Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:03:48 GMT 1
As a female supporter it would disgust me greatly to hear any fan singing 'super Ched Evans' from the stands. Rape is a violent crime against women. Nothing super about that. For him a convicted rapist to be on a field entertaining Men, Women and Children I just find the whole idea incomprehensible and if he played for htafc and came back I wouldn't be able to be at a game whilst he was on the field. I don't begrudge him the chance to earn a wage but not in family based entertainment. IMO. Rape is a violent crime against any gender. Yes and in this instance it was against a young woman. What's your point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:09:00 GMT 1
On a selfish note, I don't like seeing a convicted criminal earning more than I ever will, but no doubt that happens all the time (I mean for legit jobs) - just not in the public domain. What I would like to see is a tax, similar to how student loans are calculated, whereby if you earn over certain thresholds after serving a prison term, you pay back some of the cost for your prison term. Their contributions to society should be higher due to their higher cost to society. It's not just about financial cost tho is it. It's the cost of the message it sends out to young people. That rape isn't that serious and if you're good at football you can pretty much carry on where you left off. You couldn't get a job teaching children but you are allowed to work in a profession idolised by children. It's a massive contradiction and it needs looking at by the government. As has been shown on countless occasions football is incapable of self governance where the greater good of society is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 13:18:21 GMT 1
Again, level one crimes, level two crimes... it's dodgy ground. Crimes have different levels of severity and punishments in law reflect this. These punishment should be reflected in the consequences for those in high profile media fields of work. From 1 year ban up to lifetime depending on severity. There is no ambiguity here. So what is wrong with the law as it stands now which means a guilty man is free to resume his career once he has SERVED his sentence. Morally you may disagree with it. I wouldn't want Evans at Town but at the same time, until the law states otherwise he is free to return to his career. Again I do believe that US sports have taken a lead that they feel that playing their sport is a privilege, and the governing body often bans players for legal misdeeds even when a prison sentence has not been passed down. In fact some STAR players in the NFL this season have been deactivated by their club's owners (although on full pay) when they have only been charged as clubs do not want the negative press. Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice being prime examples.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 13:22:06 GMT 1
Moral cloth? Hammill was coming round from unconsciousness when he hit the paramedic, not even pre meditated. Evans decided to take advantage of a very very drunk girl. They're poles apart on moral terms, you can't even start to compare the two. Hammill was an idiot for getting so drunk, I'm not gonna deny that, and I defended Hamills right at the time to be allowed his guilt to be decided by the court, which many didn't. However, if any player of our club committed the same offence as Evans, then there's no way is grant him any kind of sympathy or compassion. I don't grant him an ounce of sympathy or compassion either mate but we do have a system put in place of rehabilitation, that is re-integration into society of a convicted criminal once they have done their time. Believe me, I'm as disgusted as the next person by violence or sexual violence to another woman (or man) but having served his punishment I believe he has the right to start trying to do something positive and rebuild his life on the outside. I think it is a great idea to temper the fact he is doing something which is well paid by taxing him accordingly and feeding that back into the system also. As for the influence on kids/ role model argument, rape is a disgusting act that is touched upon in many mainstream media. Do you stop kids watching Eastenders because it touches on difficult subjects like rape? You explain to the child according to their age, it's a very bad thing, you will go to prison for it, you will be hated and booed by everyone for it, you will never ever lose the bad reputation that comes with it, you will never shake off the implications of what you've done. What if he was to be banned from playing football and he was to sink into alcoholism and do it again? Or even worse kill someone after? Surely the most positive and sensible thing to do here is allow him the right to rehabilitation in the hope he can positively contribute to society again?
|
|
|
Post by ringdisco on Oct 14, 2014 13:25:18 GMT 1
That seems to stand in stark contrast to the general principle of being innocent until proven guilty. The difficulty in prosecuting people for rape is that it's difficult to prove guilt, given that generally there are only two people there and it's one word against another. However, countering that by making the accused have to prove innocence only shifts it completely in the other direction. How would you ever prove that sex was consensual? Even a non-abusive husband of 20 years would struggle to prove that his wife consented to having sex with him in a court of law, unless he made her sign a contract in front of witnesses every time... But he has been proven guilty, despite a statement from his mate stating that the girl consented. Presumably this evidence was unreliable? He was innocent right up until the point the lead juror announced the verdict, if he appeals and the conviction is overturned then he's innocent again, but as it stands, he's guilty of rape - hence, it's down to him to prove she consented. And the courts never, ever convict innocent people.......
