I should imagine nearly all right-minded people are uncomfortable, but that is neither here nor there.
He should be allowed to take any job he so chooses, that is permitted by law and is offered to him. So yes he should be allowed to play professional football.
I will of course give him unmerciful abuse if he ever plays against Charlton and I would be gutted if we ever signed him or his ilk.
Goodnight :-)
I agree with you 100%, however in my opinion the law should be changed.
Being on the SOR should prohibit him from playing pro sport.
As for the post from Jordan's cousin, that's probably the most offensive thing I've read on the internet.
Assuming the rules were changed, what other jobs would people not be allowed to return to? Or is it just professional sportspeople?
But there would be many other occupations where it would just not be entertained. Particularly for offences where the convictions never become "spent".
As I understand it you aren't banned from doing all of those jobs though, you just aren't exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act.
I think the list provides prospective employers with a list of occupations for which they are entitled to ask for a DBS check. I would guess that you can be pretty sure that if an employer goes to all the trouble of requesting such a check, (and jumping through the various bureaucratic hoops to do so), there's a pretty strong chance that anyone who comes back with a result won't get the job.
But that's exactly the situation here. Sheff United know about his conviction and legally are doing nothing wrong, it's a completely ethical debate and not a legal one. Which is how it should be imo.
I should imagine nearly all right-minded people are uncomfortable, but that is neither here nor there.
He should be allowed to take any job he so chooses, that is permitted by law and is offered to him. So yes he should be allowed to play professional football.
I will of course give him unmerciful abuse if he ever plays against Charlton and I would be gutted if we ever signed him or his ilk.
Goodnight :-)
I agree with you 100%, however in my opinion the law should be changed.
Being on the SOR should prohibit him from playing pro sport.
As for the post from Jordan's cousin, that's probably the most offensive thing I've read on the internet.
Assuming the rules were changed, what other jobs would people not be allowed to return to? Or is it just professional sportspeople?
But there would be many other occupations where it would just not be entertained. Particularly for offences where the convictions never become "spent".
As I understand it you aren't banned from doing all of those jobs though, you just aren't exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act.
I think the list provides prospective employers with a list of occupations for which they are entitled to ask for a DBS check. I would guess that you can be pretty sure that if an employer goes to all the trouble of requesting such a check, (and jumping through the various bureaucratic hoops to do so), there's a pretty strong chance that anyone who comes back with a result won't get the job.
But that's exactly the situation here. Sheff United know about his conviction and legally are doing nothing wrong, it's a completely ethical debate and not a legal one. Which is how it should be imo.
As the law and football's own peculiar rules stand yes you are right. But I was responding to a suggestion that he could have got a job working in the City which was clearly bonkers and explaining why and what other professions he would be barred from. It was merely a comparison of how different occupations treat things differently.
I hope it was poorly worded and that a lot of us, (myself included), maybe got the wrong end of the stick.
I do think though, regardless of what he meant, that he effectively suggested, by answering his own question with "thought not", that he decided that pretty much all of us had at some point had sex with someone who MIGHT not have consented. Understandably, quite a lot of us were somewhat put out by such a suggestion. If the point was that he thinks there are a lot of people in society who have had a one night stand where the full consent of both parties is under question, then that is what he should have said rather than convict the whole board of being possible rapists.
So maybe we should calm down about what IMJ said. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, but maybe he could pop on here to clarify?
I think IJC is getting a bit of a hard time here - he's not implying that anyone here has deliberately raped anyone, or defended rapists, but he's suggesting that if anyone has ever had a one night stand with someone when completely shit faced, with them equally drunk, how can you be 100% sure that *when sober* they would have consented? That's an unsettling and sobering (pardon the pun) thought that anyone who's had drunk one night stands should contemplate.
(However - I think the details we know about the Evans case put his situation in a completely different category to the above, and it isn't really comparable. )
the beauty of phones. Get their number, shag them a couple of days later if they still check out on facebook. Plus there's not much risk of the dreaded whiskey dick
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
I should imagine nearly all right-minded people are uncomfortable, but that is neither here nor there.
