Ched Evans

[Getsme]

Surely his lawyers could at least craft a statement which shows some remorse without actually admitting guilt. It doesn't have to be an apology per say but at least something. It's certainly difficult but they're clever guys.

Of course, but if his solicitor believes it’s in his best interest to be quiet then he would have to follow that advice, therefore I can understand why he hasn’t said anything.

 

[RedRover]

Surely his lawyers could at least craft a statement which shows some remorse without actually admitting guilt. It doesn't have to be an apology per say but at least something. It's certainly difficult but they're clever guys.

I'm a solicior and what matters to me is acting in my client's best interests from a legal point of view. They won't care about his public persona, nor are they paid do. They obviously feel, understandably, that its best for him to say nothing, rather than risk prejudicing his case. If it were my client I'd feel the same given that anything he says will be tiwsted by the media, filleted, discussed to death and like Chinese whispers will become something completely different. He's hated, and no statement will change that or lessen public opinion so there seems little to no point.

He cannot feel "remorse" if he believes he is innocent. You can't be remoseful for something you didnt do. The fact that he's appealing pre-supposes that he believes he is innocent. As such, the wise thing to do is stay quiet.

 

[RedRover]

I don't know why this keeps coming up. He doesn't accept he's guilty (whether he is or not is a different issue, as the legal standard of proof and definition of the crime mean he can be guilty without ever knowingly having non-consensual sex with the victim). He's unlikely to come to the conclusion that he's guilty. So asking him to admit guilt, or tacitly acknowledge wrongdoing is utterly pointless. Unless the standard has become that we all accept unquestioningly legal decisions which pertain to us.

Spot on. If he tried to make any statement of that type he'd be derided on the basis that he doesn't mean it if he's still appealing. He's in a no win situation.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Someone needs to put up that pre-approved list of jobs that convicted rapists are allowed to do... lets help Ched get his life back on track.

 

[Kag]

My own personal opinions aside, the power that Twitter has is amazing. Oldham signed somebody who actually killed somebody less than 10 years ago and there wasn't anywhere near this sort of out cry

Indeed. The influence of social media is incredible. I'd go as far to suggest that without Twitter and the rise of the dreaded online petition then Evans would already be playing football again.

What will be interesting going forward is whether the case of Ched Evans becomes somewhat of a precedent. Will footballers that mow down two children be able to return to the game with prior ease? And will there be a lot more public posturing in regards to the return of a player that commits, for want of a better phrase, a 'lesser' crime?

 

[Getsme]

Someone needs to put up that pre-approved list of jobs that convicted rapists are allowed to do... lets help Ched get his life back on track.

No law is stopping him going back into football.

 

[Jippy]

This case is complicated.

1. Lets start with the basics, he was found guilty of rape. A serious crime which has untold psychological damage on the victim especially when she is portrayed as a slut, or "asking for it" or only "in it for the money." The victim has had to move 5 times due to the abuse she was getting from "fans" of Ched.

2. In Cheds eyes he has done nothing wrong, he is entitled to think that obviously if he has not committed a crime but a judge and jury believe he has. If he wanted to come back at the first possible stage. Go training with a club up until a potential retrial. Remember that he's still serving his sentence, just out on a licence. In any other industry he would struggle to find a meaningful position due to this very fact.

3. Comparisons to Lee Hughes and McCormick. Both of those resulted in death and were more tragic. However, both knew they had done wrong and didn't go out with the intent to kill. Drink driving should have a harsher sentence but that's a debate for another day.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/ched-evans-right-return-work-4921316

This is a very good article from the Mirror.

It's so good he didn't even convince the paper's own readers of his argument. 54% in their poll say he should be allowed to resume a career in football.

 

[finneh]

Nonsense. He has served the punishment handed down by the crown court, why should he be further punished by a kangaroo court?

It's the same as any Company or Commercial entity. When the drawbacks outweigh the positives you aren't going to go ahead with it. The loss of revenue and bad press for most clubs won't be worth signing a decent striker. That's exactly how life works. If your bad reputation costs your Company more than your positive contribution brings them then you won't get/keep the job.

Unfortunately market forces work in a strange way; employers, sponsors and customers etc don't tend to like dealing with convicted rapists, it kind of goes with the territory of being convicted of a reprehensible crime and serving a custodial sentence.

I certainly wouldn't employ an 8/10 candidate who was an unremorseful convicted rapist, over a 7/10 other candidate, would you? Obviously you start to think twice when the gap becomes a 1/10 other candidate (which is where Evans will find his level).

