Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 10:38:22 GMT 1
I dont recall king ever trying to return to his old job ted but if he had and the bbc had agreed then so be it. I deplore his crime, but still believe that having served the sentence he should then be allowed to get on with his life as much as possible. If the sentencing is poor then blame and change the system. I ask you...if not what then?! ........do all prisoners have to come out to a life of unemployment and nothing to aspire to?! If so, i would state they are even more likely to re offend surely? Its a really tough one and i can see both arguments.......but for me the win win here would be him returning to playing and using some of his time/wealth to help others. whether that is feasible is another debate, but even if he does return he will receive dogs abuse which will make the stuff rooney got for granny bonking very tame. Really Shaws? As a tax payer you would have condoned the BBC re employing King? or Harris when he gets out? or Savile if he had done time for his crimes when alive? Etc, all in the interests of "rehabilitation". ? Where am I saying that people should have to come out to a life of unemployment? But there is a balance surely? I work with kids. If I was a convicted rapist I wouldn't be returning to my chosen career, I would be having to make ends meat some other way. For others, even if there is nothing procedurally to stop someone returning to a particular role, the wishes/fears/prejudices of the employers might mean that the ex offender wasn't given the luxury of returning to previous role. The eg I gave the other day was of the sparky who had mugged a pensioner, they have served their time... the offence was nothing to do with their job role, they still know their way around a circuit board, but you might not want em in your house ! It's not a matter of condoning them. You, me and shawsie all know that this would never happen, so it's hypothetical. However, what has to be defended is the BBC's right by law to re-employ them if they so wish. They won't, they wouldn't - but as the law stands, they have a right!. Same as any football club has a right, by law, to employ Ched Evans. Moral outrage is one thing, but it can't negate the law. The law may well be an ass, but if the BBC or Sheffield United are stupid enough to take such people back into their employ then, until the law states otherwise, so be it. All we could do in such circumstances is boycott the organisations involved, but we have no power to overrule their decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 10:41:01 GMT 1
There must be a statement soon the club's reputation is not looking great at the moment.So glad it's not our club in the mire but there again the scenario would never have arisen. IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 10:45:24 GMT 1
Really Shaws? As a tax payer you would have condoned the BBC re employing King? or Harris when he gets out? or Savile if he had done time for his crimes when alive? Etc, all in the interests of "rehabilitation". ? Where am I saying that people should have to come out to a life of unemployment? But there is a balance surely? I work with kids. If I was a convicted rapist I wouldn't be returning to my chosen career, I would be having to make ends meat some other way. For others, even if there is nothing procedurally to stop someone returning to a particular role, the wishes/fears/prejudices of the employers might mean that the ex offender wasn't given the luxury of returning to previous role. The eg I gave the other day was of the sparky who had mugged a pensioner, they have served their time... the offence was nothing to do with their job role, they still know their way around a circuit board, but you might not want em in your house ! It's not a matter of condoning them. You, me and shawsie all know that this would never happen, so it's hypothetical. However, what has to be defended is the BBC's right by law to re-employ them if they so wish. They won't, they wouldn't - but as the law stands, they have a right!. Same as any football club has a right, by law, to employ Ched Evans. Moral outrage is one thing, but it can't negate the law. The law may well be an ass, but if the BBC or Sheffield United are stupid enough to take such people back into their employ then, until the law states otherwise, so be it. All we could do in such circumstances is boycott the organisations involved, but we have no power to overrule their decisions. So true until the laws of the land change all we can continue to show is our moral outrage.We must therefore stand true to our own individual morals .
