Ched Evans signing for.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Because he has served his time?

Because the whole 'role model' thing is completely overplayed when pretty much every team in the country (including us) has had plenty of players you wouldn't want your son to aspire to be like?

Because he isn't going to apologise to the complainant if he really believes he is innocent?

Because its the courts' job to issue sentences, not Hartlepool United's?
Click to expand...
I asked this earlier - where do you stand on the rehabilitation of John Venables?
 


HellsBells said:
I asked this earlier - where do you stand on the rehabilitation of John Venables?
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me - but although there is no comparison in the crimes of which they were convicted, or their behaviour since release, again, I think sentencing should be a matter for the courts.

I don't think that he should have been released so early (if at all) on the grounds that what he did was so evil and depraved, that he must be so damaged that rehabilitation must be virtually impossible.

But once he has been released, I think he should have the right to work (obviously not in a profession which involves any duty of care or position of trust).

And I think the same about Ched Evans - it's not Hartlepool United's job to be moral judge and jury when he has served his time.
 
Clubs have a moral obligation to their fans. They might have lifelong supporters who are rape victims or know rape victims. Is it fair to test their loyalty in such a way??
 
speedyftm said:
Clubs have a moral obligation to their fans. They might have lifelong supporters who are rape victims or know rape victims. Is it fair to test their loyalty in such a way??
Click to expand...

But it can't be 1 rule for some and 1 for another. Lee Hughes and that McCormack both played again after being convicted. You could say what if fans had lost someone to a drunk driver is it fair on them.
 
Andy_Roker1983 said:
But it can't be 1 rule for some and 1 for another. Lee Hughes and that McCormack both played again after being convicted. You could say what if fans had lost someone to a drunk driver is it fair on them.
Click to expand...

I've not once said I agree with either of them playing again.
 
Whereas if we had been relegated last season, I still intended to renew my season ticket...in the event we performed a miracle so no thought was needed.

However if we signed Chad Evans I would immediately cancel my season card. I have been a supporter for some 50 years and this is someting I would not do lightly.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
You didn't ask me - but although there is no comparison in the crimes of which they were convicted, or their behaviour since release, again, I think sentencing should be a matter for the courts.

I don't think that he should have been released so early (if at all) on the grounds that what he did was so evil and depraved, that he must be so damaged that rehabilitation must be virtually impossible.

But once he has been released, I think he should have the right to work (obviously not in a profession which involves any duty of care or position of trust).

And I think the same about Ched Evans - it's not Hartlepool United's job to be moral judge and jury when he has served his time.
Click to expand...
Apologies I wasn't insinuating that you'd dodged my question. :)

I did say at the time that the crimes are in no way equated but I think it does make people think about rehabilitation of offenders in general. Venables' crime was the worst possible and puts him right at one end of the scale, but if we're taking the "he's done his time" line then surely we have to take it for everyone, even cretins like Venables.

Andy_Roker1983 said:
Not really relevant to this though is it? A child murderer, no doubt whatsoever. He's also re offended since and probably shit at football
Click to expand...
Doubt doesn't come into it. Both are guilty under law, regardless of what
Anyone outside of the jury and appeal Court thinks.

Child murder is abhorrent as I've said, but you can't have sliding scales of "he's done his time" can you?

Here's a slightly less Contentious one:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/17/ban-train-fare-dodger-finance-john-paul-burrows

Should this fella be banned from his trade for dodging fines?
 
Last edited:
Complex, personally I have serious doubts about the conviction, but that asside the lad has done his time, and should be allowed to be reintegrated into society. As for Hartlepool, any port in a storm, what price a bit of bad publicity if he were able o turn things round and preserve the towns football league status
 
HellsBells said:
Apologies I wasn't insinuating that you'd dodged my question. :)

I did say at the time that the crimes are in no way equated but I think it does make people think about rehabilitation of offenders in general. Venables' crime was the worst possible and puts him right at one end of the scale, but if we're taking the "he's done his time" line then surely we have to take it for everyone, even cretins like Venables.


Doubt doesn't come into it. Both are guilty under law, regardless of what
Anyone outside of the jury and appeal Court thinks.

Child murder is abhorrent as I've said, but you can't have sliding scales of "he's done his time" can you?

Here's a slightly less Contentious one:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/17/ban-train-fare-dodger-finance-john-paul-burrows

Should this fella be banned from his trade for dodging fines?
Click to expand...

Venables re offended though so yes it does make a difference, you can't rehabilitate him once he's tried and re offended.
 
Aerial Threat said:
Venables re offended though so yes it does make a difference, you can't rehabilitate him once he's tried and re offended.
Click to expand...
If he hadn't, has he done his time and deserves to get a job earning millions and being a role model for young kids?

I don't think the other lad has re offended, has he? Would it be okay for him to play footy?

As I say, I'm torn between the rights of the ex-criminal to a normal life and the idolisation of Rapists as role models by young footy fans if I'm honest.
 
HellsBells said:
If he hadn't, has he done his time and deserves to get a job earning millions and being a role model for young kids?

I don't think the other lad has re offended, has he? Would it be okay for him to play footy?

As I say, I'm torn between the rights of the ex-criminal to a normal life and the idolisation of Rapists as role models by young footy fans if I'm honest.
Click to expand...

Just in the case of Venables though, he did re offend so he's a bad example. I agree though I think it's hard to call the worse the crime gets
 
KST said:
He hasn't apologised because he's still appealing/insisting innocence. That would be contradicting, yes?

By the way I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty (tbh I haven't really read into this enough to pass opinion).
Click to expand...

everyone in prison is innocent marra, haven't you seen the Shawshank Redemption??

