|
Post by bignickhowes on Oct 17, 2014 12:15:36 GMT
being a footballer is a luxury, I think he may have thrown away that
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 17, 2014 12:25:30 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!) Some times living in a civilised society throws up scenarios that aren't particularly palatable. It is absolutely essential to uphold those principles though, however much your emotion is telling you otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by MrFlirty on Oct 17, 2014 12:32:14 GMT
I know this has been done before but this does make interesting reading www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-factsIf it was you and you knew you were innocent, would you show remorse for raping someone and admit you did it? Only 3 people know what went on.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 17, 2014 12:41:11 GMT
This was always going to draw some fairly emotional responses. On the one hand, you've got militant feminists screaming for the guy to be blocked returning to football (no doubt encouraged by their own political agenda) and on the other side, you've got people saying he has served his time and therefore should be allowed to continue his life.
For me, the continued speculation over whether he was even guilty clouds my own judgement. I don't feel from what I've seen that Evans did too much wrong other than cheat on his own girlfriend who has stood by his side despite everything going on. I am required to trust a jury of 12 people and their judgement however too often jury's have failed in their duty therefore I am more inclined to believe my own judgement from the evidence presented.
He and Clayton McDonald were both honest about the events that happened that night and if you look at the evidence from an objective point of view, it was their own honesty that got Evans convicted. There was no evidence of rape in the room (no DNA found, no injuries consistent with rape after physical examination of victim), no evidence of alcohol in the victims bloodstream the next morning and she herself did not complain of rape but that her drink had been spiked. Police found no traces of rohypnol or any other date rape drug, but small traces of cocaine and cannabis. The police actually pushed her into a rape claim and their own files have 'Titus Bramble' written on them.
If McDonald and Evans had replied "no comment" to each question by the police, they would have had to release them, there was simply not enough evidence to keep them. The evidence used by police was almost entirely based on the statements given by the two males, circumstantial, speculative and fairly thin when you compare it to other trials that routinely get thrown out. We live in a country where guilty is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Both males insisted that Evans asked to join in and she said yes. This despite the fact the two accused males had no opportunity to talk therefore it was impossible for any collusion to take place. Therefore, there is one of three options to pick: A. They both lied with exactly the same story, the odds of which must be in the millions to 1. B. They're telepathically linked allowing an E.T. style communication between the two. C. The victim consented, albeit in a drunken state.
The law on drunken rape/sex is actually quite clear despite the BBC's piss poor attempts to try and muddy the water in effect to skew the debate against Evans. A drunken consent, is still a consent and as such, a 'buyers remorse' situation after a drunken sexual encounter is not a valid claim for rape and is an insult to genuine rape survivors. Therefore, with Evans and McDonald's statements in mind and the females insistence that she couldn't remember the incident, it must be inferred that he was convicted on purely speculative evidence, i.e. "the female was not able to give consent due to being too drunk". This is clear from the transcript, the prosecution tried to suggest she was unconscious, despite CCTV footage clearly showing her walking in and out of hotel, picking up a large pizza, holding it with one hand while texting with the other and walking back into the hotel.
