice - everyone does. Oldham's sponsors, supporters, corporate hospitality users, etc, etc can all make a choice as to whether or not they pay their filthy lucre across to a football club and whether they will continue to do so. Similarly team members, both current and prospective, can decided whether they want to be associated with a club. The Oldham Athletic ladies team might like to change their name. parents might not want their kids joining an academy.
Supporters can go and buy a shirt with the relevant number and "RAPIST" emblazoned on it.
Meanwhile, the owl on the club logo might be feeling a little queasy - he certainly looks it.
If all the players at one of the clubs had put out a statement stating they didn't want Evans to join, the club would have to cancel any contract talks, but they haven't. Are they afraid of jeopardising their own careers... or do they secretly support Evans?
1) sentences for rapists are too lenient.
2) it isn't up to a football club, or for that matter any employer, to determine guilt or not.
3) we as individuals are actually responsible enough to understand the differences between good and bad, you know don't rape people, and that Evans signing for Oldham won't lead to a spate of supporters going out and raping people.
Then she waffles on a bit at the end, which I mentioned before.
Any employer can set a policy that says they will not employ people convicted of certain serious offences.
Banks will not employ fraudsters.
Schools will not employ sex offenders
I don't see any problem with that.
Personally, I think Evans should be able to work as a professional footballer if he chooses.
But I also hope that no decent football club would consider employing him.
That's the bit that I take offence too,
I do however, agree with your last two sentence though Henry.
On a side note at times this thread can be quite a hostile place, as though we must all put ourselves into the "Evans is innocent" or "Evans should rot in hell" camps and I think we could all do with being a bit more open minded before we start tapping away on our keys.
As Henry said above, let him be 'allowed' to play football, then let every decent club turn their back on him and let the clubs with no moral code and sense of community show themselves up for what they are. I can't think of a better outcome than Ched Evans being told he can resume being a footballer but then finding out that no-one wants to be associated with him; a lot more powerful than a ban. If only Oldham hadn't shown themselves up.
The implication is that actually we don't have to "ban" Ched Evans, we are able to have an intelligent debate about this and that nobody will suddenly think that raping someone is right just because he's signed a contract for a professional football team.