 

[redmeister]

I don't understand how people can be so opinionated about this. It's not as if it's possible for the evidence in this case to be conclusive. It doesn't matter if you were part of the jury or not, surely it's plain to see to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it's pure guess work as to what really happened. I don't understand how people can feel comfortable standing behind the argument that a court found him guilty, therefore he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But I am saying it's plainly obvious that this is one of those cases in which it's virtually impossible to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact jury did just shows how good prosecution teams can be.

It seems to me like the police pressure the poor girl into claiming she was raped. She can't remember what happened, the last time we saw her she looked drunk, but perfectly capable of walking and certainly wasn't "out of it", the other guy who traveled with her in the taxi deemed her capable of consent and the jury agreed or he'd have been convicted as well and the porter said the sex sounded consensual and she was clearly conscious. This doesn't mean Evans is innocent. But it does show that the prosecution must have been pretty damn good at manipulating the jury to allow them to think there was sufficient evidence to convict. I don't think there are grounds for a retrial, but if there were, I'd be amazed if the conviction stood. 8/10 time surely he gets off. Again, that doesn't mean he's innocent, it just means we have no way of proving he's guilty. The odd thing is, large amounts of the public seem fine with this. They even try and convince themselves there is enough evidence, which is absurd.

There is zero evidence she didn't give him permission for sex and the very same jury deemed her not only to be in condition to consent, but also to be in a condition that the other guy deemed her capable of consenting.

 

[finneh]

I don't understand how people can be so opinionated about this. It's not as if it's possible for the evidence in this case to be conclusive. It doesn't matter if you were part of the jury or not, surely it's plain to see to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it's pure guess work as to what really happened. I don't understand how people can feel comfortable standing behind the argument that a court found him guilty, therefore he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But I am saying it's plainly obvious that this is one of those cases in which it's virtually impossible to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact jury did just shows how good prosecution teams can be.

It seems to me like the police pressure the poor girl into claiming she was raped. She can't remember what happened, the last time we saw her she looked drunk, but perfectly capable of walking and certainly wasn't "out of it", the other guy who traveled with her in the taxi deemed her capable of consent and the jury agreed or he'd have been convicted as well and the porter said the sex sounded consensual and she was clearly conscious. This doesn't mean Evans is innocent. But it does show that the prosecution must have been pretty damn good at manipulating the jury to allow them to think there was sufficient evidence to convict. I don't think there are grounds for a retrial, but if there were, I'd be amazed if the conviction stood. 8/10 time surely he gets off. Again, that doesn't mean he's innocent, it just means we have no way of proving he's guilty. The odd thing is, large amounts of the public seem fine with this. They even try and convince themselves there is enough evidence, which is absurd.

There is zero evidence she didn't give him permission for sex and the very same jury deemed her not only to be in condition to consent, but also to be in a condition that the other guy deemed her capable of consenting.

Considering you start the post with "I don't understand how people can be so opinionated about this", you seem pretty opinionated and pretty certain with your opinion.

 

[saivet]

Thanks for that, got a better understanding now.

I'm a solicior and what matters to me is acting in my client's best interests from a legal point of view. They won't care about his public persona, nor are they paid do. They obviously feel, understandably, that its best for him to say nothing, rather than risk prejudicing his case. If it were my client I'd feel the same given that anything he says will be tiwsted by the media, filleted, discussed to death and like Chinese whispers will become something completely different. He's hated, and no statement will change that or lessen public opinion so there seems little to no point.

He cannot feel "remorse" if he believes he is innocent. You can't be remoseful for something you didnt do. The fact that he's appealing pre-supposes that he believes he is innocent. As such, the wise thing to do is stay quiet.

Aside from this, I don't think Evans or anyone else should complain that no one will sign him. Perhaps people are demonstrating double standards but this may not be the precedent from now on.

 

[RedRover]

It's the same as any Company or Commercial entity. When the drawbacks outweigh the positives you aren't going to go ahead with it. The loss of revenue and bad press for most clubs won't be worth signing a decent striker. That's exactly how life works. If your bad reputation costs your Company more than your positive contribution brings them then you won't get/keep the job.

Unfortunately market forces work in a strange way; employers, sponsors and customers etc don't tend to like dealing with convicted rapists, it kind of goes with the territory of being convicted of a reprehensible crime and serving a custodial sentence.

I certainly wouldn't employ an 8/10 candidate who was an unremorseful convicted rapist, over a 7/10 other candidate, would you? Obviously you start to think twice when the gap becomes a 1/10 other candidate (which is where Evans will find his level).

Depends on the level of performance though doesnt it. Clubs like Oldham wouldnt get a player of his quality unless he came with baggage. Therefore he's potentially a 10/10 against a comparable 5/10 free transfer striker who is likely to be the only other alternative.