Evans defence brought forward a well respected scientist as an expert witness who used fairly well-defined mathematical formula to calculate that at 4am (when this went on) the victim will have most probably been approximately 2 1/2 times the legal drink drive limit. He stated that while this would be enough to result in some slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, this would not be anywhere near enough alcohol to cause disorientation, memory loss and loss of consciousness, as claimed by the victim. In effect, the expert witness was suggesting that the victims assertion of memory loss and loss of conciousness was false. This vitally important evidence, albeit in the form of an accusation was completely disregarded by the jury in their deliberation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 12:50:04 GMT
This was always going to draw some fairly emotional responses. On the one hand, you've got militant feminists screaming for the guy to be blocked returning to football (no doubt encouraged by their own political agenda) and on the other side, you've got people saying he has served his time and therefore should be allowed to continue his life. For me, the continued speculation over whether he was even guilty clouds my own judgement. I don't feel from what I've seen that Evans did too much wrong other than cheat on his own girlfriend who has stood by his side despite everything going on. I am required to trust a jury of 12 people and their judgement however too often jury's have failed in their duty therefore I am more inclined to believe my own judgement from the evidence presented. He and Clayton McDonald were both honest about the events that happened that night and if you look at the evidence from an objective point of view, it was their own honesty that got Evans convicted. There was no evidence of rape in the room (no DNA found, no injuries consistent with rape after physical examination of victim), no evidence of alcohol in the victims bloodstream the next morning and she herself did not complain of rape but that her drink had been spiked. Police found no traces of rohypnol or any other date rape drug, but small traces of cocaine and cannabis. The police actually pushed her into a rape claim and their own files have 'Titus Bramble' written on them. If McDonald and Evans had replied "no comment" to each question by the police, they would have had to release them, there was simply not enough evidence to keep them. The evidence used by police was almost entirely based on the statements given by the two males, circumstantial, speculative and fairly thin when you compare it to other trials that routinely get thrown out. We live in a country where guilty is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Both males insisted that Evans asked to join in and she said yes. This despite the fact the two accused males had no opportunity to talk therefore it was impossible for any collusion to take place. Therefore, there is one of three options to pick: A. They both lied with exactly the same story, the odds of which must be in the millions to 1. B. They're telepathically linked allowing an E.T. style communication between the two. C. The victim consented, albeit in a drunken state. The law on drunken rape/sex is actually quite clear despite the BBC's piss poor attempts to try and muddy the water in effect to skew the debate against Evans. A drunken consent, is still a consent and as such, a 'buyers remorse' situation after a drunken sexual encounter is not a valid claim for rape and is an insult to genuine rape survivors. Therefore, with Evans and McDonald's statements in mind and the females insistence that she couldn't remember the incident, it must be inferred that he was convicted on purely speculative evidence, i.e. "the female was not able to give consent due to being too drunk". This is clear from the transcript, the prosecution tried to suggest she was unconscious, despite CCTV footage clearly showing her walking in and out of hotel, picking up a large pizza, holding it with one hand while texting with the other and walking back into the hotel. Evans defence brought forward a well respected scientist as an expert witness who used fairly well-defined mathematical formula to calculate that at 4am (when this went on) the victim will have most probably been approximately 2 1/2 times the limit of the legal drink drive limit. He stated that while this would be enough to result in some slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, this would not be anywhere near enough alcohol to cause disorientation, memory loss and loss of consciousness, as claimed by the victim. In effect, the expert witness was suggesting that the victims assertion of memory loss and loss of conciousness was false. This vitally important evidence, albeit in the form of an accusation was completely disregarded by the jury in their deliberation. i agree with most of this metalhead apart from the bit about "a drunken consent is still consent" UK law actually has a caveat in place which states that even if a woman DOES give consent then it cannot be trusted or accepted if she is deemed to be so under the influence that it is not something she would usually consent to or if she is deemed to be too far gone to consciously be aware of what she is consenting to. i was on a jury in a rape case a few years back and the judge instructed us (the jurors) of this at the time before we went to deliberate. none of us were aware of this at the time and 3 of the female jurors actualy said they felt that this put pretty much any bloke who pulls in a nightclub on a friday evening on very dodgy ground as it does open up the doors for women to simply cry rape the day after if they basically change their mind when they've sobered up. to be fair to the BBC, drunken