Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much.

 

Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data.

That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt.

 

That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. 

 

i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally

 

Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in.

[Wullie]

No.

 

Being a professional footballer accounts for lot more than just holding a job at playing football. That's my opinion at least but I do respect that other people look at it in different terms. Indeed it wont help society nor offenders to ostracize or isolate people like Evans, but when you've committed a crime such as this some avenues of life and society should remain closed.

 

Jobs where he would be considered a risk are closed off to him, unless we think he's going to rape a teammate I don't think it applies.

 

Plenty of companies won't hire a convicted rapist though, or even a convicted criminal. If a particular football club wants to sign him, that's their decision. But if nobody wants to, he'll have to find a cleaning job somewhere. That's life.

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much.

 

Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data.

That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt.

 

That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. 

 

i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally

 

Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in.

 

he is taking it to a further appeal of some kind though isn't he?  sure i read that

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

It is odd that rapists and sex offenders often get more lenient sentences than drug dealers.

 

Do you think so? A drug dealer can ruin the lives of many people and provide an avenue for organised criminals to profit, who themselves ruin the lives and likely kill many other people.

 

Obviously these sex offences are horrendous for the victim, but the overall affect on society is nowhere near. Assuming we're not talking hardcore paedophiles or serial rapists.

 

Not that comparing crimes is that productive anyway, just thought it was interesting you made that point.

 

I think the guy who fucks a persons mind up for life by sexually assaulting them is far worse than the guy selling MDMA. Society's stance on drugs is stupid.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Agree with your sentiment Hans but shrouded in doubt is a bit strong.

 

Also if he wasn't a footballer then I don't think people would mind. Also if he wasn't a footballer I doubt his victim would have been compensated for her attack (I assume she sued him in the civil court post conviction, it literally couldn't have been easier for her to do).

 

I mean it's not going to sit right that someone who has been found guilty of an offence like this is able to live a life of privilege. But then if we strive to have equality before the law I'm not sure we should be making exceptions for footballers.

 

He wouldn't really be living a life of privilege, he'd be living whatever life was provided for from the income from the job he is now free to carry out. Just so happens his wages will be higher than most people.

[sixx]

No.

 

Being a professional footballer accounts for lot more than just holding a job at playing football. That's my opinion at least but I do respect that other people look at it in different terms. Indeed it wont help society nor offenders to ostracize or isolate people like Evans, but when you've committed a crime such as this some avenues of life and society should remain closed.

 

Jobs where he would be considered a risk are closed off to him, unless we think he's going to rape a teammate I don't think it applies.

That's not my point though. I'm not suggesting he poses a risk to his immediate surroundings or the persons he works with. For me it's a matter of principle. A convicted sex offender shouldn't, by way of his footballing talents, be granted a status as a role model. Which he undoubtedly will be whether we like it or not.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much.

 

Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data.

That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt.

 

That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. 

 

i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally

 

Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in.

 

he is taking it to a further appeal of some kind though isn't he?  sure i read that

 

CCRC = Criminal Cases Review Commission. Thats who he spoke about in his press release. Far more likely that was just posturing for prospective clubs than any legitimate belief of it going anywhere.  I'm pretty sure that the most they can do is refer cases to the Court of Appeal anyway.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It is odd that rapists and sex offenders often get more lenient sentences than drug dealers.

 

Do you think so? A drug dealer can ruin the lives of many people and provide an avenue for organised criminals to profit, who themselves ruin the lives and likely kill many other people.

 

Obviously these sex offences are horrendous for the victim, but the overall affect on society is nowhere near. Assuming we're not talking hardcore paedophiles or serial rapists.

 

Not that comparing crimes is that productive anyway, just thought it was interesting you made that point.

 

I think the guy who fucks a persons mind up for life by sexually assaulting them is far worse than the guy selling MDMA. Society's stance on drugs is stupid.

 

Fair enough view, like I said it's pretty hard to compare crimes. I'm just always aware of the potentially long chain of crimes and victims that leads a drug to be on sale on the streets of the UK.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

 

But assuming he's guilty, what would you say?

 

Debating whether or not you believe he did is a completely different discussion really. He's a convicted rapist.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Agree with your sentiment Hans but shrouded in doubt is a bit strong.

 

Also if he wasn't a footballer then I don't think people would mind. Also if he wasn't a footballer I doubt his victim would have been compensated for her attack (I assume she sued him in the civil court post conviction, it literally couldn't have been easier for her to do).

 

I mean it's not going to sit right that someone who has been found guilty of an offence like this is able to live a life of privilege. But then if we strive to have equality before the law I'm not sure we should be making exceptions for footballers.

 

He wouldn't really be living a life of privilege, he'd be living whatever life was provided for from the income from the job he is now free to carry out. Just so happens his wages will be higher than most people.

 

Hes going to be a rich man, it sticks in the craw. Jesus 

[Dave]

Drug dealers presumably get longer than rapists because the crown can't bear the thought of someone making money they don't get a cut of.

 

j/k

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Drug dealers presumably get longer than rapists because the crown can't bear the thought of someone making money they don't get a cut of.

