Unbelievable Jeff

I would say there are more Christian on Muslim crimes worldwide than vice versa, yes. How many of these do you think we're committed by Christians: In December, the Press Association revealed that UK anti-Muslim hate crime ‘soars’ across police forces in England & Wales, with 500 “Islamophobic crimes” recorded by the MET police alone (the figures could be much higher: nearly half of the 43 forces failed to reveal how many hate crimes had targeted Muslims).

Nope, this one:

So it's fine to discriminate against religions as long as you don't mention colour? Blimey.

Fair enough, but to me you seem to be discriminating against a group of people, which seems ignorant beyond belief.

Meh, it seems racist to me. Dress it up any way you want, you're coming across as a racist, and i guarantee if am not the only one to think this.

Muslims. You can't say that Muslims have a higher proportion of nutters than other races without having proof for it, or funnily enough, it seems you have a problem with Muslims.

In all seriousness though, that's why I wrote undertones as there is nothing explicit. If you read your posts you don't form a good opinion of your character.

Alex...

Just remembered Kobe Bryant went back to Basketball didn't he?

The questionable racist undertones of Sour Mash's posts are really quite alarming...

Indeed. Now it's whether or not he was advised to say nothing by his lawyers - which is a real possibility, or whether he felt he shouldn't. I would say some from column A, some from column B in all likelihood.

And now he has apologised, after a third move falls through... Statement from PFA and Ched Evans The players’ union, the PFA, has released a statement explaining its role in the mooted deal with Oldham, with quotes from Evans. The element of Evans’ comments is that he disowns those targeting his victim, saying: I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so. He also apologises to his victim, in a very slightly roundabout way: I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned. Here’s the full statement. The PFA wishes to clarify its position regarding Ched Evans following recent media reports. Our previous statements are set out below and our support for Ched remains the same. We have had some discussions with Oldham Athletic regarding the interest they expressed in signing Ched, although we feel it is important to make clear that, contrary to what has been reported, we were not ‘driving’ any deal. As we understand it, the club and player were in discussions and contact was then made with the PFA as matters progressed given the particular circumstances of this situation and we were simply being asked to publicly reiterate our support for the club in signing him. Despite being ready to offer this from the outset, we were asked to delay whilst discussions between the club and player continued, and we were disappointed to see over the course of this week, comments being made which we feel mischaracterise our limited role in this matter. The PFA’s position remains the same, as we have expressed previously, that any club which decides to sign him would receive our support. We fully recognise that this is a delicate and emotive case and entirely respect that there are opposing views. However, we always felt it was important that Ched made some further comment regarding his current situation and on that basis, he has asked that we include his comments below: “I am grateful for the support of the PFA in helping me try to return to football and continue my career. Upon legal advice, I was told not to discuss the events in question. This silence has been misinterpreted as arrogance and I would like to state that this could not be further from the truth. I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned. Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so.”

Very happy for him, he was a good player for us and helped get us to where we are today! Best of luck Guly!!

Wonder if his missus will stick by him if he becomes 'former' footballer Ched Evans permanently.

Sorry, I missed reading that post, just read it on Football365.

Just out of interest, one of the big bugbears for many on here is the pressure put on the victim etc by Ched's supporters. I found it interesting that Oldham have pulled out citing threats to their staff and families...

And that is the important distinction, it's down to the club to draw the line.

Are you going to answer my earlier questions of you?

I'm not comparing them, apart from the fact that they are both criminal offences. Where do you draw the line? It's also the fact that many criminal offences come in so many different flavours. For instance, you punch someone in the mouth and knock out 4 of their teeth. You get a suspended sentence for GBH. Similarly, someone beats someone else to an absolute pulp, and gets 5 years. You are both guilty of the same offence. Which one should be allowed to play football again? For me it is all or nothing. People should only be banned from jobs where there is an inherent danger to those involved with the job, or where there is an inherent risk for further criminal activity by being placed in that job. The decision should therefore not be made by a governing body, but the employers themselves.

I don't think role models should be able to speed, an inherently dangerous criminal activity.

Where did I say he could substantiate them? However, he does explain things well.

Sensible decision.

Look, you can level a lot at Papster, but I think it is very easy to read and interpret his explanations of things.

Personally I don't think he should be playing football, BUT I don't think it is correct that this choice is made by the governing body, but more that no club should think about employing a convicted rapist.