Aerial Threat said:
Just in the case of Venables though, he did re offend so he's a bad example. I agree though I think it's hard to call the worse the crime gets
Click to expand...

would you let your 12 year old daughter (or son for that matter) gan to a Garry Glitter concert or buy them one of his records for Christmas?

Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Because he has served his time?

Because the whole 'role model' thing is completely overplayed when pretty much every team in the country (including us) has had plenty of players you wouldn't want your son to aspire to be like?

Because he isn't going to apologise to the complainant if he really believes he is innocent?

Because its the courts' job to issue sentences, not Hartlepool United's?
Click to expand...

its a matter of opinions, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my working mens club let alone my football club, theres plenty that think like me too and thats why he's gonna struggle to get a contract and rightly so IMO. Would you get your job back after a stretch for rape? I know I wouldn't. By all means let him seek employment but let him cut his cloth accordingly as 99.9% of us on here would have to.
 
Last edited:
I think Venables is a bad example. He was a child himself when he committed a horrible murder.

A far better example is another famous convicted adult sex offender.

Would the 'he's served his time' brigade really be saying it's none of fans or the public's business if SAFC booked Gary Glitter for a gig at the Stadium of Light?

Would they be complaining about 'political correctness gone mad' if SAFC refused the booking?

There are two arguments trotted out in defence of Ched Evans in this thread:

The first is based on a misunderstanding of the law of rape, with a strong misogynistic undercurrent. It not really that difficult is it? If a girl you have never met before is way gone through drink or drugs, don't take advantage sexually. That's always been rape...why wasn't it for the obviously predatory Evans?

Secondly there is a confusion about 'rehabilitation' ... and the difference between an employer being allowed to employ you in law and the concept of whether to do so would be morally or ethically acceptable.
Just because an act is legal doesn't mean you should do it and that you are immune to criticism if you do.
Hartlepool can legally hire Evans. But they would fully deserve the shitstorm they would reap if they were stupid/cynical enough to do so IMHO.
 
lordy said:
everyone in prison is innocent marra, haven't you seen the Shawshank Redemption??



would you let your 12 year old daughter (or son for that matter) gan to a Garry Glitter concert or buy them one of his records for Christmas?



its a matter of opinions, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my working mens club let alone my football club, theres plenty that think like me too and thats why he's gonna struggle to get a contract and rightly so IMO. Would you get your job back after a stretch for rape? I know I wouldn't. By all means let him seek employment but let him cut his cloth accordingly as 99.9% of us on here would have to.
Click to expand...

And I think that's what it comes down to, at heart - money. A lot of the outcry is about people not wanting him to get a well paid job. I don't think that's remotely relevant, if the job he is doing is not one that involves being in a position of care or trust.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
And I think that's what it comes down to, at heart - money. A lot of the outcry is about people not wanting him to get a well paid job. I don't think that's remotely relevant, if the job he is doing is not one that involves being in a position of care or trust.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest he is in a position of trust of sorts, coaching kids, book signings, autographs etc, not to mention the young lasses throwing themselves at him every weekend. And as for my other questions?
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
My primary interest is in whether justice has been done. Barry George was convicted with murdering Jill Dando in 2000. The Press and the rest of the world called him a murderer. He was the focus of mass hatred for 7 years. His first appeal was turned down. The Criminal Cases Review Commission reviewed the case in 2007 and his conviction was quashed. He was then retried and the case against him was frankly pathetic. That was a high profile case, but not the first case of a serious miscarriage of justice. The evidence simply did not exist to convict him, and as far as I can see the evidence did not exist to convict Ched Evans. What happened was some storytelling was done and the prosecution managed convinced the jury to send him down, but there was not one single piece of evidence to indicate that he was guilty. What they had was this;

The complainant claiming she had no memory of the event.
The complainant claiming that she could not have given consent as she was incapacitated by an unknown substance.
The testimony of Ched Evans and his associate.

It is all well and good lining up to kick the guy, but how many people reading this thread could have gone down in the exact same scenario? How many of you have woken up after drunkenly having sex with someone you didn't even know? Do you remember checking her blood alcohol levels, or doing a toxicology test to see if she was under the influence of any substances that would make her appear to be giving consent, when in fact she was not able to give consent? Or do you only pick up stone-cold sober girls who have not touched a drop?

It is an unworkable proposition, and a case that goes down that route should be considered a test case and a contentious case. The problem is that although someone could very well use this scenario to have non-consensual sex with someone, they can just as easily and legitimately have perfectly legal consensual sex with them in the exact same scenario. When you mix in the evidence that was considered inadmissible, as well as the comments she made on Twitter (which she subsequently failed to cover up) an entirely different picture starts to appear.

I am convinced that once the Cases Review Commission looks at this, it is going to go back to appeal, and he is going to be acquitted.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this surely just can't be true. There needs to be evidence beyond all reasonable doubt to find the defendant guilty, and in a rape case even more so and evidence is apparently very very difficult to prove for rape cases. Yet he's been found guilty by all the judges and jurers that have reviewed the case.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
And I think that's what it comes down to, at heart - money. A lot of the outcry is about people not wanting him to get a well paid job. I don't think that's remotely relevant, if the job he is doing is not one that involves being in a position of care or trust.
Click to expand...
I personally don't care how much he earns. It's the "role model to kids" that I'm not comfortable with.

Personally I think a lot of this is to do with the view of the rape as "not really a proper rape" if you'll excuse the expression. I'd like to see if people would still welcome him back if he was a "classic rapist" as people believe them to be - chasing a woman down the street and forcing her against her will.

Rape is rape, but I think some people still think she was asking for it by being drunk, so people don't really see him as a nasty rapist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top