Loads of sides would love to have him there, but dont want the bad press. The moral sides of things is likely only relevant as far as the trouble it causes to a lot of clubs. I suspect the issue of having a rapist on the staff will bother some but not others.

 

[RedRover]

Indeed. The influence of social media is incredible. I'd go as far to suggest that without Twitter and the rise of the dreaded online petition then Evans would already be playing football again.

What will be interesting going forward is whether the case of Ched Evans becomes somewhat of a precedent. Will footballers that mow down two children be able to return to the game with prior ease? And will there be a lot more public posturing in regards to the return of a player that commits, for want of a better phrase, a 'lesser' crime?

This highlights my point made earler about the arbitrariness of it all. Is rape too far but killing someone drink driving ok? Seems the public has the ultimate say if this is anything to go by, rather than the Courts.

I don't like the idea of that to be honest, especially since a lot of people are keen to jump on things on online media.

 

[peterstorey]

It's the same as any Company or Commercial entity. When the drawbacks outweigh the positives you aren't going to go ahead with it. The loss of revenue and bad press for most clubs won't be worth signing a decent striker. That's exactly how life works. If your bad reputation costs your Company more than your positive contribution brings them then you won't get/keep the job.

Unfortunately market forces work in a strange way; employers, sponsors and customers etc don't tend to like dealing with convicted rapists, it kind of goes with the territory of being convicted of a reprehensible crime and serving a custodial sentence.

I certainly wouldn't employ an 8/10 candidate who was an unremorseful convicted rapist, over a 7/10 other candidate, would you? Obviously you start to think twice when the gap becomes a 1/10 other candidate (which is where Evans will find his level).

I understand why the clubs are acting why they have for pragmatic reasons. Don't you think it's worrying that a media kangaroo court can effectively add a further punishment to the crown court's sentence. What's next? A reality TV show with a phone-in to decide if he should have his balls cut off?

 

[limerickcitykid]

They'd be far outweighed

Extremely debatable. There are thousands of people who believe Ched is innocent and thousands more who think he should be allowed to play football whether he is innocent or not. I don't think it would have a problem getting a similar amount of people to sign.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Oldham's chief-executive has just made a statement to the press, declaring that they will not actually be making a statement.

 

[Jippy]

Extremely debatable. There are thousands of people who believe Ched is innocent and thousands more who think he should be allowed to play football whether he is innocent or not. I don't think it would have a problem getting a similar amount of people to sign.

No evidence of that so far.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I'm glad to see people are more objective here regarding this issue than what I am reading in the papers. I am not defending rape but this guy has been tried by his peers in a court of law, he's served his sentence. Whether he had committed the deed or not, or whether he had lied or not regarding his testimony, it should be in the past. The only thing he has not done is publicly apologize, because he still maintains his innocence. Which leads me to wonder why. If the sentence had not yet been passed and he was still appealing, then that makes sense to preserve his legal options as well as his reputation. But that's all been done now, and his reputation has been beyond repair a long time ago, so why hasn't he sucked it up and just apologize and move on? Either he's crazy or he truly believes he'd been hard done by.

My point is that both the media and a certain vocal minority of the public are spending far too much time and resources into preventing this guy from playing football again, when there are plenty of rapists and pedophiles being released into the public and they get to fly under the radar because everyone is so focused on this one guy. Any moral issues then become lost as the main focus is now Public vs Evans, and the quest to stop him from ever kicking a football professionally again.

 

[Marching]

I don't understand how people can be so opinionated about this. It's not as if it's possible for the evidence in this case to be conclusive. It doesn't matter if you were part of the jury or not, surely it's plain to see to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it's pure guess work as to what really happened. I don't understand how people can feel comfortable standing behind the argument that a court found him guilty, therefore he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But I am saying it's plainly obvious that this is one of those cases in which it's virtually impossible to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact jury did just shows how good prosecution teams can be.

It seems to me like the police pressure the poor girl into claiming she was raped. She can't remember what happened, the last time we saw her she looked drunk, but perfectly capable of walking and certainly wasn't "out of it", the other guy who traveled with her in the taxi deemed her capable of consent and the jury agreed or he'd have been convicted as well and the porter said the sex sounded consensual and she was clearly conscious. This doesn't mean Evans is innocent. But it does show that the prosecution must have been pretty damn good at manipulating the jury to allow them to think there was sufficient evidence to convict. I don't think there are grounds for a retrial, but if there were, I'd be amazed if the conviction stood. 8/10 time surely he gets off. Again, that doesn't mean he's innocent, it just means we have no way of proving he's guilty. The odd thing is, large amounts of the public seem fine with this. They even try and convince themselves there is enough evidence, which is absurd.

