We need a striker, would you accept Ched Evans?

[davewebbsbrain]

I would not necessarily disagree although it may be harder to prove manslaughter over death by dangerous driving whereas the latter was a lot clearer and McCormick pleaded guilty. The tariffs for the time inside probably overlap so McCormick may well have served the same sentence in any case.

I think you are probably right

 

[essexshrimper]

Phil Brown rules out signing Ched evans,

source: CP tweeted it :smile:

 

[WESTY_SUFC]

Phil Brown rules out signing Ched evans,

source: CP tweeted it :smile:

Ron and Phil didn't want anyone getting in on their action without invite

 

[fbm]

Evans would probably take that as a "Yes" though...

 

[londonblue]

I am sorry but I really cannot see much difference between Ched Evans and and say an insurance underwriter (or most other private and public sector professions). There is nothing in law preventing the current employer or Sheffield United in re-employing them but both would or have not done so due to to the damage to that organisations reputation.

Exactly the same applies to prospective employees in the same profession they are highly unlikely to employ a sex offender due to the negative impact on their reputation. My job for example involves extensive contact with brokers and clients and I cannot imagine any insurance companies, or their shareholders, wanting a convicted rapist representing them in such an environment. This is exactly the same decision that football clubs are coming to with Ched Evans.

Greg Dyke's comments are interesting but by refusing to re-register a player actually goes further than the current situation. Also do you have a list of acceptable crimes where you can play again and non-acceptable crimes. What about say racially aggravated assault register or de-register?

Even if certain "acceptable" crimes do not appear on the list and the player is re-registered there would still not be a mechanism for forcing a club to sign a player if they believed him to be unsuitable.

Personally I see a huge difference. There is no code of conduct expected by a footballer that is above and beyond the law. That is probably the same for you. However, should you be a convicted rapist, it wouldn't be plastered all over the news, and no-one would be any the wiser. Even if you did declare it to your employer, and they agreed to take you on, none of their customers would ever know, and so you're more likely to be able to continue your career (note, I said more likely - I didn't say it would definitely happen) than someone in the public eye. And to me, it's the public eye bit that I have an issue with, because it is that that is skewing the playing field against footballers.

If there was a code of conduct in place, and this crime was outside of that, then this whole mess would've been avoided.

As for a list of crimes, I personally don't have one, but there are plenty of professions that do. For example, lawyers can be struck of for many things, but not for drink driving; a doctor was convicted of fraud recently, but is still allowed to practice as a doctor, although I'm sure he would have been struck off for rape.

Different professions have different sets of rules, and it would be up to the professional bodies to decide.

 

[united we stand]

TBV kept up a pretty consistent "Murderer, murderer," chant for most of the 1st half while McCormick was in the goal at that end.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I said, that they kept up a pretty consistent chant, and then check the meaning. Also, for the record, I didn't say they sang it ALL the time, however it was pretty much the only chant I registered at all in the 1st half, because that is the end McCormick was.

My apologies, My brain read 'constantly' and not consistent, hence why your comments annoyed me. I stated that it was sung every time there was a goal kick in the first half, and goal kicks are taken 'consistently ' throughout the match hence I guess we are actually saying the same thing.

Well you can, but that's an opinion. Not a fact. You cannot state as a fact what you think someone else heard. You don't have their ears.

Your argument for what you heard is no more or less credible than OBL's.

FWIW, I was in the East Blacks and didn't hear anything. Fact.

Please see my comment above, You can't hear something that didn't happen. If something is said, then you are right, I don't know if someone heard it or not, but you can't hear something that didn't happen . I now understand that I have misinterpreted what OBL states she heard

You know when you're on your own voicing an opinion, and there's several other people telling you their opinion you've got to accept one of three scenarios.

1) They've got it in for you and are just doing it for ***** and giggles.
2) They're sensationalising things
3) Maybe your view on what was once or twice, doesn't quite fall into line with a consistent chant.

I know what I heard, I even remarked at the time that we've made our point maybe we should enjoy the game instead. But it continued into the second half when the South Upper decided to have their say for near on 45 minutes.

It happened, justified or not, it happened.

I guess fall into your third option, as I have never mentioned once or twice but did state that it happened every free kick. I can't and haven't commented on the South Upper as I can't hear them from my position . I am guessing OBL can't hear them either as she only mentioned hearing W block.