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 18, 2014 11:24:01 GMT 1
Really Shaws? As a tax payer you would have condoned the BBC re employing King? or Harris when he gets out? or Savile if he had done time for his crimes when alive? Etc, all in the interests of "rehabilitation". ? Where am I saying that people should have to come out to a life of unemployment? But there is a balance surely? I work with kids. If I was a convicted rapist I wouldn't be returning to my chosen career, I would be having to make ends meat some other way. For others, even if there is nothing procedurally to stop someone returning to a particular role, the wishes/fears/prejudices of the employers might mean that the ex offender wasn't given the luxury of returning to previous role. The eg I gave the other day was of the sparky who had mugged a pensioner, they have served their time... the offence was nothing to do with their job role, they still know their way around a circuit board, but you might not want em in your house ! It's not a matter of condoning them. You, me and shawsie all know that this would never happen, so it's hypothetical. However, what has to be defended is the BBC's right by law to re-employ them if they so wish. They won't, they wouldn't - but as the law stands, they have a right!. Same as any football club has a right, by law, to employ Ched Evans. Moral outrage is one thing, but it can't negate the law. The law may well be an ass, but if the BBC or Sheffield United are stupid enough to take such people back into their employ then, until the law states otherwise, so be it. All we could do in such circumstances is boycott the organisations involved, but we have no power to overrule their decisions. Ok my use of English was poor but I'm singing from the same hymn sheet I think
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 18, 2014 11:24:00 GMT 1
I've gone quieter on the thread because I feel I've said all I can say on it too. Which pretty much agrees with what you're saying. But I also feel now Sheffield need to make a choice on him too as more and more step out saying they want no association with the Club due to Evans - it just prolongs it in the media for him and the club. I do feel he was very mis advised with his 'come sign me video' and should have waited for the results of his appeal. A lot of the media circus around him could have been avoided. Shou?d a convicted rapist be allowed to walk straight back into his old job after serving his time - a job that's in the public eye and where people will look up to him because he's good at the job he does? In my opinion no. I think that's too vague a definition and too much of a grey area to ever become a condition of law. Where do you draw the line? What about a footballer who's a bit shit? Would you treat a Premier league footballer different to a non-league player? What may happen is the PFA could look into their own position on allowing convicted criminals back into the game but as has been stated many times it goes against British and European Law as it stands. And people looking up to him, will there really be that many? 10 times as many folk have signed the petition as attend a Sheff U home game. Many of those are Sheff U fans and Sheffield citizens. I think a lot of folk already see him as something worse than what they'd scrape off their shoe. The few that would 'look up to him' (strange concept IMO) would surely look up to him as a footballer and not a rapist. A moot point but true nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Nov 18, 2014 11:28:14 GMT 1
Thanks.I must have missed that statement .When was this ? We have had little time for news or football this last week.Family visiting etc.etc. I think they said that they were allowing him to train but hadn't offered him a contract but didn't rule it out either.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Nov 18, 2014 11:33:38 GMT 1
I've gone quieter on the thread because I feel I've said all I can say on it too. Which pretty much agrees with what you're saying. But I also feel now Sheffield need to make a choice on him too as more and more step out saying they want no association with the Club due to Evans - it just prolongs it in the media for him and the club. I do feel he was very mis advised with his 'come sign me video' and should have waited for the results of his appeal. A lot of the media circus around him could have been avoided. Shou?d a convicted rapist be allowed to walk straight back into his old job after serving his time - a job that's in the public eye and where people will look up to him because he's good at the job he does? In my opinion no. I think that's too vague a definition and too much of a grey area to ever become a condition of law. Where do you draw the line? What about a footballer who's a bit shit? Would you treat a Premier league footballer different to a non-league player? What may happen is the PFA could look into their own position on allowing convicted criminals back into the game but as has been stated many times it goes against British and European Law as it stands. And people looking up to him, will there really be that many? 10 times as many folk have signed the petition as attend a Sheff U home game. Many of those are Sheff U fans and Sheffield citizens. I think a lot of folk already see him as something worse than what they'd scrape off their shoe. The few that would 'look up to him' (strange concept IMO) would surely look up to him as a footballer and not a rapist. A moot point but true nevertheless. It's only how I feel about it though isn't it? I wouldn't want a convicted rapist representing my club and if he goes back internationally my country. That's through my eyes. Others may be okay with it.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Nov 18, 2014 12:57:21 GMT 1
They are now going to allow applications from convicted criminals to become Police Officers..
