Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 While his mates tried to film you through the window. Oh and then hounded and harassed you, and broke your anonymity, and forced you to change your identity several times. Why do you think he's no longer called Jamie/TheDellDays, left the Navy and had to relocate as Brett from Camden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 7 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Why do you think he's no longer called Jamie/TheDellDays, left the Navy and had to relocate as Brett from Camden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) Yes quite possibly but in other cases it could be a case of a lack of communication or misunderstanding. It sounds outlandish but things like this do end up in court. The point that CB saint made was that rape is worse than death by dangerous driving because there is intent behind a rape. I was simply pointing out that that is not always true. As far as I understand, self-induced or voluntary intoxication is disregarded by the law for rape (as a crime of basic intent). The threshold is that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim consents -and reasonable grounds for a belief are grounds that would be reasonable to a sober man. On the other hand, issues of intoxication get more complex for crimes of specific intent and where the victim is involuntarily intoxicated. There are some great cases e.g. Lipman in the area of criminal law and intoxication (Majewski is the seminal case). Edited 7 January, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) It is possible for someone to be convicted of rape without them believing at the time that they raped someone. They may for example have believed that the other person had consented. It's why it's often such a difficult crime to prosecute. Most rapists say that they believe the other party consented. Faced with a prison sentence and a ruined life that's perhaps an understandable stance - an attempt at self preservation. The role of the jury is to determine if consent was present. In the Evans case the jury concluded no consent, thus he's a rapist. I'm staggered this thread is rumbling on with people speculating whether or not convicted rapists are guilty. They have been found to be, including Evans - end of story. Edited 7 January, 2015 by egg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Most rapists say that they believe the other party consented. Faced with a prison sentence and a ruined life that's perhaps an understandable stance - an attempt at self preservation. The role of the jury is to determine if consent was present. In the Evans case the jury concluded no consent, thus he's a rapist. I'm staggered this thread is rumbling on with people speculating whether or not convicted rapists are guilty. They have been found to be, including Evans - end of story. I thought they concluded that she didn't have capacity to give consent to Evans, whether it was given or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Most rapists say that they believe the other party consented. Faced with a prison sentence and a ruined life that's perhaps an understandable stance - an attempt at self preservation. The role of the jury is to determine if consent was present. In the Evans case the jury concluded no consent, thus he's a rapist. I'm staggered this thread is rumbling on with people speculating whether or not convicted rapists are guilty. They have been found to be, including Evans - end of story. Eh? Nowhere in my reply have I mentioned the Evans case, that's only in your head. It's quite possible for someone to believe that consent has been given and thus have sex with someone only for a jury to later find them guilty of rape. That has nothing to do with the Ched Evans case I was discussing the issue of rape in general. If you consider it end of story then I suggest you steer clear of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) I thought they concluded that she didn't have capacity to give consent to Evans, whether it was given or not? Yep, correct. The jury wasn't asked to determine whether or not consent had been given, but whether Evans would have known that any consent given was 'unreliable' given the amount of alcohol the woman had consumed. An 'expert' defence witness suggested that the woman would have been compus mentus enough to give consent (see transcript extract below) but the jury obviously chose to dismiss this submission. https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false. Edited 7 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Eh? Nowhere in my reply have I mentioned the Evans case, that's only in your head. It's quite possible for someone to believe that consent has been given and thus have sex with someone only for a jury to later find them guilty of rape. That has nothing to do with the Ched Evans case I was discussing the issue of rape in general. If you consider it end of story then I suggest you steer clear of the thread. True story this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Yep, correct. The jury wasn't asked to determine whether or not consent had been given, but whether Evans would have known that any consent given was 'unreliable' given the amount of alcohol the woman had consumed. An 'expert' defence witness suggested that the woman would have been compus mentus enough to give consent (see transcript extract below) but the jury obviously chose to dismiss this submission. https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans Don't spell 'compos mentis' incorrectly or Shurlock will be here to tell you that you cannot talk about any of this, or interpret anything you read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 would love to hear what the other Oldham players think about this... Also, he is bound to get a f&&king big whack from the opposition centre half in his first match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Plenty of professional bodies will strip you of your membership if you get a serious criminal conviction, why not the the PFA? Because PFA is just a union, even if they stripped him of membership he could still play football . Its not a closed shop, you don't need to be a union member to play football. Football is a pyramid, how far down do you want to go to ban him. The " professional" game