He should be allowed to take any job he so chooses, that is permitted by law and is offered to him. So yes he should be allowed to play professional football.
I will of course give him unmerciful abuse if he ever plays against Charlton and I would be gutted if we ever signed him or his ilk.
Goodnight :-)
I agree with you 100%, however in my opinion the law should be changed.
Being on the SOR should prohibit him from playing pro sport.
As for the post from Jordan's cousin, that's probably the most offensive thing I've read on the internet.
Assuming the rules were changed, what other jobs would people not be allowed to return to? Or is it just professional sportspeople?
But there would be many other occupations where it would just not be entertained. Particularly for offences where the convictions never become "spent".
As I understand it you aren't banned from doing all of those jobs though, you just aren't exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act.
I think the list provides prospective employers with a list of occupations for which they are entitled to ask for a DBS check. I would guess that you can be pretty sure that if an employer goes to all the trouble of requesting such a check, (and jumping through the various bureaucratic hoops to do so), there's a pretty strong chance that anyone who comes back with a result won't get the job.
But that's exactly the situation here. Sheff United know about his conviction and legally are doing nothing wrong, it's a completely ethical debate and not a legal one. Which is how it should be imo.
As the law and football's own peculiar rules stand yes you are right. But I was responding to a suggestion that he could have got a job working in the City which was clearly bonkers and explaining why and what other professions he would be barred from. It was merely a comparison of how different occupations treat things differently.
While there is no doubt this is a hot topic and very current, there is a danger that 'as a debate', we are simply going round in circles and the same people are repeating the same contributions they did in the previous Evans thread a few weeks ago.
Of course people are free to contribute as they wish, but might be worth considering to yourself whether you've said what you've got to say on the subject, and if so, leave it at that.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
How exactly can you compare robbery and rape?
But he's not is he, he's just making a comment. FFS mate you need to calm down.
A point I made in the previous post about Ched Evans was that of the case on Crimewatch where a woman walking in a dark park was pounced on by a man who raped her violently by intending to cause that woman harm. In the case of Evans he didn't intend to harm the lady he was convicted of raping. He thought that she had consented though he thought wrong. That is virtually two different grades of rape. That is why Sheffield United are considering signing him again.
Having said that though, if I were Chairman of SUFC, I would start thinking... "Even though there are many fans in favour of bringing him back to SUFC, there are also many against and it could result in loss of fans. Also could it cause trouble with the wrong people turning up at the ground on a home matchday who have no intentions of going to the game just causing trouble (in light of the petition) and compromising the safety of both sets of fans."
Even though I personally believe he has served his custodial time in prison he has the right to work again as a footballer as the FA have no rules about a situation like this, I would take the above paragraph into consideration while he remains convicted and think whether it's in the best interests of SUFC or any other football club.
A point I made in the previous post about Ched Evans was that of the case on Crimewatch where a woman walking in a dark park was pounced on by a man who raped her violently by intending to cause that woman harm. In the case of Evans he didn't intend to harm the lady he was convicted of raping. He thought that she had consented though he thought wrong. That is virtually two different grades of rape. That is why Sheffield United are considering signing him again.
Having said that though, if I were Chairman of SUFC, I would start thinking... "Even though there are many fans in favour of bringing him back to SUFC, there are also many against and it could result in loss of fans. Also could it cause trouble with the wrong people turning up at the ground on a home matchday who have no intentions of going to the game just causing trouble (in light of the petition) and compromising the safety of both sets of fans."
Even though I personally believe he has served his custodial time in prison he has the right to work again as a footballer as the FA have no rules about a situation like this, I would take the above paragraph into consideration while he remains convicted and think whether it's in the best interests of SUFC or any other football club.
There isn't "virtually" more than one grade of rape. There's only one.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
Fair enough mate. I was only going on what my dad said last night as we were talking about this, he owns a drainage/plumbing company.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
Disgusting and wrong as what McCormick did was he did NOT get in that car with the INTENT to kill those poor children.