Barbie...we may be asking for urgent assistance at our homes from convicted burglars etc shortly..as I said ages ago , Evans kicking a ball about again, isn't the biggest or worst thing that could happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 13:22:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Nov 18, 2014 14:22:42 GMT 1
Thanks.I must have missed that statement .When was this ? We have had little time for news or football this last week.Family visiting etc.etc. I think they said that they were allowing him to train but hadn't offered him a contract but didn't rule it out either. Sheffield United have had their hands forced over this, even if they did want to offer him a contract they wouldn't do now, simply because of the moral outrage and the high profile fans of the club speaking out in the form of Ennis and Heaton. It would be a massive PR disaster for the club and the city of Sheffield.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 18, 2014 14:38:32 GMT 1
I think they said that they were allowing him to train but hadn't offered him a contract but didn't rule it out either. Sheffield United have had their hands forced over this, even if they did want to offer him a contract they wouldn't do now, simply because of the moral outrage and the high profile fans of the club speaking out in the form of Ennis and Heaton. It would be a massive PR disaster for the club and the city of Sheffield. People use the words "moral outrage" like they are some kind of manufactured false emotion. Maybe the people concerned feel its a bit grubby and dont really want to be associated with it.. I dont see moral outrage in exclamation marks banded about like a term of abuse when for instance there is genuine concern over the future of a padophile. When Stuart Hall gets out and applies to go back to reporting on football games on 5 live, you can bet your bottom dollar they wont employ him. Will that be because of "moral outrage"? Or because its the decent thing to do .. To try and separate the legal and the moral , as some on here seem to be attempting, is just unrealistic and crass
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Nov 18, 2014 14:49:54 GMT 1
They are now going to allow applications from convicted criminals to become Police Officers.. Barbie...we may be asking for urgent assistance at our homes from convicted burglars etc shortly..as I said ages ago , Evans kicking a ball about again, isn't the biggest or worst thing that could happen. A rehabilitated and genuinely remorseful convicted burglar or one that does a bit of time and expects to walk back into his old life with no acknowledgement to his crime? Would I feel more comfortable with a convicted rehabilitated burglar attending my home than an as it appears at the moment an unrepentant rapist? I know the answer to that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2014 15:37:17 GMT 1
Sheffield United have had their hands forced over this, even if they did want to offer him a contract they wouldn't do now, simply because of the moral outrage and the high profile fans of the club speaking out in the form of Ennis and Heaton. It would be a massive PR disaster for the club and the city of Sheffield. People use the words "moral outrage" like they are some kind of manufactured false emotion. Maybe the people concerned feel its a bit grubby and dont really want to be associated with it.. I dont see moral outrage in exclamation marks banded about like a term of abuse when for instance there is genuine concern over the future of a padophile. When Stuart Hall gets out and applies to go back to reporting on football games on 5 live, you can bet your bottom dollar they wont employ him. Will that be because of "moral outrage"? Or because its the decent thing to do .. To try and separate the legal and the moral , as some on here seem to be attempting, is just unrealistic and crassCrass? Steady on there, Ted! It would appear that 'the legal and the moral' here are at odds with one another. 'The moral' (nowt wrong with moral) appear to be opposed to the player being allowed to play professional football again whilst 'the legal' says he has every right to. The two seem quite 'separate' view points to me- neither having much regard for the other in this particular case. What's wrong with pointing out this dichotomy/dilemma? Marrying these two juxtaposed positions seems to be the whole problem here.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 18, 2014 16:30:19 GMT 1
People use the words "moral outrage" like they are some kind of manufactured false emotion. People use the word "crass" as though acknowledging the law of the land is some kind of moral outrage.
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Nov 18, 2014 16:55:11 GMT 1
Wow 30 pages!! This guy isn't worth a sentence!
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 18, 2014 17:03:03 GMT 1
Wow 30 pages!! This guy isn't worth a sentence! Yet he's worth clicking on a 30 page thread? It's been an excellent discussion on a wide ranging, complex, emotive subject, if you don't want to read it or contribute nobody is forcing you..
