Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football

[Gary L]

But you wouldn't let an ex pedo go back to working with children?

Originally Posted by Gary L

But you wouldn't let an ex pedo go back to working with children?

Nor would you let a rapist work in a womens shelter ,no reason though why a pedo couldn't be a footballer or a rapist be a footballer for that matter

[Gary L]

Don't suppose you can do it in English, now?

[greyposter]

No.
He was convicted for a crime which should be at least 10 years. His crime was committed in Wales and to a welsh woman. A condition of his licence (not possible I know)should be that he is confined to South Wales (184 miles from his victim. Banned from drinking.This won't and can't happen, pity though.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

http://news.sky.com/story/1395436/ha...-a-possibility

Hartlepool say there is a possibility of signing Chad Evans.

What's happened, another outcry condemning this 'possibility' We have the Vic Chairman of Sheffield United, talking about bullying tactics. With people saying that Evans shouldn't even put boots on again. Such as a local Labour MP

I have two questions on this matter. Evans is appealing against the sentence that he has just served, and what l have read WASNT seen at the original trial. The guy was found guilty of a nasty crime against a woman. Should he be allowed to try and get back into football - l believe he should. He has done his time, or do we punish him for the rest of his life. And qwhat will happen, if the appeal is a success. I can see law suits coming for nasty remarks in the media.

My second point is this - we have nasty Paedophiles, who commit the crimes again children, get six months. Are out on the streets, and no bats an eyelid about - and are allowed to go back to work as if nothing has happened.

What do other members think - nothing nasty about me for my opinion

So for some crimes (rape) you believe if they've served their time, they should have a clean slate - but for others (Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Sexual Offences against a Minor), they shouldn't.

Mixed messages....

[nomadking]

The basis for his conviction was that he should have known how drunk she was, because her behaviour in reception. That is strange because Ched Evans wasn't there to see it, but the other guy involved was, and he was found not guilty and iirc is still playing football.

That was not the basis for conviction.

Here is the findings for the failed appeal against his sentence.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

Which was based on his earlier statement

The judge addressed this issue in clear terms. He began by directing the jury in the precise words of the relevant statutory provision:

"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."

Originally Posted by Hugh

That was not the basis for conviction.

Here is the findings for the failed appeal against his sentence.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans

Which was based on his earlier statement

McDonald was not convicted, so, she was not too drunk to consent to him. She had no more booze, and here comes Evans. Evans was convicted because she was too drunk to consent.



What I do not like is the Evans lot is hostile towards the girl. Why? She never pressed charges, she may have written a couple of silly messages, so???

[nomadking]

In an interview with the police a day after the incident, she said: 'It is just horrible because I don't know how I got there.
'In Sentencing Evans to five years in prison, Judge Hughes said: 'The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.
'CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.
'As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.
'When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that.'

She could not remember travelling to the hotel, but woke up in a double bed.
"My clothes were scattered around on the floor," she said.
"I just didn't know how I got there, if I had gone there with anyone. I was confused and dazed."

She didn't get there with Ched Evans, she got there with McDonald.

If they had both been found guilty, that would have been one thing, but to find McDonald not guilty and Evans guilty, is quite another.

[Kursk]

Evans can, apparently, kick a ball. The financial reward for this is ridiculously high but it's one way that civilised people satiate their need for competition. Football has rules. Society has rules. Evans decided those rules do not apply to him so he's been sent off.

He still professes his innocence. He has stepped outside the rules and by doing so he is excluding himself from the game of life and football. Any decent person would not have taken advantage in the circumstances he found himself in. And any decent person who had made a mistake would admit it. His time is not served until he accepts he was wrong.

I don't think he can let himself back into football until he accepts his guilt and pays reparations to his victim.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

She didn't get there with Ched Evans, she got there with McDonald. If they had both been found guilty, that would have been one thing, but to find McDonald not guilty and Evans guilty, is quite another.

Yes that bit I still don't really understand.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

Evans can, apparently, kick a ball. The financial reward for this is ridiculously high but it's one way that civilised people satiate their need for competition. Football has rules. Society has rules. Evans decided those rules do not apply to him so he's been sent off.

He still professes his innocence. He has stepped outside the rules and by doing so he is excluding himself from the game of life and football. Any decent person would not have taken advantage in the circumstances he found himself in. And any decent person who had made a mistake would admit it. His time is not served until he accepts he was wrong.

I don't think he can let himself back into football until he accepts his guilt and pays reparations to his victim.

Presumably all that applies to anyone who commits a serious crime, not just footballers. What test would you suggest applying to assess the sincerity of any future acceptance of guilt by Evans or anyone else is a similar situation? Let's face it, it'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to say a few words but not really mean them or intend to change their behaviour or views.

At this moment he is a convicted rapist. If it was a n other it's more than likely a n other would be sacked by their employer. It's also doubtful a n other would be employed by anyone else as the individual would have to declare their conviction.

So why should it be different for Ched Evans?

If he appeals and wins, he should be able to resume his career.

That's my two penneth

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Osem

Presumably all that applies to anyone who commits a serious crime, not just footballers. What test would you suggest applying to assess the sincerity of any future acceptance of guilt by Evans or anyone else is a similar situation? Let's face it, it'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to say a few words but not really mean them or intend to change their behaviour or views.

Future behaviour is the test of sincerity. The onus is upon the individual, not society, to prove they are reformed by behaving like decent people do. They can remain closet perverts for as long as they like for all I care but if they exercise their predilection, they can expect an extended stay in the slammer. Rapists and other serious offenders, for example, are monitored for this very purpose.

[Russ]

Leslie Grantham was made a main character on Eastenders and he had a murder conviction