consent is a very very grey area. having said all of that, you are perfectly and 100% correct that the alcohol traces put forward by the police did not add up to her being in such a state that she wouldn't remember any of the incident (the medical examiner actually testified to that as well but it was ignored by the court and still no-one knows why) and she actually admitted to lying about her personal drug use at the time as well when she tried to claim she was spiked and the traces found were not in any way indicative of her being spiked the night before but actually that they were traces of cocaine she had taken weeks before as she was a recreational user. as you say, the woman herself never at any point claimed she had been raped at all. the reason the police got involved was because she went back to the inn looking for her phone and asked the guys at reception if she could see who she was with the night before on CCTV. they refused due to confidentiality but told her it was 2 professional footballers, it was then she rang the police and claimed she must have been spiked by them (although there is no evidence at all of this happening in a physical or toxicological sense) and that she had no memory of what happened whatsoever. evidence was also given in court about tweets she had made a few weeks earlier about how she would take all her friends on holiday after she "caught a big one" after she had also tried to take a rugby player to court for rape but the case was dropped. the hotel porter also gave evidence that he heard noises from the room and none of them were in any way showing upset or trauma from the girl, rather they seemed to be normal noises you would associate with consensual sex, again his testimony was ignored by the court. far from a cut and dried case here...i'm not defending him or saying he didn't do it at all; i wasn't there so have no idea, simply pointing out the facts of the case as it appears that very few who have posted so far seem to be aware of them. yes, we know that footballers get away with stuff that everyday folk don't and yes we know that some think they are above the law but given the evidence (or complete lack of) there is a distinct possibility here that his conviction was actually a consequence of this reputation that footballers have and the jurors being influenced by the negative feelings that joe public has towards them because of the arrogant behaviour of some of them i.e. "we don't like footballers because they all think they can flout the law, there isn't actually ANY physical evidence of rape and the "victim" hasn't even accused anyone of rape but they're footballers so they therefore MUST have done it"
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 17, 2014 12:52:56 GMT
This was always going to draw some fairly emotional responses. On the one hand, you've got militant feminists screaming for the guy to be blocked returning to football (no doubt encouraged by their own political agenda) and on the other side, you've got people saying he has served his time and therefore should be allowed to continue his life. For me, the continued speculation over whether he was even guilty clouds my own judgement. I don't feel from what I've seen that Evans did too much wrong other than cheat on his own girlfriend who has stood by his side despite everything going on. I am required to trust a jury of 12 people and their judgement however too often jury's have failed in their duty therefore I am more inclined to believe my own judgement from the evidence presented. He and Clayton McDonald were both honest about the events that happened that night and if you look at the evidence from an objective point of view, it was their own honesty that got Evans convicted. There was no evidence of rape in the room (no DNA found, no injuries consistent with rape after physical examination of victim), no evidence of alcohol in the victims bloodstream the next morning and she herself did not complain of rape but that her drink had been spiked. Police found no traces of rohypnol or any other date rape drug, but small traces of cocaine and cannabis. The police actually pushed her into a rape claim and their own files have 'Titus Bramble' written on them. If McDonald and Evans had replied "no comment" to each question by the police, they would have had to release them, there was simply not enough evidence to keep them. The evidence used by police was almost entirely based on the statements given by the two males, circumstantial, speculative and fairly thin when you compare it to other trials that routinely get thrown out. We live in a country where guilty is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Both males insisted that Evans asked to join in and she said yes. This despite the fact the two accused males had no opportunity to talk therefore it was impossible for any collusion to take place. Therefore, there is one of three options to pick: A. They both lied with exactly the same story, the odds of which must be in the millions to 1. B. They're telepathically linked allowing an E.T. style communication between the two. C. The victim consented, albeit in a drunken state. The law on drunken rape/sex is actually quite clear despite the BBC's piss poor attempts to try and muddy the water in effect to skew the debate against Evans. A drunken consent, is still a consent and as such, a 'buyers remorse' situation after a drunken sexual encounter is not a valid claim for rape and is an insult to genuine rape survivors. Therefore, with Evans and McDonald's statements in mind and the females insistence that she couldn't remember the incident, it must be inferred that he was convicted on purely speculative evidence, i.e. "the female was not able to give consent due to being too drunk". This is clear from the transcript, the