• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Ched Evans?

  • Yes

    Votes: 158 35.3%
  • No

    Votes: 252 56.4%
  • Indifferent

    Votes: 37 8.3%

  • Total voters
    447
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is he actually being treated any worse than anyone else though?

I work for a major UK Insurance company and if I was convicted of a crime (any crime, not just rape) which lead to a custodial sentence my contract would be terminated immediately. Evans, I believe, continued to be paid during his time inside, a privilege afforded to very few employees.

Upon release from prison I doubt very much my employee would take me back on. In fact I doubt any insurance company would sign an underwriter with a rape conviction on their CV. This is true of many professions in both the private and public sector.

Yes, there is a place for rehabilitation but in a legal sense that is to reintegrate the offender back into society. That reintegration does not automatically mean that person returns to their previous profession or enjoys a similar status to that prior to their conviction. In fact most people, especially sex offenders, have very limited opportunities upon release and need to pursue new or different careers. In that respect Ched Evans is no different.

And the same would have been true of me in previous jobs (I'm self employed now), but the difference is that I was told in advance, and it was in my contract that I would not be allowed back should that kind of thing happen. I doubt very much that such a clause existed in CE's contract with Sheffield United. It would therefore be unfair to impose such a clause after the event. Moreover, my understanding is the CE's contract was terminated once he was convicted.

You also state that it would be unlikely that your old employer would take you back. But that doesn't mean they can't by law. That is also true of any other employer. In CE's case he's not asking his old employer to take him back, he's asking for any employer in his profession to give him a chance.

It simply isn't the same thing.

About the only sensible comment I have heard recently was actually from Greg Dyke who thinks that certain rules of behaviour should be introduced for footballers to be able to play. If that is the case, then I assume the FA can revoke a registration, and then refuse to re-register a player after they come out of prison.

I would be all for that because it would stop situations like this happening again. But, whilst there are no such rules in place, it is IMO unfair for people to stop CE playing again.
 
And the same would have been true of me in previous jobs (I'm self employed now), but the difference is that I was told in advance, and it was in my contract that I would not be allowed back should that kind of thing happen. I doubt very much that such a clause existed in CE's contract with Sheffield United. It would therefore be unfair to impose such a clause after the event. Moreover, my understanding is the CE's contract was terminated once he was convicted.

You also state that it would be unlikely that your old employer would take you back. But that doesn't mean they can't by law. That is also true of any other employer. In CE's case he's not asking his old employer to take him back, he's asking for any employer in his profession to give him a chance.

It simply isn't the same thing.

About the only sensible comment I have heard recently was actually from Greg Dyke who thinks that certain rules of behaviour should be introduced for footballers to be able to play. If that is the case, then I assume the FA can revoke a registration, and then refuse to re-register a player after they come out of prison.

I would be all for that because it would stop situations like this happening again. But, whilst there are no such rules in place, it is IMO unfair for people to stop CE playing again.
It is market forces that are preventing him from being employed at the moment not any employment law or code of conduct. Sponsors and supports on the whole don't want him playing for their club. In any job interview they don't just look at your ability to do the basic job but also your ability to fit in with the other needs of the employer, colleagues and client base (in this case sponsors and supporters) - that is where he falls short.
 
TBV kept up a pretty consistent "Murderer, murderer," chant for most of the 1st half while McCormick was in the goal at that end.

Wow, and I thought they were supposed to support our players. No wonder it gets derided.

OBL that is simply not true !

Its not a matter of opinion its simply inaccurate. It happened on goal kicks, didn't last long, and a very good proportion of W didn't join in . Those are the actual facts- not opinions, but facts . Please don't reply by saying 'thats what we heard' 'that what everyone around me heard'. You clearly heard/remembered what you wanted to hear- and that is totally inaccurate .