is blurred. There are professional players in non league. If you allow him to play non league, what happens if his team get promoted , do they have to sell him. What if they draw a league club in the cup, can he play. Or do you intend to ban him from all football , including the Dog and Duck? Setting the criteria of any ban is impossible when teams move up and down the leagues , pay players, and charge spectators to watch right down the pyramid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Don't spell 'compos mentis' incorrectly or Shurlock will be here to tell you that you cannot talk about any of this, or interpret anything you read... It's one of the pitfalls of being a long time Cutting Crew fan. Great album though.... http://www.discogs.com/Cutting-Crew-Compus-Mentus/release/2127961 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 I thought they concluded that she didn't have capacity to give consent to Evans, whether it was given or not? If both parties are blotto, are they both guilty of rape, or neither, or just the bro, or just the bird, or i.e. any farmyard animals that happen to be present? Edit: asking for friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 If both parties are blotto, are they both guilty of rape, or neither, or just the bro, or just the bird, or i.e. any farmyard animals that happen to be present? Edit: asking for friend I know you are joking, but again, Evans was sober. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 It's one of the pitfalls of being a long time Cutting Crew fan. Great album though.... http://www.discogs.com/Cutting-Crew-Compus-Mentus/release/2127961 I know, same issue for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 If both parties are blotto, are they both guilty of rape, or neither, or just the bro, or just the bird, or i.e. any farmyard animals that happen to be present? Edit: asking for friend Depends what kind of sex it is, ie, who penetrated who. I believe. Its been 10 years since I did anything with this. I believe rape is penetration of any orifice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Depends what kind of sex it is, ie, who penetrated who. I believe. Its been 10 years since I did anything with this. I believe rape is penetration of any orifice... i will send you pictures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 I know you are joking, but again, Evans was sober. oh yeah i didn't mean ched evans i think he's scum, i'm not on his side at all, i wouldn't be defending him even if all he'd done was kill a couple of kids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Out of interest, what do the people that have the stance the juries are never wrong think when they watched Shawshank? Did they think it was the story of a guilty scumbag skipping bail and heading to Mexico? Storming off to the kitchen all unhappy that the film had a negative ending. Asking for a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 my gf at the time made me watch that dumb movie & at the end i said "I still think he done it" and she went mental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 he definitely did to it tho 4reals. Look at the evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Juries are never wrong bear. Also watch the life of David Gale for more evidence! I thought this sounded rubbish as it might be about a wobbly headed folk singer but it was actually about a miscarriage of justice/death penalty and pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 I stopped watching after the bathroom scene with rhona mitra cos i had to go wash my hands. How did it turn out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 He was rightly executed as the jury found him guilty and that's what counts. Shame we don't have the death penalty, this would stop crims like Barry George and Victor Nealon sneaking out of the back door of the prison against the wishes of the jury that found them guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 I reckon Bear and tokes are secret mods Whenever the hierachy get fed up with a thread, they dispatch the Tokybear squad to sabotage it, giving them the excuse to move it to TMS where it whithers and dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Ssssshhhhh What's wrong anyway? We are talking about miscarriages of justice and the supposed infallibility of the jury system. Bear can't help it if he is dumb and can't get his point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 oh, is that what ur going on about? What is ur beef! You can't be meaning Ched Evans, surely? I can tell he's guilty just by looking at his Face! I dare say it was the same with the jury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) Edit Edited 7 January, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Would he be allowed to work after the lower sentence? Are McDonald's drive thu cru role models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 I think the "but why isn't every similar situation in history not the same as this" angle has been well covered by Batman. I look forward to reading your thread demanding Rolf Harris is back on TV the minute he walks out of his prison doors. You won't find me 'demanding' Rolf Harris is returned back to the little screen the minute he walks out of prison, in the same way you haven't found me 'demanding' Ched Evans be allowed to play football again. However, if Rolf were to legally leave prison before the Grim Reaper comes knocking on his door, then I certainly wouldn't go signing any petitions to stop him from earning a living! For me, that's the thing about our legal / justice system, once you have served your time then your slate is cleared. I didn't decide how long people should go to prison for an offence that they commit, nor did I decide that criminals only have to serve out half of their sentence and I certainly don't begrudge people the chance to rebuild their lives once they have served their sentence. If you want people's lives to be completely destroyed once they commit a crime, perhaps you might be better off signing a petition to have the death sentence re-instated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) You won't find me 'demanding' Rolf Harris is returned back to the little screen the minute he walks out of prison, in the same way you