prosecution tried to suggest she was unconscious, despite CCTV footage clearly showing her walking in and out of hotel, picking up a large pizza, holding it with one hand while texting with the other and walking back into the hotel. Evans defence brought forward a well respected scientist as an expert witness who used fairly well-defined mathematical formula to calculate that at 4am (when this went on) the victim will have most probably been approximately 2 1/2 times the limit of the legal drink drive limit. He stated that while this would be enough to result in some slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, this would not be anywhere near enough alcohol to cause disorientation, memory loss and loss of consciousness, as claimed by the victim. In effect, the expert witness was suggesting that the victims assertion of memory loss and loss of conciousness was false. This vitally important evidence, albeit in the form of an accusation was completely disregarded by the jury in their deliberation. i agree with most of this metalhead apart from the bit about "a drunken consent is still consent" UK law actually has a caveat in place which states that even if a woman DOES give consent then it cannot be trusted or accepted if she is deemed to be so under the influence that it is not something she would usually consent to or if she is deemed to be too far gone to consciously be aware of what she is consenting to. i was on a jury in a rape case a few years back and the judge instructed us (the jurors) of this at the time before we went to deliberate. none of us were aware of this at the time and 3 of the female jurors actualy said they felt that this put pretty much any bloke who pulls in a nightclub on a friday evening on very dodgy ground as it does open up the doors for women to simply cry rape the day after if they basically change their mind when they've sobered up. to be fair to the BBC, drunken consent is a very very grey area. If that is the case then there's a lot of rapists in this world walking free Mick. Very dodgy territory.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 13:21:05 GMT
This was always going to draw some fairly emotional responses. On the one hand, you've got militant feminists screaming for the guy to be blocked returning to football (no doubt encouraged by their own political agenda) and on the other side, you've got people saying he has served his time and therefore should be allowed to continue his life. For me, the continued speculation over whether he was even guilty clouds my own judgement. I don't feel from what I've seen that Evans did too much wrong other than cheat on his own girlfriend who has stood by his side despite everything going on. I am required to trust a jury of 12 people and their judgement however too often jury's have failed in their duty therefore I am more inclined to believe my own judgement from the evidence presented. He and Clayton McDonald were both honest about the events that happened that night and if you look at the evidence from an objective point of view, it was their own honesty that got Evans convicted. There was no evidence of rape in the room (no DNA found, no injuries consistent with rape after physical examination of victim), no evidence of alcohol in the victims bloodstream the next morning and she herself did not complain of rape but that her drink had been spiked. Police found no traces of rohypnol or any other date rape drug, but small traces of cocaine and cannabis. The police actually pushed her into a rape claim and their own files have 'Titus Bramble' written on them. If McDonald and Evans had replied "no comment" to each question by the police, they would have had to release them, there was simply not enough evidence to keep them. The evidence used by police was almost entirely based on the statements given by the two males, circumstantial, speculative and fairly thin when you compare it to other trials that routinely get thrown out. We live in a country where guilty is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Both males insisted that Evans asked to join in and she said yes. This despite the fact the two accused males had no opportunity to talk therefore it was impossible for any collusion to take place. Therefore, there is one of three options to pick: A. They both lied with exactly the same story, the odds of which must be in the millions to 1. B. They're telepathically linked allowing an E.T. style communication between the two. C. The victim consented, albeit in a drunken state. The law on drunken rape/sex is actually quite clear despite the BBC's piss poor attempts to try and muddy the water in effect to skew the debate against Evans. A drunken consent, is still a consent and as such, a 'buyers remorse' situation after a drunken sexual encounter is not a valid claim for rape and is an insult to genuine rape survivors. Therefore, with Evans and McDonald's statements in mind and the females insistence that she couldn't remember the incident, it must be inferred that he was convicted on purely speculative evidence, i.e. "the female was not able to give consent due to being too drunk". This is clear from the transcript, the prosecution tried to suggest she was unconscious, despite CCTV footage clearly showing her walking in and out of hotel, picking up a large pizza, holding it with one hand while texting with the other and walking back into the hotel. Evans defence brought forward a well respected scientist as an expert witness who used fairly well-defined mathematical formula to calculate that at 4am (when this went on) the victim will have most probably been approximately 2 1/2 times the limit of the legal drink drive limit. He stated that while this would be enough to result in some slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, this