Many of us put a lot of effort into vocally supporting our team which is why I am so annoyed with your inaccurate untruthful comment . The effects of your comments are clear - see MK shrimpers response above as an example. This really isn't helpful. You owe an apology to the supporters of that block that support their team
 
OBL that is simply not true !

Its not a matter of opinion its simply inaccurate. It happened on goal kicks, didn't last long, and a very good proportion of W didn't join in . Those are the actual facts- not opinions, but facts . Please don't reply by saying 'thats what we heard' 'that what everyone around me heard'. You clearly heard/remembered what you wanted to hear- and that is totally inaccurate .

Many of us put a lot of effort into vocally supporting our team which is why I am so annoyed with your inaccurate untruthful comment . The effects of your comments are clear - see MK shrimpers response above as an example. This really isn't helpful. You owe an apology to the supporters of that block that support their team

Fair enough mate, glad to be proved wrong. Forgot the opposition, where they come from, who plays for them and support OUR players and no one would criticise TBV.
 
OBL that is simply not true !

Its not a matter of opinion its simply inaccurate. It happened on goal kicks, didn't last long, and a very good proportion of W didn't join in . Those are the actual facts- not opinions, but facts . Please don't reply by saying 'thats what we heard' 'that what everyone around me heard'. You clearly heard/remembered what you wanted to hear- and that is totally inaccurate .

Many of us put a lot of effort into vocally supporting our team which is why I am so annoyed with your inaccurate untruthful comment . The effects of your comments are clear - see MK shrimpers response above as an example. This really isn't helpful. You owe an apology to the supporters of that block that support their team

That is a fact though, isn't it? Surely you're not in a position to tell OBL what she heard, are you?
 
OBL that is simply not true !

Its not a matter of opinion its simply inaccurate. It happened on goal kicks, didn't last long, and a very good proportion of W didn't join in . Those are the actual facts- not opinions, but facts . Please don't reply by saying 'thats what we heard' 'that what everyone around me heard'. You clearly heard/remembered what you wanted to hear- and that is totally inaccurate .

Many of us put a lot of effort into vocally supporting our team which is why I am so annoyed with your inaccurate untruthful comment . The effects of your comments are clear - see MK shrimpers response above as an example. This really isn't helpful. You owe an apology to the supporters of that block that support their team

I heard it rather much more than just goal kicks. And I was sitting in the South Upper.
 
I heard it rather much more than just goal kicks. And I was sitting in the South Upper.

That is a fact though, isn't it? Surely you're not in a position to tell OBL what she heard, are you?

Football is a game of opinions. We can all have our opinion of how a player played, but at the end of the game the ref blows the whistle and we have the final score. The final score is a fact, not an opinion .

W block did not sing 'Murderer' for most of the first half- that is a fact as clear as the final score is a fact .

So yes I am in a position to state that what OBL 'remembers' and what she actually 'heard' are not the same thing (there are numerous studies on eye witness statements on what people 'think' they saw/heard vs what they 'actually' saw/heard which highlight how normal this is.

I trust my own judgement as a I was in W and I was singing like others at numerous points throughout the half and I didn't join in that particular chant at any point. According to OBL's comment that was impossible, and that if the difference. I was actually doing something, it isn't just recalling what I saw/heard, it is also recalling what I actually did. The chant annoys me (But I recognize everyone has their own opinion etc etc) and therefore its something that I was very attuned to during the match. If it was sung at other points, it was not sung often and certainly the amount of 'Murderer' chants was HUGELY outweighed my the amount of pro SUFC singing that took part for the rest of the half.
 
So yes I am in a position to state that what OBL 'remembers' and what she actually 'heard' are not the same thing (there are numerous studies on eye witness statements on what people 'think' they saw/heard vs what they 'actually' saw/heard which highlight how normal this is.

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.
 
Football is a game of opinions. We can all have our opinion of how a player played, but at the end of the game the ref blows the whistle and we have the final score. The final score is a fact, not an opinion .

W block did not sing 'Murderer' for most of the first half- that is a fact as clear as the final score is a fact .