 

[Pubey]

Personally I see a huge difference. There is no code of conduct expected by a footballer that is above and beyond the law. That is probably the same for you. However, should you be a convicted rapist, it wouldn't be plastered all over the news, and no-one would be any the wiser. Even if you did declare it to your employer, and they agreed to take you on, none of their customers would ever know, and so you're more likely to be able to continue your career (note, I said more likely - I didn't say it would definitely happen) than someone in the public eye. And to me, it's the public eye bit that I have an issue with, because it is that that is skewing the playing field against footballers.

If there was a code of conduct in place, and this crime was outside of that, then this whole mess would've been avoided.

As for a list of crimes, I personally don't have one, but there are plenty of professions that do. For example, lawyers can be struck of for many things, but not for drink driving; a doctor was convicted of fraud recently, but is still allowed to practice as a doctor, although I'm sure he would have been struck off for rape.

Different professions have different sets of rules, and it would be up to the professional bodies to decide.

The best comparison for Ched Evans is similar convicted people in TV and film. A public role where you are potentially an influence to children. I'm sure people can bring up examples where they have returned to their previous career to highlight inconsistencies (Lesley Grantham for example), but if someone well known on TV or film was to rape someone tomorrow and be convicted and locked away for it, then I'm confident that they wouldn't be walking back into their former career.

 

[londonblue]

The best comparison for Ched Evans is similar convicted people in TV and film. A public role where you are potentially an influence to children. I'm sure people can bring up examples where they have returned to their previous career to highlight inconsistencies (Lesley Grantham for example), but if someone well known on TV or film was to rape someone tomorrow and be convicted and locked away for it, then I'm confident that they wouldn't be walking back into their former career.

Even though you've just proved otherwise? Blimey, now many celebrities, especially pop stars have been done for drugs related issues? Even Cheryl Cole has been done for ABH.

Nick Pickard (Hollyoaks, and Chelsea fan) has been done for drunk driving. What's the difference between that and Luke McCormick's death by dangerous driving? IMO the only difference is luck.

And I also don't accept they're the same.

 

[OldBlueLady]

UWS, apology accepted, no worries.

Back on topic, I haven't read it but I'm sure there must be something in the whole "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" that would cover Evans' position with regard to resuming his career. Anyone got a spare hour or two that might be interested in looking, or anyone who knows?

 

[Pubey]

Even though you've just proved otherwise? Blimey, now many celebrities, especially pop stars have been done for drugs related issues? Even Cheryl Cole has been done for ABH.

Nick Pickard (Hollyoaks, and Chelsea fan) has been done for drunk driving. What's the difference between that and Luke McCormick's death by dangerous driving? IMO the only difference is luck.

And I also don't accept they're the same.

I'm sure I said that too! I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I post.

Lesley Grantham committed his crime a long time ago and was 'accepted' a long time ago. I'm sure that these days he wouldn't be. Mark Wahlberg as well.

Drug related issues aren't on the same page as rape. Neither is ABH.

I don't even know who Nick Pickard is.

My point remains. If a TV or film person was to rape someone then these days I doubt they'd make a return to the same industry. Chris Langham hasn't been able to return to his acting career since being lock up for downloading child pr0n.

 

[londonblue]

I'm sure I said that too! I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I post.

Lesley Grantham committed his crime a long time ago and was 'accepted' a long time ago. I'm sure that these days he wouldn't be. Mark Wahlberg as well.

Drug related issues aren't on the same page as rape. Neither is ABH.

I don't even know who Nick Pickard is.

My point remains. If a TV or film person was to rape someone then these days I doubt they'd make a return to the same industry. Chris Langham hasn't been able to return to his acting career since being lock up for downloading child pr0n.

You did. I was just agreeing with you.

Other offences might not be the same, but these people are still in the public eye, and are still considered by some to be role models.

Wasn't one of the Rollling Stones picked up for Child Porn? Didn't Bill Wyman have a 13 year old move in with him?

 

[Jam_Man]

Yeah Bill Wyman had a relationship with Mandy Smith a 13 year old, didn't they then marry?

Times change though, that wouldn't be tolerated now.

 

[Beefy]

Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl, escaped sentancing by running away to another continent and went on to win an Oscar for The Pianist.