 

j/k

 

Peadophiles share their images for free, Dave.

 

j/k

[Dave]

Do they? Missing a trick there.

[Hanshithispantz]

Drug dealers tend to just be normal blokes where as a full on rapist (philanthropist) are obviously genuinely sick in the head. It doesn't make any sense like, I assume the idea behind it is to do with prevention more than anything else though?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It is odd that rapists and sex offenders often get more lenient sentences than drug dealers.

 

Do you think so? A drug dealer can ruin the lives of many people and provide an avenue for organised criminals to profit, who themselves ruin the lives and likely kill many other people.

 

Obviously these sex offences are horrendous for the victim, but the overall affect on society is nowhere near. Assuming we're not talking hardcore paedophiles or serial rapists.

 

Not that comparing crimes is that productive anyway, just thought it was interesting you made that point.

 

Really? i think it's absolutely insane that drug dealers get longer than rapists. Completely obscene. 

 

Well like I said it's hard to compare.

 

Bloke down the street who deals some weed he grew in his attic, fair enough.

 

But just a coupe of quick examples... someone who peddles heroin which absolutely destroys the life of anyone it touches, the people the addicts victimise to get money, their friends and family etc. Or someone who's involved a chain of violent and organised crime to get cocaine from South America to the UK. Involving women being forced to be mules, rivals killed, young people sucked into the industry, addicts having their lives ruined in their droves.

 

Obviously you can equally think of awful sex crimes, I guess I just mean that drug dealing can also be incredibly harmful and the discussions not clear cut.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Do they? Missing a trick there.

 

Dave spots a gap in the market.

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much.

 

Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data.

That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt.

 

That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. 

 

i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally

 

Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in.

 

he is taking it to a further appeal of some kind though isn't he?  sure i read that

 

CCRC = Criminal Cases Review Commission. Thats who he spoke about in his press release. Far more likely that was just posturing for prospective clubs than any legitimate belief of it going anywhere.  I'm pretty sure that the most they can do is refer cases to the Court of Appeal anyway.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Agree with your sentiment Hans but shrouded in doubt is a bit strong.

 

Also if he wasn't a footballer then I don't think people would mind. Also if he wasn't a footballer I doubt his victim would have been compensated for her attack (I assume she sued him in the civil court post conviction, it literally couldn't have been easier for her to do).

 

I mean it's not going to sit right that someone who has been found guilty of an offence like this is able to live a life of privilege. But then if we strive to have equality before the law I'm not sure we should be making exceptions for footballers.

 

He wouldn't really be living a life of privilege, he'd be living whatever life was provided for from the income from the job he is now free to carry out. Just so happens his wages will be higher than most people.

 

Hes going to be a rich man, it sticks in the craw. Jesus 

 

I just thought privilege suggested he hadn't earned his money like anyone else.

 

I just believe in the principle of time served, it doesn't stuck in my craw more than anyone else going back to work really. I don't believe he permanently forfeits his right to work.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

 

But assuming he's guilty, what would you say?

 

Debating whether or not you believe he did is a completely different discussion really. He's a convicted rapist.

Convicted doesn't necessarily mean as great a deal to me as absolute unflinching fact.

 

If he did it, in the way that's been explained, he should have the same employment rights as any other rapist that comes out of prison imo. No more and no less.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

 

But assuming he's guilty, what would you say?

 

Debating whether or not you believe he did is a completely different discussion really. He's a convicted rapist.

Convicted doesn't necessarily mean as great a deal to me as absolute unflinching fact.

 

If he did it, in the way that's been explained, he should have the same employment rights as any other rapist that comes out of prison imo. No more and no less.

 

I agree with you, just wondered if the circumstances of the case are important to the conclusion.

 

I guess they are in that if he'd committed an even more serious crime that he would be doing 10 years and this debate wouldn't even come up. But beyond that I'm not sure.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Also all those people getting fucked in the arse by drug dealers and traffickers wouldnt be subjected to the same sort of treatment if the product wasn't illegal.

[ElDiablo]

Yes.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not saying I believe all drugs in themselves are evil. It's just like any product, you want the supply chain to be above board and exploitation free if you can help it. Which I imagine is very rare with anything other than small quantities of cannabis etc.

 

Anyway soz, slightly off the Ched topic.

[Kimbo]

No.

 

Being a professional footballer accounts for lot more than just holding a job at playing football. That's my opinion at least but I do respect that other people look at it in different terms. Indeed it wont help society nor offenders to ostracize or isolate people like Evans, but when you've committed a crime such as this some avenues of life and society should remain closed.

 

Jobs where he would be considered a risk are closed off to him, unless we think he's going to rape a teammate I don't think it applies.

That's not my point though. I'm not suggesting he poses a risk to his immediate surroundings or the persons he works with. For me it's a matter of principle. A convicted sex offender shouldn't, by way of his footballing talents, be granted a status as a role model. Which he undoubtedly will be whether we like it or not.

 

Are all footballers automatically role models, just because they play football professionally?

 

I've never understood the role model thing anyway, society doesn't pick role models, individuals do, and they usually pick someone that shares the same flaws, not perfect humans beings.