Should Ched Evans play football again??
Scroll to see replies
Original post by unprinted
rambling
By pleading guilty, you are admitting you did it. (Anyone who pleads guilty to a sexual offence when they didn't in fact do it needs much better legal advice.) You are also sparing the friend the ordeal of having to testify in court about what you did. And, particularly relevant to this case, you are acknowledging that you did do something unacceptable and wrong.
It is not just me who sees a difference.
By pleading guilty, you are admitting you did it. (Anyone who pleads guilty to a sexual offence when they didn't in fact do it needs much better legal advice.) You are also sparing the friend the ordeal of having to testify in court about what you did. And, particularly relevant to this case, you are acknowledging that you did do something unacceptable and wrong.
It is not just me who sees a difference.
It's a phrase used in Britain, not officially. I thought you would recognise it more if I used the term. It's just words. Rape is rape however each country words it.
He plead guilty to both charges of underage sex and indecent assault, he wasn't convicted of two other indecent assault charges. He officially sexually assaulted a young girl.
But this is all a time-wasting over-analysis of an example which is comparable. Fans as a whole didn't turn their back on any club that hired a criminal, rapist or killer whether they said they would or not.
I'll never get my head around you being ok with rape if the person admits it when threatened with evidence of it. You make me uncomfortable.
We're done here.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by lent6
How do you know this?
Were you there and can you read peoples minds or something?
Were you there and can you read peoples minds or something?
He's talking out of his arse. Sounds just like all those tits on Lad Bible and stuff
Original post by Fizzel
.. no doubt exception would be made in the case of Rangers anyway.
It usually is.
Original post by ozzyoscy
It's a phrase used in Britain, not officially. I thought you would recognise it more if I used the term. It's just words. Rape is rape however each country words it.
I invite you to suggest somewhere here that everyone who has been sexual with someone under 16 is a 'rapist', and everyone who has been sexual with someone while under 16 is a victim of 'rape'. In many cases, you're saying they're both.
What Rix did was wrong, but your position is laughable.
I'll never get my head around you being ok with rape if the person admits it when threatened with evidence of it. You make me uncomfortable.
I didn't say I was ok with rape - that I am not should be screamingly obvious given my opinions on a case where no violence was used and the woman can't remember it happening.
But there is a moral difference between a rapist who realises what they did was wrong and shows repentance and a rapist who doesn't. They still both remain rapists.
I'd be uncomfortable around people who think what Evans did isn't rape... fortunately, I don't know any in real life.
Original post by Fizzel
Its not actually banned by either league, it would be an issue if Rangers made it back to the CL/EL however as it is flat out banned by UEFA, and could be an issue if Newcastle dropped out of the PL as the lower leagues have different rules relating to Scottish clubs. His position with relation to the power he holds is not clear, but 'too much' is at the discretion of the Scottish FA, and its a flexible issue, no doubt exception would be made in the case of Rangers anyway.
A look suggests the Scottish FA charged Ashley with breaking disciplinary rule 19 ("Except with the prior written consent of the board no person (who) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or (c) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.") and another rule in December.
Original post by Adeel Ali
Can't believe Oldham are signing him.
BTW. Is he a good player? Haven't heard of him.
BTW. Is he a good player? Haven't heard of him.
He's from Manchester City's youth system, moved to Sheffield United but didn't do much with them until the year they got relegated to League One where he turned into a goal machine. He was convicted with 3 games of the season to play, which cost his club promotion.
After 3 years out of the game he's probably not going to get back to that standard.
Original post by Clip
This whole issue is about jealousy. If he were a lower league player scratching a living no one would care.
What disturbs me most about this is how many people seem to believe in some concept of unlimited punishment.
What disturbs me most about this is how many people seem to believe in some concept of unlimited punishment.
Umm, technically he is
People expect football to punish him because our judicial system has, in their eyes, not punished him sufficiently. Which isn't right.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by sr90
Umm, technically he is
People expect football to punish him because our judicial system has, in their eyes, not punished him sufficiently. Which isn't right.
Umm, technically he is
People expect football to punish him because our judicial system has, in their eyes, not punished him sufficiently. Which isn't right.
I mean like a conference player.
This whole idea of being punished by football is abhorrent because it's at the behest of the public rather than any employer.
It's also suggesting that once convicted of any crime- any person is then also implicitly sentenced to poverty if a few loudmouthed people think that's how it should be. Why not simply revert to lynch mobbing?
Original post by unprinted
.. but that's beside the point.
Rix accepted what he did was wrong and plead guilty at the first opportunity. Evans doesn't. That's a big reason for the difference in the reaction to the two.
Rix accepted what he did was wrong and plead guilty at the first opportunity. Evans doesn't. That's a big reason for the difference in the reaction to the two.
Well the big difference is that one was clear cut and one wasn't.
Rix did shag a minor, that cannot be disputed.
Evans had sex with somebody who was too drunk to remember whether or not she had given consent and as a result of that he is apparently a rapist.
Original post by unprinted
A look suggests the Scottish FA charged Ashley with breaking disciplinary rule 19 ("Except with the prior written consent of the board no person (who) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or (c) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.") and another rule in December.
When he took his stake it was agreed with the Scottish FA, he wouldn't own more than 10% or have any influence on the board. As above, he's clearly violated one of those, and he tried near Xmas to buy near 30% of the club.