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Nov 18, 2014 17:11:10 GMT 1
Barbie;; you wont know he is a convicted criminal, that's my point. everyone knows just who and what evans is?? more dangerous? not a chance in hell... Sarahs law, already blocked over a dozen times in Europe to 'protect' the convicted criminals human rights. you will have no idea who the bloke/lady in uniform is or has been...at a possibly very vulnerable moment in your life...
|
|
jasonhand
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by jasonhand on Nov 18, 2014 17:25:12 GMT 1
Wow 30 pages!! This guy isn't worth a sentence! Yet he's worth clicking on a 30 page thread? It's been an excellent discussion on a wide ranging, complex, emotive subject, if you don't want to read it or contribute nobody is forcing you.. Absolutely 3pipe its been a really good discussion. Some great posts from people with far more experience than myself on here. An amazing post by TerrierClare by the way.
|
|
|
Post by huddstim on Nov 18, 2014 18:01:05 GMT 1
Most of the evidence of what Evans did came from his and his friend's testimony, so unlike the Guilford 4 is not a matter of dispute. The case Evans makes is about whether there was consent. The jury's verdict, having heard what happened and all Evans's expensive "experts", was that there wasn't consent and so found him guilty. He is a convicted rapist not an "alleged" one. Just because the girl consented to sex with his mate, doesn't mean that she consented to sex with Evans, who she had not even met when he decided to go round and fuck her whilst his other mates watched. Evans has never apologised to the girl for what he admits to having done that night. Perhaps if he had done, the outrage over him playing professional football again would not be so great. People have speculated that his lack of apology is for legal reasons. I am not convinced, as his lawyers could surely find a form of words without prejudice to his appeal. More likely he still doesn't think he did anything wrong other than cheat on his deluded ever forgiving girlfriend and get caught. Does this make him more or less likely to re-offend?
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Nov 18, 2014 19:25:52 GMT 1
apologise for what?? if he honestly thinks what he did wasn't criminal or even 'poor decision making'...
if he does not get an appeal or is still found guilty on appeal, it does not matter what he thinks to anyone else..an apology now is a bit useless and would be even more unbelievable than most of the apologies of criminals. Said before most are seriously more sorry they got caught than they are for any victims of their crimes..
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Nov 18, 2014 19:53:11 GMT 1
Barbie;; you wont know he is a convicted criminal, that's my point. everyone knows just who and what evans is?? more dangerous? not a chance in hell... Sarahs law, already blocked over a dozen times in Europe to 'protect' the convicted criminals human rights. you will have no idea who the bloke/lady in uniform is or has been...at a possibly very vulnerable moment in your life... I think it's rational to believe that Mr. Plod won't be a unrepentant convicted rapist on licence with parole conditions hanging over him. Regardless of whether or not the police force have relaxed recruitment rules they are not just going to allow anyone to take up a uniform.
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Nov 18, 2014 19:54:08 GMT 1
Just think that "if" there is a next time where a rapist wants to return to football all the people on this thread can turn around and say "i've got a right to an opinion because i was concerned about the Ched Evans case" and all the chairmen in the football league along with all the clubs sponsors will say "we can't employ that person because we remember all the grief Sheff Utd got". There might even be dozens of people who used to think that what they got up to on a saturday/Sunday/Monday etc etc etc night was quite acceptable and are now thinking "jesus christ" i don't want that happening to me.. That must be a good thing surely? There might be a legal system in this country but i do think that sometimes the public can make a difference for the better when responding to matters like these.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Nov 18, 2014 20:12:34 GMT 1
People use the words "moral outrage" like they are some kind of manufactured false emotion. Maybe the people concerned feel its a bit grubby and dont really want to be associated with it.. I dont see moral outrage in exclamation marks banded about like a term of abuse when for instance there is genuine concern over the future of a padophile. When Stuart Hall gets out and applies to go back to reporting on football games on 5 live, you can bet your bottom dollar they wont employ him. Will that be because of "moral outrage"? Or because its the decent thing to do .. To try and separate the legal and the moral , as some on here seem to be attempting, is just unrealistic and crassCrass? Steady on there, Ted! It would appear that 'the legal and the moral' here are at odds with one another. 'The moral' (nowt wrong with moral) appear to be opposed to the player being allowed to play professional football again whilst 'the legal' says he has every right to. The two seem quite 'separate' view points to me- neither having much regard for the other in this particular case. What's wrong with pointing out this dichotomy/dilemma? Marrying these two juxtaposed positions seems to be the whole problem here. Yet again my use of the venacullar has been poor.. Ill blame bashing out on my ipad whilst at work.. Agree with your basic thrust
|
|
|
Post by huddstim on Nov 19, 2014 0:33:25 GMT 1
Could anyone be so deluded as to believe it wasn't a poor decision? At one time criminals were expected to show contrition before being released early. If he has learnt nothing from his punishment what rehabilitation has there been and what will stop him from raping again?