would not be anywhere near enough alcohol to cause disorientation, memory loss and loss of consciousness, as claimed by the victim. In effect, the expert witness was suggesting that the victims assertion of memory loss and loss of conciousness was false. This vitally important evidence, albeit in the form of an accusation was completely disregarded by the jury in their deliberation. i agree with most of this metalhead apart from the bit about "a drunken consent is still consent" UK law actually has a caveat in place which states that even if a woman DOES give consent then it cannot be trusted or accepted if she is deemed to be so under the influence that it is not something she would usually consent to or if she is deemed to be too far gone to consciously be aware of what she is consenting to. i was on a jury in a rape case a few years back and the judge instructed us (the jurors) of this at the time before we went to deliberate. none of us were aware of this at the time and 3 of the female jurors actualy said they felt that this put pretty much any bloke who pulls in a nightclub on a friday evening on very dodgy ground as it does open up the doors for women to simply cry rape the day after if they basically change their mind when they've sobered up. to be fair to the BBC, drunken consent is a very very grey area. having said all of that, you are perfectly and 100% correct that the alcohol traces put forward by the police did not add up to her being in such a state that she wouldn't remember any of the incident (the medical examiner actually testified to that as well but it was ignored by the court and still no-one knows why) and she actually admitted to lying about her personal drug use at the time as well when she tried to claim she was spiked and the traces found were not in any way indicative of her being spiked the night before but actually that they were traces of cocaine she had taken weeks before as she was a recreational user. as you say, the woman herself never at any point claimed she had been raped at all. the reason the police got involved was because she went back to the inn looking for her phone and asked the guys at reception if she could see who she was with the night before on CCTV. they refused due to confidentiality but told her it was 2 professional footballers, it was then she rang the police and claimed she must have been spiked by them (although there is no evidence at all of this happening in a physical or toxicological sense) and that she had no memory of what happened whatsoever. evidence was also given in court about tweets she had made a few weeks earlier about how she would take all her friends on holiday after she "caught a big one" after she had also tried to take a rugby player to court for rape but the case was dropped. the hotel porter also gave evidence that he heard noises from the room and none of them were in any way showing upset or trauma from the girl, rather they seemed to be normal noises you would associate with consensual sex, again his testimony was ignored by the court. far from a cut and dried case here...i'm not defending him or saying he didn't do it at all; i wasn't there so have no idea, simply pointing out the facts of the case as it appears that very few who have posted so far seem to be aware of them. yes, we know that footballers get away with stuff that everyday folk don't and yes we know that some think they are above the law but given the evidence (or complete lack of) there is a distinct possibility here that his conviction was actually a consequence of this reputation that footballers have and the jurors being influenced by the negative feelings that joe public has towards them because of the arrogant behaviour of some of them i.e. "we don't like footballers because they all think they can flout the law, there isn't actually ANY physical evidence of rape and the "victim" hasn't even accused anyone of rape but they're footballers so they therefore MUST have done it" Nice post (for once) Mick, But I disagree with the drunken consent. Being drunk is not an excuse. Saying that, the points you raise only reinforce my scepticism concerning the case as a whole. It's bleedingly obvious that there are plenty of woman out there scouting out footballers and celebs, and looking to make some quick and dirty money out of it.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 13:22:12 GMT
i agree with most of this metalhead apart from the bit about "a drunken consent is still consent" UK law actually has a caveat in place which states that even if a woman DOES give consent then it cannot be trusted or accepted if she is deemed to be so under the influence that it is not something she would usually consent to or if she is deemed to be too far gone to consciously be aware of what she is consenting to. i was on a jury in a rape case a few years back and the judge instructed us (the jurors) of this at the time before we went to deliberate. none of us were aware of this at the time and 3 of the female jurors actualy said they felt that this put pretty much any bloke who pulls in a nightclub on a friday evening on very dodgy ground as it does open up the doors for women to simply cry rape the day after if they basically change their mind when they've sobered up. to be fair to the BBC, drunken consent is a very very grey area. If that is the case then there's a lot of rapists in this world walking free Mick. Very dodgy territory. Guilty. Saying that, I was pissed too on every occasion so maybe they raped me.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 17, 2014 13:27:12 GMT
He's been convicted, served his punishment in our supposed rehabilitation centres, so i don't see why anyone has a right to stop him getting a job now. As above, if he went to work in McDonalds no-one would care.