haven't found me 'demanding' Ched Evans be allowed to play football again. However, if Rolf were to legally leave prison before the Grim Reaper comes knocking on his door, then I certainly wouldn't go signing any petitions to stop him from earning a living! For me, that's the thing about our legal / justice system, once you have served your time then your slate is cleared. I didn't decide how long people should go to prison for an offence that they commit, nor did I decide that criminals only have to serve out half of their sentence and I certainly don't begrudge people the chance to rebuild their lives once they have served their sentence. If you want people's lives to be completely destroyed once they commit a crime, perhaps you might be better off signing a petition to have the death sentence re-instated? So people not being allowed to pursue a career in professional football is a life "completely destroyed"? Interesting, especially in the context what has happened to his victim. There's plenty of other things one can do with ones lives, I have never said he can't work. He can, and should - it's fundamental to rehabilitation. But being a professional footballer is not a human right. If it was, I'd be banging on the door of St Marys demanding the number 11 shirt and a six year contract. Let's hope the campaign to stop those guilty of sexual violence from being pro footballers is successful but unlikely it will be with the gutless weasels running the PFA. Edited 7 January, 2015 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Is it the role model thing or the money he will earn that is the reason he shouldn't play football again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 This is one thread where I side with CB Fry. Amazing, as I normally find his posts annoying. I'd prefer to await any possible appeal process, but as it stands Evans hasn't shown any remorse, and hasn't accepted he has done any wrong. Why he was released under licence I'm not sure as I thought a degree of remorse and lack of danger to the public was one of the conditions. He may, sober as he was, have thought that there was some implicit consent given (although the jury - who unlike us heard all the evidence and assessed the witnesses - thought otherwise) but he doesn't seem to acknowledge the distress caused to the victim. If anybody has been the victim of mob rule it is her. He may have genuinely misjudged a situation but there is no sign even that he accepts that. People who work with sex offenders say that getting them to accept their misdeeds is often an issue, and until they do there is no way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 This is one thread where I side with CB Fry. Amazing, as I normally find his posts annoying. I'd prefer to await any possible appeal process, but as it stands Evans hasn't shown any remorse, and hasn't accepted he has done any wrong. Why he was released under licence I'm not sure as I thought a degree of remorse and lack of danger to the public was one of the conditions. He may, sober as he was, have thought that there was some implicit consent given (although the jury - who unlike us heard all the evidence and assessed the witnesses - thought otherwise) but he doesn't seem to acknowledge the distress caused to the victim. If anybody has been the victim of mob rule it is her. He may have genuinely misjudged a situation but there is no sign even that he accepts that. People who work with sex offenders say that getting them to accept their misdeeds is often an issue, and until they do there is no way forward. Why is it so difficult to understand this? He is trying to clear his name, so why would he admit guilt or show remorse until every avenue is persued? Can't understand why people are struggling with this distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 So people not being allowed to pursue a career in professional football is a life "completely destroyed"? Interesting, especially in the context what has happened to his victim. There's plenty of other things one can do with ones lives, I have never said he can't work. He can, and should - it's fundamental to rehabilitation. But being a professional footballer is not a human right. If it was, I'd be banging on the door of St Marys demanding the number 11 shirt and a six year contract. Let's hope the campaign to stop those guilty of sexual violence from being pro footballers is successful but unlikely it will be with the gutless weasels running the PFA. What have the PFA got to do with stopping him playing football, its a union . Football is not a closed shop , whether or not the PFA refuse to admit him as a member doesn't make a blind bit of difference . He can still play football whether member or not. How do you stop someone being a " pro" footballer . You don't need a licence or professional qualification , all you need is someone willing to pay you. Technically my local pub team could pay him 1k a week and he'd be a professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 What have the PFA got to do with stopping him playing football, its a union . Football is not a closed shop , whether or not the PFA refuse to admit him as a member doesn't make a blind bit of difference . He can still play football whether member or not. How do you stop someone being a " pro" footballer . You don't need a licence or professional qualification , all you need is someone willing to pay you. Technically my local pub team could pay him 1k a week and he'd be a professional. Maybe not, but the PFA having a different stance to now - making it very difficult for those convicted of sexual violence to return to professional football rather than the complete opposite - would be huge step in the right direction. Oldham are leaning on the PFA to support them right now so probably fair to assume they would be far less likely to bother if that wasn't the case. Of course The FA (and the two leagues) should make the ruling, but the PFA should support it. Your point about being paid to play for a pub team is a pretty pointless one. There are plenty of Chedettes around I imagine eventually some sap will pay him a grand a week to play for their pub team just to "prove a point". In fact, what the Oldham chairman and his girlfriend's dad seem to be doing is effectively just that at a richer scale. But