Ranger look like going under if they don't get the investment so it will be interesting to see how the Scottish FA's nerve holds.
Original post by mackemforever
Rix did shag a minor, that cannot be disputed.
Yep. Rix
Evans had sex with somebody who was too drunk to remember whether or not she had given consent and as a result of that he is apparently a rapist.
She was too drunk to give consent, but yep, he is.
Original post by tillytots
No.
I don't see why so many people support the whole 'done his time' arguement. For example if Gary Glitter tried to get back into music would people be saying the same thing? Because he served a prison sentence as well? Don't think so!
I don't see why so many people support the whole 'done his time' arguement. For example if Gary Glitter tried to get back into music would people be saying the same thing? Because he served a prison sentence as well? Don't think so!
I'm sorry are you comparing Ched Evans to Gary Glitter? Like seriously
So...
Ched Evans is convicted of rape beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
2.5 years later he remains unrepentant and is about to be back playing professional football. His victim meanwhile has reportedly had to change her identity 5 times and couldn't spend Christmas with her family owing to harassment from Evans' "supporters" none of which he has condemned.
Has football and indeed wider British society failed the victim here?
And don't give me- "but she was drunk, and he's innocent, blah, blah, blah". He was found guilty in a court of law.
Ched Evans is convicted of rape beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
2.5 years later he remains unrepentant and is about to be back playing professional football. His victim meanwhile has reportedly had to change her identity 5 times and couldn't spend Christmas with her family owing to harassment from Evans' "supporters" none of which he has condemned.
Has football and indeed wider British society failed the victim here?
And don't give me- "but she was drunk, and he's innocent, blah, blah, blah". He was found guilty in a court of law.
I'm not a Law student, no dor I know a substantial amount of stuff about the Law, but I think this case really does question the solidity of our justice system. I think it was on Radio 4 this morning, a woman was talking about how she goes and speaks to footballers and tells the real meaning, in terms of the Law, of Rape: i.e. having sex with someone who does not give consent (albeit as she/he is unconscious or intoxicated). Most of them would never get into any business with a one night stand and remove any possibility of being vilified and having "convicted rapist" in their title because of this. The bad thing about this rule is that it makes no distinction in the severity of the act (and no, I am not condoning rape in any way). It makes no distinction in what Ched did or did not do (being too drunk etc.) than forcing someone into your home/into the woods, forcefully undressing them, beating them perhaps and having sex with them. This is the stigma of rape which has attached to Ched.
Original post by unprinted
I invite you to suggest somewhere here that everyone who has been sexual with someone under 16 is a 'rapist', and everyone who has been sexual with someone while under 16 is a victim of 'rape'. In many cases, you're saying they're both.
What Rix did was wrong, but your position is laughable.
What Rix did was wrong, but your position is laughable.
I have to reply because I hate these internet tactics, but I'm going to keep this short because I told you if you revealed you were just trying to be an Internet Warrior, I'd end this quickly:
While you've attempted to change what was originally said at the start, to create a fictional opinion so you can finally 'correct' me, you've only agreed with me. As you say, not everyone who has sex with an underage person is a rapist. So you agree it's a comparison, because not everyone who has sex with a drunk person is a rapist either. Given that both feel they're not to blame, are in some way innocent, have received similar punishments and are both going back into football, the comparison is strong.
This all stems from one throwaway line about something trivial about attendances, I don't know why you're obsessing over it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DK_Tipp
So...
Ched Evans is convicted of rape beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
2.5 years later he remains unrepentant and is about to be back playing professional football. His victim meanwhile has reportedly had to change her identity 5 times and couldn't spend Christmas with her family owing to harassment from Evans' "supporters" none of which he has condemned.
Ched Evans is convicted of rape beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
2.5 years later he remains unrepentant and is about to be back playing professional football. His victim meanwhile has reportedly had to change her identity 5 times and couldn't spend Christmas with her family owing to harassment from Evans' "supporters" none of which he has condemned.
Nothing which Ched did directly made her change her identify 5 times. These are her tweets few days after the "traumatic experience":
Original post by YorkshireLad.
I'm sorry are you comparing Ched Evans to Gary Glitter? Like seriously
Extreme maybe but it's the same principle.
Original post by YorkshireLad.
The bad thing about this rule is that it makes no distinction in the severity of the act (and no, I am not condoning rape in any way). It makes no distinction in what Ched did or did not do (being too drunk etc.) than forcing someone into your home/into the woods, forcefully undressing them, beating them perhaps and having sex with them.
That's where the sentencing guidelines come in. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, but the starting point for someone convicted of a single rape not involving violence, ejaculation, abuse of trust or any other aggravating factors is five years... which is what he got.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- FA Cup Replays Scrapped!
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- My Last Year Project
- Harvard in-text-citations - is this correct?
- Glory Glory Man United we are back
- The 2021-2022 epl season banter(with niz)
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- What's the first thing you're going to do when you finish your last exam?
- CAN I DO IT? (turn pro) football
- Studio flat dmu campus available now!!!!
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Weekend
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- Should I choose my UCL accommodation or commute
- Neighbors dog keeps eating my footballs
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- is it just me or there are a lot of teams playing out from the back now?
- UCL accommodation swap
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