As for his conviction...it was dodgy at the time. Now more evidence has come to light it looks even more like he's not guilty. Rape convictions are notoriously low, and frivilous accusations as this appears to be are a big reason why.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 13:30:56 GMT
I know this has been done before but this does make interesting reading www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-factsIf it was you and you knew you were innocent, would you show remorse for raping someone and admit you did it? Only 3 people know what went on. If these are undisputed then I'm not sure how he got convicted in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 17, 2014 13:43:10 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 go on.........
|
|
|
Post by mccfred on Oct 17, 2014 14:00:29 GMT
Regardless if you think he was really guilty of the crime or not, the baggage and drama surrounding a signing would be bad. No go.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 14:47:47 GMT
I always try to put myself in the perspective of the parent of the victim in these cases. I could just imagine the horror if this was my daughter's rapist not just walking the streets again but actually going back to a game that made him a millionaire. Felt the same about that wanker Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick. For being convicted of raping a girl this guy should never play football again. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 17, 2014 15:02:39 GMT
I always try to put myself in the perspective of the parent of the victim in these cases. I could just imagine the horror if this was my daughter's rapist not just walking the streets again but actually going back to a game that made him a millionaire. Felt the same about that wanker Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick. For being convicted of raping a girl this guy should never play football again. Simple as that. and if his conviction is subsequently overturned?
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Oct 17, 2014 15:03:57 GMT
I always try to put myself in the perspective of the parent of the victim in these cases. I could just imagine the horror if this was my daughter's rapist not just walking the streets again but actually going back to a game that made him a millionaire. Felt the same about that wanker Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick. For being convicted of raping a girl this guy should never play football again. Simple as that. Looking at the state of the girl in question, i don't think her parents are the sort who would care.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 15:16:14 GMT
I always try to put myself in the perspective of the parent of the victim in these cases. I could just imagine the horror if this was my daughter's rapist not just walking the streets again but actually going back to a game that made him a millionaire. Felt the same about that wanker Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick. For being convicted of raping a girl this guy should never play football again. Simple as that. massively different situation though given the fact that the girl herself never, ever, at any point even said she had been raped in the first place here, that's something the police decided upon themselves.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 17, 2014 15:43:12 GMT
If he was good enough I'd wouldn't give it a second thought, done his time etc.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 17, 2014 15:45:09 GMT
I always try to put myself in the perspective of the parent of the victim in these cases. I could just imagine the horror if this was my daughter's rapist not just walking the streets again but actually going back to a game that made him a millionaire. Felt the same about that wanker Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick. For being convicted of raping a girl this guy should never play football again. Simple as that. So if you've ever done a crime you're only allowed to earn so much, nonsense. And why is football any different from other jobs, I never get this idea that it should be some protected sport only played by the pure, if that was the case say goodbye to a lot of players.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Oct 17, 2014 15:46:30 GMT
It's tough - what if a convicted paedophile was in the same position. Would people still be saying 'He's done his time so let him play again?' Rhetorical question really.