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 13:26:11 GMT 1
Again, level one crimes, level two crimes... it's dodgy ground. Crimes have different levels of severity and punishments in law reflect this. These punishment should be reflected in the consequences for those in high profile media fields of work. From 1 year ban up to lifetime depending on severity. There is no ambiguity here. Again, dodgy ground. Define 'high profile media fields of work'. Where do you draw the line on profile? Are you saying it's acceptable for a Sunday league player to commit the same crime and continue playing? I shit you not Joe, when I was a kid two of my football heroes consisted of Steve Kindon and a fella who played for Wooldale Wanderers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:29:12 GMT 1
Moral cloth? Hammill was coming round from unconsciousness when he hit the paramedic, not even pre meditated. Evans decided to take advantage of a very very drunk girl. They're poles apart on moral terms, you can't even start to compare the two. Hammill was an idiot for getting so drunk, I'm not gonna deny that, and I defended Hamills right at the time to be allowed his guilt to be decided by the court, which many didn't. However, if any player of our club committed the same offence as Evans, then there's no way is grant him any kind of sympathy or compassion. I don't grant him an ounce of sympathy or compassion either mate but we do have a system put in place of rehabilitation, that is re-integration into society of a convicted criminal once they have done their time. Believe me, I'm as disgusted as the next person by violence or sexual violence to another woman (or man) but having served his punishment I believe he has the right to start trying to do something positive and rebuild his life on the outside. I think it is a great idea to temper the fact he is doing something which is well paid by taxing him accordingly and feeding that back into the system also. As for the influence on kids/ role model argument, rape is a disgusting act that is touched upon in many mainstream media. Do you stop kids watching Eastenders because it touches on difficult subjects like rape? You explain to the child according to their age, it's a very bad thing, you will go to prison for it, you will be hated and booed by everyone for it, you will never ever lose the bad reputation that comes with it, you will never shake off the implications of what you've done. What if he was to be banned from playing football and he was to sink into alcoholism and do it again? Or even worse kill someone after? Surely the most positive and sensible thing to do here is allow him the right to rehabilitation in the hope he can positively contribute to society again? And what if he goes back to playing football, attracts the attention of a young lady in a night club because of his profession, and rapes again?
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Oct 14, 2014 13:33:09 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 Not to the same extent no. Hammil apologised to everyone, club and fans and made steps to move on. Evans maintains his innocence and has had two appeals rejected probably because he knows an apology is an admission of guilt and is worried about the effect on his career. His arrogance speaks volumes. Imo
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Oct 14, 2014 13:34:27 GMT 1
As a female supporter it would disgust me greatly to hear any fan singing 'super Ched Evans' from the stands. Rape is a violent crime against women. Nothing super about that. For him a convicted rapist to be on a field entertaining Men, Women and Children I just find the whole idea incomprehensible and if he played for htafc and came back I wouldn't be able to be at a game whilst he was on the field. I don't begrudge him the chance to earn a wage but not in family based entertainment. IMO. Rape is a violent crime against any gender. In this case it was a woman?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 13:34:35 GMT 1
I don't grant him an ounce of sympathy or compassion either mate but we do have a system put in place of rehabilitation, that is re-integration into society of a convicted criminal once they have done their time. Believe me, I'm as disgusted as the next person by violence or sexual violence to another woman (or man) but having served his punishment I believe he has the right to start trying to do something positive and rebuild his life on the outside. I think it is a great idea to temper the fact he is doing something which is well paid by taxing him accordingly and feeding that back into the system also. As for the influence on kids/ role model argument, rape is a disgusting act that is touched upon in many mainstream media. Do you stop kids watching Eastenders because it touches on difficult subjects like rape? You explain to the child according to their age, it's a very bad thing, you will go to prison for it, you will be hated and booed by everyone for it, you will never ever lose the bad reputation that comes with it, you will never shake off the implications of what you've done. What if he was to be banned from playing football and he was to sink into alcoholism and do it again? Or even worse kill someone after? Surely the most positive and sensible thing to do here is allow him the right to rehabilitation in the hope he can positively contribute to society again? And what if he goes back to playing football, attracts the attention of a young lady in a night club because of his profession, and rapes again? What if any offender re-offends? hopefully they will feel the full force of the law again. Should we lock everyone up for life - just in case they reoffend ffs Your morals seem to be dragging you so far away from reality on this one Mel.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 13:34:55 GMT 1
And what if he goes back to playing football, attracts the attention of a young lady in a night club because of his profession, and rapes again? If it was up to me, I'd castrate him and serve an absolute maximum sentence. But I do believe he should be given every opportunity to make a positive contribution to society now he has served his time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:41:20 GMT 1
And what if he goes back to playing football, attracts the attention of a young lady in a night club because of his profession, and rapes again? What if any offender re-offends? hopefully they will feel the full force of the law again. Should we lock everyone up for life - just in case they reoffend ffs Your morals seem to be dragging you so far away from reality on this one Mel. Where did I say he should be locked up for life. If you want to protest his right to resume a professional football career then fair enough, I don't think he should, unless he can prove his innocence. What is so unrealistic about that?
|
|
|
Post by nickmaca10 on Oct 14, 2014 13:42:17 GMT 1
On a selfish note, I don't like seeing a convicted criminal earning more than I ever will, but no doubt that happens all the time (I mean for legit jobs) - just not in the public domain. What I would like to see is a tax, similar to how student loans are calculated, whereby if you earn over certain thresholds after serving a prison term, you pay back some of the cost for your prison term. Their contributions to society should be higher due to their higher cost to society. It's not just about financial cost tho is it. It's the cost of the message it sends out to young people. That rape isn't that serious and if you're good at football you can pretty much carry on where you left off. You couldn't get a job teaching children but you are allowed to work in a profession idolised by children. It's a massive contradiction and it needs looking at by the government. As has been shown on countless occasions football is incapable of self governance where the greater good of society is concerned. True, it's such dodgy ground. The problem is, is Ched Evans going to be a better contributor to society as a footballer, or as a man in his mid 20's with (guessing) no work experience, little in terms of qualifications and a conviction to his name? What does limiting his options gain? I'm guessing you would say he has waived his right to the privileged position he once held, I don't know where I sit on it - no doubt my answer would be completely different had it affected me personally.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 13:53:32 GMT 1
You couldn't get a job teaching children but you are allowed to work in a profession idolised by children. It's a massive contradiction and it needs looking at by the government. As has been shown on countless occasions football is incapable of self governance where the greater good of society is concerned. By that definition convicted rapists can't become firemen, astronauts, engineers, train drivers, racing drivers, crane drivers, digger drivers, musicians, vets, etc etc... In fact, it doesn't leave much left for him really does it?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 13:58:19 GMT 1
What if any offender re-offends? hopefully they will feel the full force of the law again. Should we lock everyone up for life - just in case they reoffend ffs Your morals seem to be dragging you so far away from reality on this one Mel. Where did I say he should be locked up for life. If you want to protest his right to resume a professional football career then fair enough, I don't think he should, unless he can prove his innocence. What is so unrealistic about that? You asked the question "what if he.... rapes again?" Using that argument IMO is just ridiculous as it can be used with any offender who commits any crime.
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 14:00:02 GMT 1
Fair enough lankystreak nobody will ever really know. But put yourself in the position where you've been out with a mate and he hooks up with someone who is clearly drunk. OK, she constents to sex with him. Would you put yourself in the position to then go and visit the hotel room to also join in on the act when you could she was clearly incapable of making that decision to have sex with the pair of you? And then have a friend film it? Everything in your morale fibre should be saying at that point this is not right. As stated above, morally I think he has acted like a scumbag, but that doesn't make him guilty of rape
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 14:13:05 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 Not to the same extent no. Hammil apologised to everyone, club and fans and made steps to move on. Evans maintains his innocence and has had two appeals rejected probably because he knows an apology is an admission of guilt and is worried about the effect on his career. His arrogance speaks volumes. Imo So, let me get this straight, someone who believes he isn't a rapist and believes he hasn't committed a crime should admit to doing so??? Why??? Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, he isn't apologising because he thinks/knows he hasn't done anything wrong? ? The one-eyed views of some people on this subject is astounding.
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 14:16:36 GMT 1
How would you or anyone else on this forum know that if they weren't there at the time? ? It is comments such as this that are annoying me on this thread All of your comments are annoying me on this thread Ian. How can you be so naive? Firstly it's Lanky, not Ian. Secondly, how am I being naive???
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 14:31:11 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 Not to the same extent no. Hammil apologised to everyone, club and fans and made steps to move on. Evans maintains his innocence and has had two appeals rejected probably because he knows an apology is an admission of guilt and is worried about the effect on his career. His arrogance speaks volumes. Imo I'd argue that an admission of guilt would have a more positive effect on his career. An admission of guilt together with an apology would go a long way to smoothing over his re-introduction to society. I suspect he feels he is to some degree innocent but that is pure speculation. Only he knows the full extent of what went on. I've seen the CCTV footage of the female and she was wobbly on her feet (to put it kindly) so there's a good chance her memory is going to be hazy. If it was my daughter, an apology wouldn't wash with me but I know what you are saying. But I would argue an admission of guilt and an apology would actually make it easier for everyone to - as you put it - 'move on'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 14:40:36 GMT 1
Where did I say he should be locked up for life. If you want to protest his right to resume a professional football career then fair enough, I don't think he should, unless he can prove his innocence. What is so unrealistic about that? You asked the question "what if he.... rapes again?" Using that argument IMO is just ridiculous as it can be used with any offender who commits any crime. That was in response to a series of what ifs by 3 pipe, who questioned he could become an alcoholic and ultimately commit murder. Ched Evans as a pro footballer will be subject to situations where young girls give him a lot of attention, the chances of him either raping a girl again, or perhaps falling victim to somebody who wants to stitch him up with a false rape allegation are clearly higher than they are for a 55 year old bin man with no front teeth. What is ridiculous about that?
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Oct 14, 2014 14:50:11 GMT 1
Not to the same extent no. Hammil apologised to everyone, club and fans and made steps to move on. Evans maintains his innocence and has had two appeals rejected probably because he knows an apology is an admission of guilt and is worried about the effect on his career. His arrogance speaks volumes. Imo So, let me get this straight, someone who believes he isn't a rapist and believes he hasn't committed a crime should admit to doing so??? Why??? Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, he isn't apologising because he thinks/knows he hasn't done anything wrong? ? The one-eyed views of some people on this subject is astounding. He was convicted of the crime. I guess most criminals believe themselves to be innocent. That's why we have a judge and jury. Apologies though for having 'a one eyed view' of this subject. I guess his victim will have too
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 14:53:25 GMT 1
You asked the question "what if he.... rapes again?" Using that argument IMO is just ridiculous as it can be used with any offender who commits any crime. That was in response to a series of what ifs by 3 pipe, who questioned he could become an alcoholic and ultimately commit murder. Ched Evans as a pro footballer will be subject to situations where young girls give him a lot of attention, the chances of him either raping a girl again, or perhaps falling victim to somebody who wants to stitch him up with a false rape allegation are clearly higher than they are for a 55 year old bin man with no front teeth.What is ridiculous about that? That is almost the definition of being ridiculous comparing Ched Evans future chances of raping again to a 55yr old toothless bin man. Again... do you want to return to reality? I find the crime of rape heinous but the law has dealt with his crime, he has served his punishment. The FA won't ban him so that means he is free to continue with his career should anyone want to employ him. While you are entitled to your opinion of wishing him not to return, but to use a potential future crime as a reason for him to be banned from football is IMO grasping at straws. If he is to become a serial rapist then his job will have nothing to do his ability to do it, so I find it ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Oct 14, 2014 14:53:43 GMT 1