anyway, it's looking like he's going to get his contract soon so Chedettes start the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDog Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 If it is a question of showing remorse - or an UNDERSTANDING of remorse, then that could easily be resolved by a cleverly worded statement, without him compromising any appeals process. I find it strange that he hasn't done that. Obviously rape is a very emotive subject, and if I had a son or daughter who had been raped by someone, then, personally, I would hound* them for the rest of their lives - BUT - we have a justice system who has seen fit to release him back into society, and that being the case he should be entitled to earn a living using the skills that he has acquired - ie football. Whether a job is high profile or not really shouldn't be in question. If that isn't the case, then maybe part of sentencing after commital should also include any restrictions on future careers after prison time has been served (as is the case with child molesters?) * when I say hound, I obviously mean in a legal way, not as in tracking them down and cutting their balls off and shoving a red hot poker up their arse - just sayin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 Maybe not, but the PFA having a different stance to now - making it very difficult for those convicted of sexual violence to return to professional football rather than the complete opposite - would be huge step in the right direction. Oldham are leaning on the PFA to support them right now so probably fair to assume they would be far less likely to bother if that wasn't the case. Of course The FA (and the two leagues) should make the ruling, but the PFA should support it. Your point about being paid to play for a pub team is a pretty pointless one. There are plenty of Chedettes around I imagine eventually some sap will pay him a grand a week to play for their pub team just to "prove a point". In fact, what the Oldham chairman and his girlfriend's dad seem to be doing is effectively just that at a richer scale. But anyway, it's looking like he's going to get his contract soon so Chedettes start the party. I saw a report suggest earlier he'd be on about 1.5-2k p/w at Oldham. Not far off really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 January, 2015 Share Posted 7 January, 2015 (edited) The point I'm trying to make is that a ban isn't as easy to administer as people think. The only way to do it would be for the FA to bring in a blanket ban for all sex offenders , as every league and every team are governed by the FA. However, any ban would have to cover all sex offenders jailed not just Evans. Do people really want to stop ex offenders , many of whom maybe rehabilitated , playing organised football at any level? Once people start saying they don't want people earning loads of money, or playing in front of thousands , it becomes subjective , how much can they earn ect . You can't ban someone from playing football on the basis their good at it. If it's wrong for Evans to play football , it wrong, whether he plays for the Red Lion on a Sunday morning or Manchester Utd. You can't make rules and laws on the back of one particular case , no matter how unpleasant . Ex offenders should either be allowed to play football or they should not, you can't say some can and some can't , depending on how famous they are or how much they might earn from it . Edited 8 January, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 So people not being allowed to pursue a career in professional football is a life "completely destroyed"? Interesting, especially in the context what has happened to his victim. There's plenty of other things one can do with ones lives, I have never said he can't work. He can, and should - it's fundamental to rehabilitation. But being a professional footballer is not a human right. If it was, I'd be banging on the door of St Marys demanding the number 11 shirt and a six year contract. Let's hope the campaign to stop those guilty of sexual violence from being pro footballers is successful but unlikely it will be with the gutless weasels running the PFA. It's very gracious of you to allow him to work! Out of interest, what work would you deem 'acceptable' in his situation? Is it just footballers who shouldn't pursue their chosen career once released from prison or do you apply this blanket rule of having to change profession to everyone who has been convicted of sexual violence and subsequently released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 (edited) If it is a question of showing remorse - or an UNDERSTANDING of remorse, then that could easily be resolved by a cleverly worded statement, without him compromising any appeals process. I find it strange that he hasn't done that. Obviously rape is a very emotive subject, and if I had a son or daughter who had been raped by someone, then, personally, I would hound* them for the rest of their lives - BUT - we have a justice system who has seen fit to release him back into society, and that being the case he should be entitled to earn a living using the skills that he has acquired - ie football. Whether a job is high profile or not really shouldn't be in question. If that isn't the case, then maybe part of sentencing after commital should also include any restrictions on future careers after prison time has been served (as is the case with child molesters?) * when I say hound, I obviously mean in a legal way, not as in tracking them down and cutting their balls off and shoving a red hot poker up their arse - just sayin'! I don't think so. I think we have to wait to see if he'll show remorse (don't think he will though). Edited 8 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 (edited) It's very gracious of you to allow him to work! Out of interest, what work would you deem 'acceptable' in his situation? Is it just footballers who shouldn't pursue their chosen career once released from prison or do you apply this blanket rule of having to change profession to everyone who has been convicted of sexual violence and subsequently released? There are already professions that you can't go back to if you've been convicted of rape, so let's not pretend this is some hare-brained idea I have just made up. People convicted of