There is zero evidence she didn't give him permission for sex and the very same jury deemed her not only to be in condition to consent, but also to be in a condition that the other guy deemed her capable of consenting.

Absolute garbage.

 

[finneh]

Depends on the level of performance though doesnt it. Clubs like Oldham wouldnt get a player of his quality unless he came with baggage. Therefore he's potentially a 10/10 against a comparable 5/10 free transfer striker who is likely to be the only other alternative.

Loads of sides would love to have him there, but dont want the bad press. The moral sides of things is likely only relevant as far as the trouble it causes to a lot of clubs. I suspect the issue of having a rapist on the staff will bother some but not others.

Exactly, and when those levels balance he'll find a club.

I assume that'll be a club lower down in League 1 or in League 2, where the negativity of having a rapist on their books won't outweigh the positive effects of having a great striker (comparatively).

I certainly wouldn't judge any club for taking him on, but they'll lose a ton of revenue because of it and rightly so.

I understand why the clubs are acting why they have for pragmatic reasons. Don't you think it's worrying that a media kangaroo court can effectively add a further punishment to the crown court's sentence. What's next? A reality TV show with a phone-in to decide if he should have his balls cut off?

It's not a kangaroo court, it's the media and the pragmatic reasons that said media bring. The media drive almost everything from who wins elections, to who gets put in prison, to who becomes a multi-millionaire. This isn't a new thing and isn't going to change any time soon.

If you feel the need to post about the negative impacts of the media, I suggest your efforts go in other areas. Bringing this issue up in a discussion as to whether a mediocre Footballer can play for as good a club as he would otherwise be playing for pre-rape conviction seems insanely bizarre to me.

The fact is if he wanted an easy career as a Footballer, just like 99% of other professions; he shouldn't have committed an egregious crime. If you want to blame anyone for the fact that he's having trouble finding a club that is better than Conference level, blame Ched Evans.

 

[limerickcitykid]

No evidence of that so far.

No evidence of what? That people think Ched is innocent? There are facebook groups, posts on twitter, posts on here etc. of people supporting his innocence. People who think he should be allowed to play no matter if guilty or not? Again look at shit loads of posts on twitter and on here to see people think that.

 

[Jippy]

No evidence of what? That people think Ched is innocent? There are facebook groups, posts on twitter, posts on here etc. of people supporting his innocence. People who think he should be allowed to play no matter if guilty or not? Again look at shit loads of posts on twitter and on here to see people think that.

No evidence of any petitions from Oldham fans or whoever calling on their board to hire him.

 

[2 man midfield]

Why was he let out half way through his sentence? Probation? Or just good behaviour with no strings attached? If the former then i don't really think the whole 'he's served his time' argument stands up all that well.

 

[Jippy]

Why was he let out half way through his sentence? Probation? Or just good behaviour with no strings attached? If the former then i don't really think the whole 'he's served his time' argument stands up all that well.

Let out on licence, presumably for good behaviour. Hardly any prisoners serve their full sentences so I wouldn't hold that against him specifically.

 

[sullydnl]

Why was he let out half way through his sentence? Probation? Or just good behaviour with no strings attached? If the former then i don't really think the whole 'he's served his time' argument stands up all that well.

What difference does it make? If the justice system has decided he's eligible for release and employment then surely that's enough? If this is the way the system works then that should be that really.

 

[2 man midfield]

Let out on licence, presumably for good behaviour. Hardly any prisoners serve their full sentences so I wouldn't hold that against him specifically.

Ah ok, thanks.

What difference does it make? If the justice system has decided he's eligible for release and employment then surely that's enough? If this is the way the system works then that should be that really.

That was my initial attitude, but i've sort of come around to the other way of thinking. If on probation, he's still technically serving time.

 

[mu4c_20le]

What difference does it make? If the justice system has decided he's eligible for release and employment then surely that's enough? If this is the way the system works then that should be that really.

Exactly. If we decide hes guilty and a rapist because a court convicted him, then we must accept his early release since the system permitted it. You can't have double standards just because you feel he wasn't jailed/punished long enough.

 

[Jippy]

That was my initial attitude, but i've sort of come around to the other way of thinking. If on probation, he's still technically serving time.

But that does not preclude him from working in other jobs.

 

[ravi2]

I don't understand how people can be so opinionated about this. It's not as if it's possible for the evidence in this case to be conclusive. It doesn't matter if you were part of the jury or not, surely it's plain to see to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it's pure guess work as to what really happened. I don't understand how people can feel comfortable standing behind the argument that a court found him guilty, therefore he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But I am saying it's plainly obvious that this is one of those cases in which it's virtually impossible to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact jury did just shows how good prosecution teams can be.

It seems to me like the police pressure the poor girl into claiming she was raped. She can't remember what happened, the last time we saw her she looked drunk, but perfectly capable of walking and certainly wasn't "out of it", the other guy who traveled with her in the taxi deemed her capable of consent and the jury agreed or he'd have been convicted as well and the porter said the sex sounded consensual and she was clearly conscious. This doesn't mean Evans is innocent. But it does show that the prosecution must have been pretty damn good at manipulating the jury to allow them to think there was sufficient evidence to convict. I don't think there are grounds for a retrial, but if there were, I'd be amazed if the conviction stood. 8/10 time surely he gets off. Again, that doesn't mean he's innocent, it just means we have no way of proving he's guilty. The odd thing is, large amounts of the public seem fine with this. They even try and convince themselves there is enough evidence, which is absurd.

There is zero evidence she didn't give him permission for sex and the very same jury deemed her not only to be in condition to consent, but also to be in a condition that the other guy deemed her capable of consenting.

This must be one of the most shit posts I've read here in a very long time.

 

[sewey89]

What difference does it make? If the justice system has decided he's eligible for release and employment then surely that's enough? If this is the way the system works then that should be that really.

In the same way that if the justice system finds him guilty, that should be enough to condemn him as a rapist.

 

[2 man midfield]

But that does not preclude him from working in other jobs.

Yes but i would certainly feel less sympathy for him. Of course my opinion doesn't matter whatsoever, if clubs don't want to touch a footballer still serving a sentence for a crime, any crime then that's fair enough. But i'd be fairly sympathetic to him if he was completely free.

 

[Marching]

But that does not preclude him from working in other jobs.

absolutely right. NOBODY is stopping ANYONE giving Evans a job. BUT those employers have the right to NOT give him a job. Just as those who feel strongly enough against him playing have the right to sign a petition or take their sponsorship away from a club.

For those who don't understand why he's only served half his sentence behind bars....he serves the remainder on licence which comes with restrictions as does being on the sex offenders list such as not being allowed abroad and having to meet his parole officer and not work in certain areas such as with children.

 

[rednev]

What happens if he gives up on football and tries to get a regular job, only for the same thing to happen? E.g. he convinces a company to employ him, before another campaign is started against him which forces the company to change their minds? At what point would we say that this witch hunt is unacceptable?

 

[sullydnl]

In the same way that if the justice system finds him guilty, that should be enough to condemn him as a rapist.

I'm not arguing that he isn't guilty, I'm more than happy to accept the court's decision there. Similarly, I'm also happy to accept their judgement when they say he's fit for release and employment. Tbh the argument over whether he's guilty or not is the part of this story that interests me the least.

 

[Acole9]

I don't think Oldham will sign him, a director and sponsor of the club will withdraw if they do.

 

[peterstorey]

This must be one of the most shit posts I've read here in a very long time.

You might try disproving the logic of the post rather than just shouting 'Aaaaaah, it's shit'.

 

[Getsme]

What happens if he gives up on football and tries to get a regular job, only for the same thing to happen? E.g. he convinces a company to employ him, before another campaign is started against him which forces the company to change their minds? At what point would we say that this witch hunt is unacceptable?

He wouldn't be the first.

 

[Ronetta]

absolutely right. NOBODY is stopping ANYONE giving Evans a job.

Yes they are, or at least they are doing their level best to stop them.

I think it's disgraceful how he's being treated to be honest, whether he is guilty or not. Assuming for one moment that he is guilty, the laws of the land as implemented by the courts have seen him sentenced, do his time and be released. The judge didn't impose any special restrictions saying he must not work in football for a period of xyz years, or indeed at all. So what these protesters are in fact saying is "we didn't like the sentence, so we'd like to impose our own more stringent sentence instead". Well what if those protesters were in favour of capital punishment for rape convictions? Would it be OK to decided now to round up a lynch mob and have him killed? No of course it wouldn't, and in the same way it is not right to seek to force others to make his punishment worse than that which the law intended.

And just imagine for one moment that perhaps this man is actually innocent? We don't have capital punishment in this country, in large part because we recognise that people are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But not beyond ALL doubt, and sometimes our courts get it wrong.

 

[Ronetta]

I don't think Oldham will sign him, a director and sponsor of the club will withdraw if they do.

I hope the club has the moral fortitude to do what it thinks is right and if that means losing a director and sponsor, then so be it.

 

[Marching]

You might try disproving the logic of the post rather than just shouting 'Aaaaaah, it's shit'.

It would take too long.