I think the bottom line is that he should be allowed to play - the nature of his job does not put women at threat. Not nice to say it though.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 17, 2014 15:48:39 GMT
It's tough - what if a convicted paedophile was in the same position. Would people still be saying 'He's done his time so let him play again?' Rhetorical question really. I think the bottom line is that he should be allowed to play - the nature of his job does not put women at threat. Not nice to say it though. If it didn't break the terms of his conviction then I'd be saying the same.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 15:51:32 GMT
It's tough - what if a convicted paedophile was in the same position. Would people still be saying 'He's done his time so let him play again?' Rhetorical question really. I think the bottom line is that he should be allowed to play - the nature of his job does not put women at threat. Not nice to say it though. There's not such a grey area with being a paedophile and most cases are clear cut, unless it concerns a girl who manages to get into a club and lies about her age. One of those almost legal situations. By all accounts, the details around this case make it sound like he got shafted as much as her.
|
|
|
Post by heavysoul on Oct 17, 2014 15:51:52 GMT
What about the woman's sentence she has to live the rest of her life.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 17, 2014 15:55:42 GMT
What about the woman's sentence she has to live the rest of her life. Despite claiming repeatedly that she doesn't remember it AT ALL...? And if she does remember it then according to all evidence she wasn't raped? So yeah, either a life sentence of something she can't remember, or a life sentence of 'buyers remorse'. I'll let you decide my friend.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 17, 2014 15:55:55 GMT
What about the woman's sentence she has to live the rest of her life. Never mind her sentence, where's the rest of yours?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 17, 2014 15:56:15 GMT
What about the woman's sentence she has to live the rest of her life. Never mind her sentence, where's the rest of yours? Quick that was mate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 15:56:18 GMT
to be honest regardless as to whether he did it or not (which is very much up for question and as has been said, there are only 3 people out there that will ever know the real truth) if it's a simple question of "Would i want him playing for Stoke" as the OP states then i think mccfred has hit the nail on the head.
forget the rights or wrongs morally, forget whether or not he's served his time, forget whether or not he did it in the first place..the simple fact is that it would do so much damage to the club because of the adverse publicity that it just wouldn't be worth it for me full stop. even if people wholeheartedly and unanimously supported the idea that he SHOULD be allowed to resume his career that in no way means that any club has an obligation to sign him up! it may be a case of his career being ruined by his own actions or it may be the case of his career being ruined on his behalf by someone after the tabloid money but either way that's for him to sort out in whatever way he chooses to do so; as a business (which any club is) the negative impact is just far too much of a risk.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Oct 17, 2014 15:57:41 GMT
It's tough - what if a convicted paedophile was in the same position. Would people still be saying 'He's done his time so let him play again?' Rhetorical question really. I think the bottom line is that he should be allowed to play - the nature of his job does not put women at threat. Not nice to say it though. If it didn't break the terms of his conviction then I'd be saying the same. Wow - didn't expect that response.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 15:57:59 GMT
What about the woman's sentence she has to live the rest of her life. she never even said she'd been raped let alone remembered anything that she will forced to remember for the rest of her life mate. i'd agree in certain other rape cases but it may be an idea to look at the facts before commenting on them individually and just coming out with the standard response you have there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 15:59:18 GMT
If it didn't break the terms of his conviction then I'd be saying the same. Wow - didn't expect that response. why not? principle of what he's saying is exactly the same and applies to any crime. no need for it to change simply because one crime has been deemed to be more emotive than another. fair play to him for having the courage of his convictions
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 17, 2014 16:01:43 GMT
Once someone has served their time about the WORST thing you can do is stop them getting a job which they are good at. Obviously there are jobs which will always be barred to a rapist and other jobs which are barred to a fraudster and yet other jobs which are barred to a paedophile. The law has listed such jobs and it has not chosen to include playing (as opposed, possibly, to coaching?) football on any proscribed list relating to rapists.
Sentences are supposed to punish but, once served, the law is supposed to assist in rehabilitation. The prisoner who serves the sentence the law demands, comes out of prison and gets a job which he enjoys and which he is good at, stands a much better chance of staying out of further trouble than someone who finds that he can't get a job. I suspect that if footballers were paid the national minimum wage, there would be little or no outcry against Evans getting a job as a footballer.
|
|