rape serve time in jail and then have to rebuild their lives in society. Just as a doctor can't stroll back into his old surgery, they need to find a new life someplace else. It's kinda a way to make raping people a less attractive option, you know? Consequences of one's actions. its weird people just think it finishes at the prison gate and anyone just picks up an exact Xerox of their life before they went in. That right is never there for the victims, is it? Anyway, don't worry, he's getting his contract so his little life won't be "completely destroyed" because he can't be a pro footballer anymore. So happy days all round, the rapist wins. Edited 8 January, 2015 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Maybe not, but the PFA having a different stance to now - making it very difficult for those convicted of sexual violence to return to professional football rather than the complete opposite - would be huge step in the right direction. Oldham are leaning on the PFA to support them right now so probably fair to assume they would be far less likely to bother if that wasn't the case. Of course The FA (and the two leagues) should make the ruling, but the PFA should support it. Your point about being paid to play for a pub team is a pretty pointless one. There are plenty of Chedettes around I imagine eventually some sap will pay him a grand a week to play for their pub team just to "prove a point". In fact, what the Oldham chairman and his girlfriend's dad seem to be doing is effectively just that at a richer scale. But anyway, it's looking like he's going to get his contract soon so Chedettes start the party. Just out of interest, at what level of criminality is someone allowed to carry on their chosen profession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 There are already professions that you can't go back to if you've been convicted of rape, so let's not pretend this is some hare-brained idea I have just made up. People convicted of rape serve time in jail and then have to rebuild their lives in society. Just as a doctor can't stroll back into his old surgery, they need to find a new life someplace else. It's kinda a way to make raping people a less attractive option, you know? Consequences of one's actions. its weird people just think it finishes at the prison gate and anyone just picks up an exact Xerox of their life before they went in. That right is never there for the victims, is it? Anyway, don't worry, he's getting his contract so his little life won't be "completely destroyed" because he can't be a pro footballer anymore. So happy days all round, the rapist wins. What professions can't convicted criminals go back into due to being a role model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 (edited) The point I'm trying to make is that a ban isn't as easy to administer as people think. The only way to do it would be for the FA to bring in a blanket ban for all sex offenders , as every league and every team are governed by the FA. However, any ban would have to cover all sex offenders jailed not just Evans. Do people really want to stop ex offenders , many of whom maybe rehabilitated , playing organised football at any level? Once people start saying they don't want people earning loads of money, or playing in front of thousands , it becomes subjective , how much can they earn ect . You can't ban someone from playing football on the basis their good at it. If it's wrong for Evans to play football , it wrong, whether he plays for the Red Lion on a Sunday morning or Manchester Utd. You can't make rules and laws on the back of one particular case , no matter how unpleasant . Ex offenders should either be allowed to play football or they should not, you can't say some can and some can't , depending on how famous they are or how much they might earn from it . Stop pretending that the experiences and governance of Manchester City is identical to the Dog and Duck. The Leagues with the PFA and the FA could write guidelines they sign up to. Not rocket science. Edited 8 January, 2015 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 I saw a report suggest earlier he'd be on about 1.5-2k p/w at Oldham. Not far off really! Not a huge amount then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 What professions can't convicted criminals go back into due to being a role model? You don't think professional football should set an example, I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 What professions can't convicted criminals go back into due to being a role model? There are many professions whose professional bodies have the discretion to refuse to allow somebody convicted of certain offences to continue in that profession. They include the legal profession, medical, teaching, police, and others. Its not just about being a role model, but that's a factor. A professional footballer has a priveliged position. He's in the public eye. He has responsibilities, like the professionals above, to behave appropriately and as would be expected by his professional standing. Convicted rapists clearly fall below the expected standards. If he was a lawyer, copper, teacher, etc, he would have to think about a new way of earning a coin. If he was a plumber or painter maybe not. Sure, his profession is different to these few examples but IMO the standing and priveliged position of a pro footballer is such that in circumstances like this a pro footballer cannot expect to return to his chosen profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 You don't think professional football should set an example, I do. if you are going to rely on professional footballers to set an example or to act as some moral compass to the young or impressionable, then disappointment will follow you for ever. the point whether they should set an example is a moot one. The question really is, "can they?". If the real issue here is a bout role models, then any footballer convicted of any crime should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 You don't think professional football should set an example, I do. That's not what I asked but I assume from your answer you know of none. It's not as if football has or will ever be a bastion of good ethics and morals, so it seems a strange profession to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts