|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 17, 2014 10:39:04 GMT
I know he probably isn't good enough for us, but say he was, would you be bothered if we signed him?
In my opinion he's committed the crime (regardless of thoughts on this he was found guilty) served his time (as sentenced) and should now be free to carry on his life.
The campaign top try and prevent clubs signing him is outrageous Imo. Would that happen if he went to work at McDonald's - I doubt it. It is only because he is high profile that campaigners appear to want to stop him having a job, utilising his skills.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Oct 17, 2014 10:42:11 GMT
Let he who hasn't shagged a drunken bird cast the first stone.
|
|
|
Post by kentpotter on Oct 17, 2014 10:48:33 GMT
Let he who hasn't shagged a drunken bird cast the first stone. I'll happily cast that stone then! As for Evans, I think I'm like the majority of people if only they'd be honest; my head agrees with Basingstokie, my heart says castrate the bastard.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 17, 2014 10:57:21 GMT
He's presumably on a register which will bar him from certain types of employment. Football is not one of those careers, therefore it's a non issue isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 10:58:48 GMT
Let he who hasn't shagged a drunken bird cast the first stone. I'm not throwing any stones then.
|
|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Oct 17, 2014 11:00:30 GMT
Isn't this particular incident in the grey area as the woman in question is known to be a bullshitter or something? Not that I condone any of it of course, it'd just be sad to see a man's life even more ruined when he could potentially be innocent.
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Oct 17, 2014 11:05:47 GMT
He sounds like a grubby man involved in a horrible seedy action who was arrogant enough to think he was untouchable...
BUT He has served the sentence he was given and is now deemed a low enough risk to be released therefore he should be allowed to put his life back together and should not be prevented from working anywhere other than places laid down as part of his ongoing supervision in the community !
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 17, 2014 11:11:23 GMT
Having watched some of the evidence his family have put forward on various social media sites I'm not sure he was guilty to start with. However, he was found guilty but the system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Is he likely to commit the crime again? I doubt it. Of course he should be allowed to work again otherwise what's the point, he may as well stay in jail along with thousands of others who are likely to commit crime again. The fact is other high profile people have gone on to make shed loads after jail terms so why shouldn't he? Most supporters will not be bothered as long as he scores goals which is the nature of football. It's just another media witch hunt. Having said all that I'm not sure I'd want him at Stoke we're hated enough as it is!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 17, 2014 11:12:09 GMT
Found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of twelve. Grounds for appeal refused by a panel of three independent judges. No remorse shown. No grey area, he is a rapist.
I'm not sure you can stop a club from signing him but I'd be sickened if he turned out for us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:12:47 GMT
Dickie has his say!
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Oct 17, 2014 11:17:36 GMT
There are no issues if you believe in the English judicial system.
He committed the crime and has served his time and as sheik has stated, a footballer is not a career he will be restricted from resuming.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:18:10 GMT
If Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick were allowed back in to football, then why not Ched Evans?.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 17, 2014 11:18:10 GMT
He's presumably on a register which will bar him from certain types of employment. Football is not one of those careers, therefore it's a non issue isn't it? I agree - he's on the sex offender's register indefinitely so that will limit his employment to exclude certain jobs (teacher, social worker, lawyer etc. etc.) as it should do. I can't see any particular reason why football should be a prohibited occupation for a sex offender. I don't really buy into the "role model" argument either. If all clubs rooted out and sacked players who aren't good role models, there would be a lot of players looking for other jobs. If we say that a football club should not employ him, what do we say if he then gets a job as a dustman, and the women on his bin round object to having a convicted rapist emptying their bins? Personally, I think he's a shit, and I wouldn't want him at Stoke. But that isn't the point - because I wouldn't want him at Stoke doesn't mean he should be barred from football if he finds a club which will take him. Incidentally, although he still claims innocence (as is his right) he could do himself a favour if he accepted that having sex with a complete stranger who is so drunk that the concept of "consent" is meaningless, is a pretty shabby thing to do and that the abuse he'll inevitably get from opposition crowds if he does play football again, will be thoroughly deserved.
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Oct 17, 2014 11:18:23 GMT
The problem I have is that a man convicted of rape is out in time to continue as a footballer.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 17, 2014 11:22:19 GMT
He's presumably on a register which will bar him from certain types of employment. Football is not one of those careers, therefore it's a non issue isn't it? I agree - he's on the sex offender's register indefinitely so that will limit his employment to exclude certain jobs (teacher, social worker, lawyer etc. etc.) as it should do. I can't see any particular reason why football should be a prohibited occupation for a sex offender. I don't really buy into the "role model" argument either. If all clubs rooted out and sacked players who aren't good role models, there would be a lot of players looking for other jobs. If we say that a football club should not employ him, what do we say if he then gets a job as a dustman, and the women on his bin round object to having a convicted rapist emptying their bins? Personally, I think he's a shit, and I wouldn't want him at Stoke. But that isn't the point - because I wouldn't want him at Stoke doesn't mean he should be barred from football if he finds a club which will take him. Incidentally, although he still claims innocence (as is his right) he could do himself a favour if he accepted that having sex with a complete stranger who is so drunk that the concept of "consent" is meaningless, is a pretty shabby thing to do and that the abuse he'll inevitably get from opposition crowds if he does play football again, will be thoroughly deserved. My thoughts precisely.
|
|
|
Post by SCFC92 on Oct 17, 2014 11:23:02 GMT
Served his time for the offence,
If he is deemed good enough by a club to be signed up let them, I'm sure if he bangs 30 in one season for said club they would feel a little less animus towards him.. I agree with mrred the justice system clearly isn't working however like i stated he has served his sentence deemed fit enough for his crime so he shouldn't be stopped..
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Oct 17, 2014 11:24:13 GMT
The opposition fans will make his life hell - he may be better off going abroad to play, dare I say it, in the middle east or some other misogynistic region...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:25:17 GMT
Normally I would say:- if hes paid his debt to society we all move on - Unfortunately he's been released having only done half a sentence therefore
- hes not Paid his debt to society as far as Im concerned.
i.e. there is a bigger picture here
5 years should mean 5 years !
and Tevez still owes us also
As for Evans Crime - despicable and that's why he got 5 years in the first place
|
|
|
Post by longtimestokie on Oct 17, 2014 11:27:51 GMT
Having watched some of the evidence his family have put forward on various social media sites I'm not sure he was guilty to start with. However, he was found guilty but the system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Is he likely to commit the crime again? I doubt it. Of course he should be allowed to work again otherwise what's the point, he may as well stay in jail along with thousands of others who are likely to commit crime again. The fact is other high profile people have gone on to make shed loads after jail terms so why shouldn't he? Most supporters will not be bothered as long as he scores goals which is the nature of football. It's just another media witch hunt. Having said all that I'm not sure I'd want him at Stoke we're hated enough as it is! like you said there are two sides to every story,, i am not defending him but if you lived in the area then you may have a different view of things that happened
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 17, 2014 11:29:24 GMT
I thought you were only allowed an early release if you admitted guilt and promised to repent for your sins?
I'm close to someone who was accused of the same crime and pleaded innocent and because they refused to admit guilt parole was out of the question and they served the full term of 5 years.
He's been released 2 and a half years in of a five year term.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Oct 17, 2014 11:31:16 GMT
He's presumably on a register which will bar him from certain types of employment. Football is not one of those careers, therefore it's a non issue isn't it? I agree - he's on the sex offender's register indefinitely so that will limit his employment to exclude certain jobs (teacher, social worker, lawyer etc. etc.) as it should do. I can't see any particular reason why football should be a prohibited occupation for a sex offender. I don't really buy into the "role model" argument either. If all clubs rooted out and sacked players who aren't good role models, there would be a lot of players looking for other jobs. If we say that a football club should not employ him, what do we say if he then gets a job as a dustman, and the women on his bin round object to having a convicted rapist emptying their bins? Personally, I think he's a shit, and I wouldn't want him at Stoke. But that isn't the point - because I wouldn't want him at Stoke doesn't mean he should be barred from football if he finds a club which will take him. Incidentally, although he still claims innocence (as is his right) he could do himself a favour if he accepted that having sex with a complete stranger who is so drunk that the concept of "consent" is meaningless, is a pretty shabby thing to do and that the abuse he'll inevitably get from opposition crowds if he does play football again, will be thoroughly deserved. Excellent summary
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 17, 2014 11:36:21 GMT
I believe the girl was considered too drunk to have consented so it was a case of rape by default.
A salutary lesson for anyone whose approach to these things is one of 'persistence and alcohol' I suspect!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 17, 2014 11:40:14 GMT
I thought you were only allowed an early release if you admitted guilt and promised to repent for your sins?
I'm close to someone who was accused of the same crime and pleaded innocent and because they refused to admit guilt parole was out of the question and they served the full term of 5 years. He's been released 2 and a half years in of a five year term. You are wrong. Normally, prisoners are released "on licence" after serving half their sentence. Admitting the crime is not a prerequisite for release on licence.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 17, 2014 11:44:48 GMT
The problem I have is that a man convicted of rape is out in time to continue as a footballer. A very good point, but that isn't his fault. 5 years is low anyway (& perhaps reflects the 'Judy Finnigan sentiment' on his rape) and letting him out in 2 1/2 is ridiculous, but, I believe par for the course now - unless you are a complete shit in prison then you only serve half your sentence.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 17, 2014 11:50:12 GMT
Isn't this particular incident in the grey area as the woman in question is known to be a bullshitter or something? Not that I condone any of it of course, it'd just be sad to see a man's life even more ruined when he could potentially be innocent. He isn't innocent though. He was found guilty. I obviously wasn't in the room, but it sounds like she was absolutely hammered and he took advantage of this to rape her. There is a World of difference between kidnapping, gagging and dragging into a hotel room and a girl he met in a nightclub, got drunk with and she willingly (but hammered willingly) went to his hotel room
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 17, 2014 11:51:39 GMT
I thought you were only allowed an early release if you admitted guilt and promised to repent for your sins?
I'm close to someone who was accused of the same crime and pleaded innocent and because they refused to admit guilt parole was out of the question and they served the full term of 5 years. He's been released 2 and a half years in of a five year term. You are wrong. Normally, prisoners are released "on licence" after serving half their sentence. Admitting the crime is not a prerequisite for release on licence. Well they wouldn't admit guilt and served the full term, I thought parole was you showing them that you had atoned for your crime and were sorry thus not likely to do the same again.
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on Oct 17, 2014 11:54:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:57:51 GMT
I think the situation can only be determined by the legal basis, and not on the emotional aspect of things.
The case was heard in a court of law in front of a jury of his peers who determined based on the evidence presented that he was guilty, and a sentence was passed as his punishment for being found guilty of that crime.
He's been released early, true, but done so in accordance with the legal system in place.
He is now free and considered to have served his time and paid for his actions, and should now be allowed to ply his trade and have the right to earn a living based on his skills. There are those who hold up the fact that he is a professional footballer and therefore in the public eye, and they believe that it sets a dangerous precedent to allow a convicted rapist to once again play football.
However, that convicted rapist has served his punishment, and I think it would be a far more dangerous precedent that a now free person who has 'done the time' should have those rights taken away without any legal basis.
If those who believe he shouldn't be allowed to do so are so passionate about this, then they should instead concentrate their efforts in getting the legal system rather than trying to pressure one man to be punished outside of lawful system just because they don't think it's right or they don't believe he should have been released earlier. It effectively comes down to 'mob justice' by wanting to apply a different set of laws without the required consultation and approval and application without consent (the irony of that term is fully understood in this matter!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 12:08:40 GMT
Isn't this particular incident in the grey area as the woman in question is known to be a bullshitter or something? Not that I condone any of it of course, it'd just be sad to see a man's life even more ruined when he could potentially be innocent. He isn't innocent though. He was found guilty. I obviously wasn't in the room, but it sounds like she was absolutely hammered and he took advantage of this to rape her. There is a World of difference between kidnapping, gagging and dragging into a hotel room and a girl he met in a nightclub, got drunk with and she willingly (but hammered willingly) went to his hotel room This was part of the evidence the jury had to determine how drunk she was..... link
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 17, 2014 12:13:40 GMT
Rape is one of the most difficult crimes to get prosecuted for. i.e. the conviction rate is very low.
For me although I understand the argument about him serving time it's sucha heinous crime that if Stoke signed a convicted rapist I would stop supporting the club.
|
|