Not to the same extent no. Hammil apologised to everyone, club and fans and made steps to move on. Evans maintains his innocence and has had two appeals rejected probably because he knows an apology is an admission of guilt and is worried about the effect on his career. His arrogance speaks volumes. Imo I'd argue that an admission of guilt would have a more positive effect on his career. An admission of guilt together with an apology would go a long way to smoothing over his re-introduction to society. I suspect he feels he is to some degree innocent but that is pure speculation. Only he knows the full extent of what went on. I've seen the CCTV footage of the female and she was wobbly on her feet (to put it kindly) so there's a good chance her memory is going to be hazy. If it was my daughter, an apology wouldn't wash with me but I know what you are saying. But I would argue an admission of guilt and an apology would actually make it easier for everyone to - as you put it - 'move on'. Move on was probably not the best of phrases as the girl will never move on. Just some acknowledgement would go a long way. Whatever rights or wrongs of that night I think supporting a convicted rapist on a pitch during family based entertainment seems wrong imo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 14:57:24 GMT 1
Crimes have different levels of severity and punishments in law reflect this. These punishment should be reflected in the consequences for those in high profile media fields of work. From 1 year ban up to lifetime depending on severity. There is no ambiguity here. So what is wrong with the law as it stands now which means a guilty man is free to resume his career once he has SERVED his sentence. Morally you may disagree with it. I wouldn't want Evans at Town but at the same time, until the law states otherwise he is free to return to his career. Again I do believe that US sports have taken a lead that they feel that playing their sport is a privilege, and the governing body often bans players for legal misdeeds even when a prison sentence has not been passed down. In fact some STAR players in the NFL this season have been deactivated by their club's owners (although on full pay) when they have only been charged as clubs do not want the negative press. Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice being prime examples. You seem to be making points for and against here? You don't believe there should be sanctions again criminal sportsman but you believe we should follow US sports' lead where they have taken sanctions in addition and even in absence of prosecution?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 15:04:24 GMT 1
So what is wrong with the law as it stands now which means a guilty man is free to resume his career once he has SERVED his sentence. Morally you may disagree with it. I wouldn't want Evans at Town but at the same time, until the law states otherwise he is free to return to his career. Again I do believe that US sports have taken a lead that they feel that playing their sport is a privilege, and the governing body often bans players for legal misdeeds even when a prison sentence has not been passed down. In fact some STAR players in the NFL this season have been deactivated by their club's owners (although on full pay) when they have only been charged as clubs do not want the negative press. Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice being prime examples. You seem to be making points for and against here? You don't believe there should be sanctions again criminal sportsman but you believe we should follow US sports' lead where they have taken sanctions in addition and even in absence of prosecution? I'm for him returning to his career AFTER serving his sentence because there is currently nothing in place to stop him. The moral argument of this case should be dealt with at the time of sentencing by the judge or his sports governing body. The question/debate about career continuation should not be addressed at the end of his sentence as it seems we are currently doing, IMO it should be at the end of his trial. I hope that clears up my position for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 15:08:30 GMT 1