Evans DID go with INTENT to have sex and the girl concerned did not consent.
Both wrong but Evans is worse because it was calculated.
EDIT: I would be disappointed to see either playing for Charlton.
The sad thing is he is only being discussed like this because we all know if it was the left back he would be out on his ear. Rightly or wrongly. Because this individual is/was good and let's be honest goalscorers win games Sheffield United want to win games. They have no interest in his rehabilitation they just want to get out of division 3. Same with Liverpool and them defending Suarez, United with Cantona, Lee Hughes and whoever has had the pleasure of his company. To a lesser degree luke mccormick and Plymouth he is head and shoulders the best goalkeeper at that level. If he was a reserve do you think he'd have been offered the chance to reintegrate so quickly to aid his rehabilitation?
A point I made in the previous post about Ched Evans was that of the case on Crimewatch where a woman walking in a dark park was pounced on by a man who raped her violently by intending to cause that woman harm. In the case of Evans he didn't intend to harm the lady he was convicted of raping. He thought that she had consented though he thought wrong. That is virtually two different grades of rape. That is why Sheffield United are considering signing him again.
Having said that though, if I were Chairman of SUFC, I would start thinking... "Even though there are many fans in favour of bringing him back to SUFC, there are also many against and it could result in loss of fans. Also could it cause trouble with the wrong people turning up at the ground on a home matchday who have no intentions of going to the game just causing trouble (in light of the petition) and compromising the safety of both sets of fans."
Even though I personally believe he has served his custodial time in prison he has the right to work again as a footballer as the FA have no rules about a situation like this, I would take the above paragraph into consideration while he remains convicted and think whether it's in the best interests of SUFC or any other football club.
So if I was to tell you that many paedophiles believe their victims are not only consenting but leading them on, would your views change at all?
The issue here, and one that seems to be constantly forgotten, is the impact on the victim. If she hasn't consented, there's no 'grade of rape' for her, violence or no violence. That Evans and his girlfriend's dreadful family want to exacerbate her suffering in the way they are just leaves my opinion of him even lower - and I didn't imagine there was a lower.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
How exactly can you compare robbery and rape?
Jesus Christ.
I'm comparing the working in CRB check and the part about working in peoples houses.
Luke McCormick - captain of Plymouth argyle has killed two children drink driving, and has done his time and is back playing, there's not been even nearly this much uproar.
What he's done is disgusting and if I had it my way rapists and peado's would get the death penalty, but I don't.
If he was a plumber/electrician or something he'd be able to walk straight back on site and work, so why can't he as a footballer? I get both sides of the argument as, as a footballer he'd be in the public eye etc. The fact of the matter is though, that you cannot deny someone the right to work and his profession is a footballer.
Although the point you make is valid and without being picky, he would never work again as a plumber after what he did. CRB checks mean he wouldn't be able to, going in to people's houses ...
He'd be allowed back on a site though. Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
Fair enough mate. I was only going on what my dad said last night as we were talking about this, he owns a drainage/plumbing company.
The sad thing is he is only being discussed like this because we all know if it was the left back he would be out on his ear. Rightly or wrongly. Because this individual is/was good and let's be honest goalscorers win games Sheffield United want to win games. They have no interest in his rehabilitation they just want to get out of division 3. Same with Liverpool and them defending Suarez, United with Cantona, Lee Hughes and whoever has had the pleasure of his company. To a lesser degree luke mccormick and Plymouth he is head and shoulders the best goalkeeper at that level. If he was a reserve do you think he'd have been offered the chance to reintegrate so quickly to aid his rehabilitation?
I don't think that's true mate, as I say look at Luke McCormick at Plymouth. Club captain and has killed two children.
The sad thing is he is only being discussed like this because we all know if it was the left back he would be out on his ear. Rightly or wrongly. Because this individual is/was good and let's be honest goalscorers win games Sheffield United want to win games. They have no interest in his rehabilitation they just want to get out of division 3. Same with Liverpool and them defending Suarez, United with Cantona, Lee Hughes and whoever has had the pleasure of his company. To a lesser degree luke mccormick and Plymouth he is head and shoulders the best goalkeeper at that level. If he was a reserve do you think he'd have been offered the chance to reintegrate so quickly to aid his rehabilitation?
I don't think that's true mate, as I say look at Luke McCormick at Plymouth. Club captain and has killed two children.
That's my point, he is arguably Plymouth best player. If he had been shite no way would he be back there taking his second chance
The sad thing is he is only being discussed like this because we all know if it was the left back he would be out on his ear. Rightly or wrongly. Because this individual is/was good and let's be honest goalscorers win games Sheffield United want to win games. They have no interest in his rehabilitation they just want to get out of division 3. Same with Liverpool and them defending Suarez, United with Cantona, Lee Hughes and whoever has had the pleasure of his company. To a lesser degree luke mccormick and Plymouth he is head and shoulders the best goalkeeper at that level. If he was a reserve do you think he'd have been offered the chance to reintegrate so quickly to aid his rehabilitation?
I don't think that's true mate, as I say look at Luke McCormick at Plymouth. Club captain and has killed two children.
That's my point, he is arguably Plymouth best player. If he had been shite no way would he be back there taking his second chance
Probably not that different to someone in the corporate world tbf. If you're good at something you will get opportunites again after committing a horrible act, anyone lacking in ability would find it more difficult.
Dave Berry has announced today that he is unhappy that Evans is going to train with the club and has withdrawn his patronage. He raises a lot of money for the club with free gigs etc. Also their shirt sponsors have said that they will have to reconsider their involvement if he is offered a contract.
Comments
I hope it was poorly worded and that a lot of us, (myself included), maybe got the wrong end of the stick.
I do think though, regardless of what he meant, that he effectively suggested, by answering his own question with "thought not", that he decided that pretty much all of us had at some point had sex with someone who MIGHT not have consented. Understandably, quite a lot of us were somewhat put out by such a suggestion.
If the point was that he thinks there are a lot of people in society who have had a one night stand where the full consent of both parties is under question, then that is what he should have said rather than convict the whole board of being possible rapists.
So maybe we should calm down about what IMJ said. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, but maybe he could pop on here to clarify?
Also I worked in the same house as a plumber 2 weeks ago who had not long been released for robbery.
Of course people are free to contribute as they wish, but might be worth considering to yourself whether you've said what you've got to say on the subject, and if so, leave it at that.
Having said that though, if I were Chairman of SUFC, I would start thinking... "Even though there are many fans in favour of bringing him back to SUFC, there are also many against and it could result in loss of fans. Also could it cause trouble with the wrong people turning up at the ground on a home matchday who have no intentions of going to the game just causing trouble (in light of the petition) and compromising the safety of both sets of fans."
Even though I personally believe he has served his custodial time in prison he has the right to work again as a footballer as the FA have no rules about a situation like this, I would take the above paragraph into consideration while he remains convicted and think whether it's in the best interests of SUFC or any other football club.
Evans DID go with INTENT to have sex and the girl concerned did not consent.
Both wrong but Evans is worse because it was calculated.
EDIT: I would be disappointed to see either playing for Charlton.
The issue here, and one that seems to be constantly forgotten, is the impact on the victim. If she hasn't consented, there's no 'grade of rape' for her, violence or no violence. That Evans and his girlfriend's dreadful family want to exacerbate her suffering in the way they are just leaves my opinion of him even lower - and I didn't imagine there was a lower.
I'm comparing the working in CRB check and the part about working in peoples houses. That's fair enough mate
There was a legitimate footballing reason not to take him back so the moral question never really arose.
He raises a lot of money for the club with free gigs etc.
Also their shirt sponsors have said that they will have to reconsider their involvement if he is offered a contract.