 

[Feathers]

Personally I see a huge difference. There is no code of conduct expected by a footballer that is above and beyond the law. That is probably the same for you. However, should you be a convicted rapist, it wouldn't be plastered all over the news, and no-one would be any the wiser. Even if you did declare it to your employer, and they agreed to take you on, none of their customers would ever know, and so you're more likely to be able to continue your career (note, I said more likely - I didn't say it would definitely happen) than someone in the public eye. And to me, it's the public eye bit that I have an issue with, because it is that that is skewing the playing field against footballers.

If there was a code of conduct in place, and this crime was outside of that, then this whole mess would've been avoided.

As for a list of crimes, I personally don't have one, but there are plenty of professions that do. For example, lawyers can be struck of for many things, but not for drink driving; a doctor was convicted of fraud recently, but is still allowed to practice as a doctor, although I'm sure he would have been struck off for rape.

Different professions have different sets of rules, and it would be up to the professional bodies to decide.

I agree that it is harder for someone in the public eye but the fact that Luke McCormick, Lee Hughes, and numerous other footballers with convictions have returned to football proves that the playing field is not skewed against footballers. Ched Evans is to the best of my knowledge the first footballer to be convicted of rape, although other players have returned to playing after convictions for sex related crimes.

The fact that the case is so much in the public eye is also largely due to Ched Evans and his family with breakfast TV appearances etc maintaining his innocence, the fact the victim has been named by his supporters and hounded to the extent she has had to change her identity 5 times. I accept that if he genuinely believes he is innocent complete declarations of remorse are difficult but it would still have been possible to show more contrition without implicating himself and have distanced himself from his website, supporters etc

I suspect the backlash against Ched Evans is not just about the crime itself, but the circumstances surrounding it and his actions post release.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Ched Evans is to the best of my knowledge the first footballer to be convicted of rape, although other players have returned to playing after convictions for sex related crimes.

Tes Bramble?

 

[londonblue]

I agree that it is harder for someone in the public eye but the fact that Luke McCormick, Lee Hughes, and numerous other footballers with convictions have returned to football proves that the playing field is not skewed against footballers. Ched Evans is to the best of my knowledge the first footballer to be convicted of rape, although other players have returned to playing after convictions for sex related crimes.

The fact that the case is so much in the public eye is also largely due to Ched Evans and his family with breakfast TV appearances etc maintaining his innocence, the fact the victim has been named by his supporters and hounded to the extent she has had to change her identity 5 times. I accept that if he genuinely believes he is innocent complete declarations of remorse are difficult but it would still have been possible to show more contrition without implicating himself and have distanced himself from his website, supporters etc

I suspect the backlash against Ched Evans is not just about the crime itself, but the circumstances surrounding it and his actions post release.

Now that may well be true. And I have to say I'm not impressed with his actions, or that or his "supporters", even if he does distance themselves from them...

:off topic:

Ched Evans is a perfect example of why lie detectors don't work. When someone is obviously guilty, but doesn't think he is, he will pass with flying colours.

 

[Feathers]

Tes Bramble?

I had forgotten about Tes Bramble. His league career was over though at the time of conviction and since his release has played non-league football.

 

[londonblue]

I had forgotten about Tes Bramble. His league career was over though at the time of conviction and since his release has played non-league football.

In fairness, he should never have even had a league career.

 

[Kevin Hogg]

I have absolutely no effect on anybody who wants to employ anyone else. However, there are plenty of professions where, if you commit a crime and end up in jail, you lose your job and probably your career as well. You have to find another method of earning a living. The saying I believe is, "If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Why should a footballer be any different?

Once again!! The professions where a convicted offender would not resume his career are roles where the EMPLOYER chooses not to employ an offender or for legal reasons.
Oldham Athletic WANTED to employ Evans - that is the difference. Also there is every chance that without pressure - Blades would also have employed him.
If a profession DOES NOT want to employ an offender - that is their choice. But at least one football club DID WANT to employ Evans and we all know that without pressure several other offers would have evolved.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Once again!! The professions where a convicted offender would not resume his career are roles where the EMPLOYER chooses not to employ an offender or for legal reasons.
Oldham Athletic WANTED to employ Evans - that is the difference. Also there is every chance that without pressure - Blades would also have employed him.
If a profession DOES NOT want to employ an offender - that is their choice. But at least one football club DID WANT to employ Evans and we all know that without pressure several other offers would have evolved.

But Oldham rely on sponsors to help fund the club and the sponsors didn't want to be associated with him, so no job for Mr Evans.