|
|
|
Post by terrierclare on Nov 19, 2014 1:30:24 GMT 1
Yet he's worth clicking on a 30 page thread? It's been an excellent discussion on a wide ranging, complex, emotive subject, if you don't want to read it or contribute nobody is forcing you.. Absolutely 3pipe its been a really good discussion. Some great posts from people with far more experience than myself on here. An amazing post by TerrierClare by the way. Thanks for your comment about my post. I thought long and hard about sharing something so personal but in the end decided I needed to try and explain how it feels to be a victim and having to live with what happened. I'm normally quite an easy going person who believes in live and let live but not when it comes to rapists. I admit my opinion is coloured by my personal experience but to me a rapist is the lowest of the low as they abuse a woman mentally and emotionally as well as physically. It's really hard to explain the impact rape has on a woman and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, it's an horrendous assault. How his girlfriend has stuck by him I will never know or understand. I don't know what the future holds for Evans but I hope the saying 'what goes around, comes around' and he gets his comeuppance.
|
|
jasonhand
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by jasonhand on Nov 19, 2014 15:43:37 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 15:44:03 GMT 1
Could anyone be so deluded as to believe it wasn't a poor decision? At one time criminals were expected to show contrition before being released early. If he has learnt nothing from his punishment what rehabilitation has there been and what will stop him from raping again? I completely agree. I've already said the hidden risk with him being back as a high profile footballer is the increased opportunity for the same thing to happen. He clearly has no understanding of consensual sex, and a huge ego. There are some people so deluded that not only do they think he did not do much wrong, they actually lay the responsibility for the crime at the feet of the victim. Pretty sick if you ask me but I'm a PC brigade, morally outraged, wishy washy, lefty, feminist.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Nov 19, 2014 15:45:53 GMT 1
I thought it was apt that Clare would have the last word in the thread and it was looking that way for 14 hours.... ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Nov 19, 2014 15:48:17 GMT 1
I read the first couple of sentences and could start feeling myself getting angry - i am not an angry person. I will probably go back to reading it again later. I am wondering though how this boy thinks a woman can keep her knickers on if she is passed out on a bed? Another one clearly unable to do his job properly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 16:17:00 GMT 1
This guy could have his own fan base on here. At least this debate is bringing out a full spectrum of people's real views...enlightening at both ends imo- educated forward thinking from some, misogynistic, ignorant and blinkered from others and some powerful & relevant first hand accounts from others. Debate is the real good thing that has come about from Evans' actions. Debate that has stretched beyond the events of that night into an increasingly national debate. It educates and brings about change and is fundemental to a developing society. In an era where the reality of abuse of young women is widespread and systematically ignored by institutions designed to protect them, a progressive and vocal debate about rape can only be a good thing. Mr Conrad's views though abhorrent to me, were essentially those shared by Rorherham child services and police during the last 15 years. Those girls were adjudged to have been consenting, 'asking for it' etc etc. These are commonly held views by men in today's society even those who have supposed to have been educated otherwise. It is only by shining a light on these viewpoints that society can move forward and our institutions can protect young vulnerable women going forward. The ched Evans case has now become about far more than his actions. He is partly culpable for this in the way he has managed things- releasing a quite moronic statement on his own website but refusing any interviews. His uk football career is most likely over now but that's a small price to pay for the progressive debate which has ensued to the benefit of society as a whole.
|
|