Crimes have different levels of severity and punishments in law reflect this. These punishment should be reflected in the consequences for those in high profile media fields of work. From 1 year ban up to lifetime depending on severity. There is no ambiguity here. Again, dodgy ground. Define 'high profile media fields of work'. Where do you draw the line on profile? Are you saying it's acceptable for a Sunday league player to commit the same crime and continue playing? I shit you not Joe, when I was a kid two of my football heroes consisted of Steve Kindon and a fella who played for Wooldale Wanderers. Professional league football is high profile. Wooldale juniors is not. Yorkshire CC is high profile. Broad oak is not. Sunday league players may have some local fans but they are not watched by 10 000 people weekly or on prime time Tv. What would you say to an 8 year mad keen footie fan if ched was signed by town? Well, son he did a wet bad thing- he hurt a lady very badly but he went to prison for a bit and now you can cheer him on if he scores a goal for us!? That is the position parents will be faced with soon and due to the media coverage and booing he gets at grounds the question will be unavoidable. High profile sportsmen have a responsibility far beyond that of postmen, builders or salesmen. The consequences of their behaviour have an impact on the young & this must be taken into account upon their release from prison.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 15:10:09 GMT 1
Move on was probably not the best of phrases as the girl will never move on. Just some acknowledgement would go a long way. Whatever rights or wrongs of that night I think supporting a convicted rapist on a pitch during family based entertainment seems wrong imo I sincerely hope she moves on as best as she can. I'm sure she will be getting the best of help available in order to do that. I agree an apology and some acknowledgement would help her too. I can't help but feel he thinks (rightfully or wrongly) that he's not completely to blame here. As you said, disgusting arrogance, if he is indeed deluding himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 15:13:02 GMT 1
You seem to be making points for and against here? You don't believe there should be sanctions again criminal sportsman but you believe we should follow US sports' lead where they have taken sanctions in addition and even in absence of prosecution? I'm for him returning to his career AFTER serving his sentence because there is currently nothing in place to stop him. The moral argument of this case should be dealt with at the time of sentencing by the judge or his sports governing body. The question/debate about career continuation should not be addressed at the end of his sentence as it seems we are currently doing, IMO it should be at the end of his trial. I hope that clears up my position for you. Well we're debating it because there is currently no legal guidelines or recommendations in place. This is something that needs to change imo. If you're found guilty of rape, murder, paedophilia, human trafficking, slavery, ABH with intent to wound, firearms, child abuse then you cannot return to a career of professional sport.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 15:20:00 GMT 1
I'm for him returning to his career AFTER serving his sentence because there is currently nothing in place to stop him. The moral argument of this case should be dealt with at the time of sentencing by the judge or his sports governing body. The question/debate about career continuation should not be addressed at the end of his sentence as it seems we are currently doing, IMO it should be at the end of his trial. I hope that clears up my position for you. Well we're debating it because there is currently no legal guidelines or recommendations in place. This is something that needs to change imo. If you're found guilty of rape, murder, paedophilia, human trafficking, slavery, ABH with intent to wound, firearms, child abuse then you cannot return to a career of professional sport. I'm guessing that statement is in your opinion too. Therefore IMO you can't have double punishment of Evans because of this, I think it would be wrong now to deny him his career continuation at the end of his sentence. However, at the time of sentencing it would not have been, and a future ban handed out by the Judge or the FA at that time would have had my support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 15:21:46 GMT 1
It's not just about financial cost tho is it. It's the cost of the message it sends out to young people. That rape isn't that serious and if you're good at football you can pretty much carry on where you left off. You couldn't get a job teaching children but you are allowed to work in a profession idolised by children. It's a massive contradiction and it needs looking at by the government. As has been shown on countless occasions football is incapable of self governance where the greater good of society is concerned. True, it's such dodgy ground. The problem is, is Ched Evans going to be a better contributor to society as a footballer, or as a man in his mid 20's with (guessing) no work experience, little in terms of qualifications and a conviction to his name? What does limiting his options gain? I'm guessing you would say he has waived his right to the privileged position he once held, I don't know where I sit on it - no doubt my answer would be completely different had it affected me personally. Absolutely that's way I'm saying. We need to be making this decision as though it were one of our daughters/ sisters, that's my point too. Re. What work he does, he would no doubt pay more taxes as a footballer but causes harm in that role. He should be free to commence another career which has no direct negative impact on young people or his victim(s). What taxes he contributes is of minimal importance compared to the harm he would do society. It's taken 100 years to get to a place where rape is viewed legally as the heinous crime it is and there are still thousands that go unreported each year and many that don't make it to trial. Professional sport could take a lead here and set a good example and clear message to young people. There should be legal/governmental intervention to see that it does.
|
|