So yes I am in a position to state that what OBL 'remembers' and what she actually 'heard' are not the same thing (there are numerous studies on eye witness statements on what people 'think' they saw/heard vs what they 'actually' saw/heard which highlight how normal this is.

I trust my own judgement as a I was in W and I was singing like others at numerous points throughout the half and I didn't join in that particular chant at any point. According to OBL's comment that was impossible, and that if the difference. I was actually doing something, it isn't just recalling what I saw/heard, it is also recalling what I actually did. The chant annoys me (But I recognize everyone has their own opinion etc etc) and therefore its something that I was very attuned to during the match. If it was sung at other points, it was not sung often and certainly the amount of 'Murderer' chants was HUGELY outweighed my the amount of pro SUFC singing that took part for the rest of the half.

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.
 
And the same would have been true of me in previous jobs (I'm self employed now), but the difference is that I was told in advance, and it was in my contract that I would not be allowed back should that kind of thing happen. I doubt very much that such a clause existed in CE's contract with Sheffield United. It would therefore be unfair to impose such a clause after the event. Moreover, my understanding is the CE's contract was terminated once he was convicted.

You also state that it would be unlikely that your old employer would take you back. But that doesn't mean they can't by law. That is also true of any other employer. In CE's case he's not asking his old employer to take him back, he's asking for any employer in his profession to give him a chance.

It simply isn't the same thing.

About the only sensible comment I have heard recently was actually from Greg Dyke who thinks that certain rules of behaviour should be introduced for footballers to be able to play. If that is the case, then I assume the FA can revoke a registration, and then refuse to re-register a player after they come out of prison.

I would be all for that because it would stop situations like this happening again. But, whilst there are no such rules in place, it is IMO unfair for people to stop CE playing again.


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.
 
Well that's ok then, let's give him a medal

If it was my kids he killed, I'd soon be classed a murderer. I think it's disgusting he only got death by dangerous driving. The law is an ***

The legal definition for murder is quite clear, there has to be intent. This is as far as I know the same in every Western legal system. Had he been classed as a murderer and tried for the same he would have been found not guilty and walked from court a free man. The law in in that case truly would be an ***, fortunately however there is more than one legal remedy where someone is killed and Luke McCormick was tried and convicted for his crime.
 
The legal definition for murder is quite clear, there has to be intent. This is as far as I know the same in every Western legal system. Had he been classed as a murderer and tried for the same he would have been found not guilty and walked from court a free man. The law in in that case truly would be an ***, fortunately however there is more than one legal remedy where someone is killed and Luke McCormick was tried and convicted for his crime.

That's why I changed it to manslaughter. I would say death by drink driving should be the same as manslaughter. You have killed someone but it wasn't pre mediated
 
Football is a game of opinions. We can all have our opinion of how a player played, but at the end of the game the ref blows the whistle and we have the final score. The final score is a fact, not an opinion .

W block did not sing 'Murderer' for most of the first half- that is a fact as clear as the final score is a fact .

So yes I am in a position to state that what OBL 'remembers' and what she actually 'heard' are not the same thing (there are numerous studies on eye witness statements on what people 'think' they saw/heard vs what they 'actually' saw/heard which highlight how normal this is.

I trust my own judgement as a I was in W and I was singing like others at numerous points throughout the half and I didn't join in that particular chant at any point. According to OBL's comment that was impossible, and that if the difference. I was actually doing something, it isn't just recalling what I saw/heard, it is also recalling what I actually did. The chant annoys me (But I recognize everyone has their own opinion etc etc) and therefore its something that I was very attuned to during the match. If it was sung at other points, it was not sung often and certainly the amount of 'Murderer' chants was HUGELY outweighed my the amount of pro SUFC singing that took part for the rest of the half.

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.
 
That's why I changed it to manslaughter. I would say death by drink driving should be the same as manslaughter. You have killed someone but it wasn't pre mediated

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top