Ched Evans

[sparky]

Loads of people with a criminal record have jobs in offices. It's entirely up to the company that hires them. I'm sure many go back to their previous job, even with the same company. Evans isn't one of those people.

You seem to be implying that ex-cons should only have the right to manual labour jobs?

yeah they do. I see many hired by their previous employers while in prison and on day release, keeping the job when they get out. That being none are in for rape. I guess it really depends on the boss.

 

[Rowem]

Not a single professional job would allow you back. You'd be booted out of the institute.

Loads of professional companies hire ex-cons...

 

[sparky]

6 figures, board office level.

I can't speak for all professions. I do know that state medical bodies in the US that handle certification and licensing for medical personnel take criminal records very seriously (as they should). Taking the bar involves a background check as well. But as far as I know, a blot on your record is not an automatic disqualifier (theoretically). One will need to explain the circumstances of any convictions, and explain how the crimes have been atoned for. It is an additional hoop, but at least it applies across the board to all people. And with enough time and evidence that shows rehabilitation and/or remorse, licensing is highly probable.

Licensure for Engineering could care less about your criminal record. The financial industry only looks out for crimes involving fraud or something money related (insider trading, etc)

Some jobs would welcome you as having experience. I mean drug workers, even probation. Though the offence itself would be low level. By that I mean not rape, some murders etc.

 

[Sandikan]

Is he still a criminal?

If you have a working understanding of English then yes.

A criminal, is a person who has committed a crime.

 

[Rado_N]

Loads of professional companies hire ex-cons...

Define prestigious?

Anything here that requires membership of a professional body would not allow the employment of a convict. By professional body I'm talking anything with a chartered institute or similar.

...

 

[Sandikan]

He is obviously a slimeball, but I think he genuinely believed the sex is consensual. The whole point of his sentence was that she was too drunk to give consent. Ten why was Macdonald not guilty too? She came with him for the purpose of sex, but if she was too drunk to give consent, then she was too drunk to give consent to going to the hotel with Macdonald for the purpose of sex. The whole thing doesn't make sense. There are millions of people every year who have sex in a various stages of drunkenness - if we apply the same logic, then probably over 90% of the population (both male and female) would have committed rape at some point. They should start selling condoms bundled with alcohol detectors.

Probably because she willingly (albeit it boozed out of her head) left with the first guy, and went back to the hotel room.

When someother guy shows up, who was never part of the deal, and just gets involved, it gets to sinister levels.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

If you have a working understanding of English then yes.

A criminal, is a person who has committed a crime.

So, pretty much everyone.

 

[OneUnited24]

Probably because she willingly (albeit it boozed out of her head) left with the first guy, and went back to the hotel room.

When someother guy shows up, who was never part of the deal, and just gets involved, it gets to sinister levels.

The whole thing is sinister, add the part about two other footballers watching from the window and it all starts to paint a picture of a group of guys that have no respect for women and thought they could do whatever they wanted.

You hit the nail on the head with the post. Macdonald took advantage of a drunk girl but was in a decent enough state to give consent. By the time Evans came in was she in the same frame of mind? I'd even wonder if she was conscious. Add the public flogging of a victim who cant defend himself makes Evans look like a bigger twat than he already is.

Also who receives a text from a friend saying hes "got a bird" to think they better get their butts over there?

 

[Rowem]

...

Are you suggesting there are no opportunities as accountants, engineers, architects etc with criminal records? I don't think that's true at all.

His conviction will be spent in a couple years anyway.

The argument doesn't hold up anyway. Just because he couldn't get other types of jobs doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to get this one. By that logic, he would have no job options open to him.

 

[Brophs]

Define prestigious?

Anything here that requires membership of a professional body would not allow the employment of a convict. By professional body I'm talking anything with a chartered institute or similar.

Pretty obvious why, no? Professions require people to have the character and morals to conduct themselves accordingly in positions of trust and power, not to mention the optics of wanting the professions to look above reproach. I don't think football can or does hold itself to that standard.

Fwiw I think that someone who is no longer in prison should be allowed to resume their career, unless there are compelling reasons that that wouldn't be appropriate. I think clubs should be within their rights to sign players with a criminal past, unless there are compelling reasons not to allow it. Likewise I think that supporters are within their rights not to want their team to sign a convicted rapist. There shouldn't be a rule or a blanket position. The clubs can make the choice and live with it.

 

[Rado_N]

Are you suggesting there are no opportunities as accountants, engineers, architects etc with criminal records? I don't think that's true at all.

His conviction will be spent in a couple years anyway.

The argument doesn't hold up anyway. Just because he couldn't get other types of jobs doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to get this one. By that logic, he would have no job options open to him.

I'm pretty sure a convicted rapist, or other violent crimes for the matter, wouldn't be admitted to such bodies, no.

That was never my argument, either. Someone made the point that certain jobs would not re-employ a convict, which someone else then disagreed with, I was just making the point that it's true.

 

[Rado_N]

Pretty obvious why, no? Professions require people to have the character and morals to conduct themselves accordingly in positions of trust and power, not to mention the optics of wanting the professions to look above reproach. I don't think football can or does hold itself to that standard.

See my last post, I wasn't advocating stopping him from playing, just responding to a separate point.

 

[Kag]

McDonald even making it into court was a despicable waste of public resources. I'd like to be a fly on the wall with the prosecution team when they all sat themselves down and debated just where and how they could possibly attribute guilt to the guy.

Ched Evans was and remains a prize moron, but there isn't a great deal of criticism to be levelled at McDonald, otherwise we really are arresting one quarter of the nation's town's and cities come Saturday night.

 

[Rowem]

I'm pretty sure a convicted rapist, or other violent crimes for the matter, wouldn't be admitted to such bodies, no.

That was never my argument, either. Someone made the point that certain jobs would not re-employ a convict, which someone else then disagreed with, I was just making the point that it's true.

I struggle to believe that there are no convicted rapists currently working in a professional role in the UK - and I am even more certain that there are many working in "office jobs", which they original point was made about.

Of course I can't prove that because I doubt companies or professional bodies will publish or announce the fact they have hired a convicted rapist/granted him accreditation. I'm sure many exceptions have been made, especially for individuals who excel at their profession.

 

[Marching]

Are you suggesting there are no opportunities as accountants, engineers, architects etc with criminal records? I don't think that's true at all.

His conviction will be spent in a couple years anyway.

The argument doesn't hold up anyway. Just because he couldn't get other types of jobs doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to get this one. By that logic, he would have no job options open to him.

Wrong. He will always have to disclose his rape conviction. He is also on the sex offenders list for a minimum of 15 years.

 

[Rowem]

Wrong. He will always have to disclose his rape conviction. He is also on the sex offenders list for a minimum of 15 years.

Ah, correct. I misread an article earlier - I thought it would become spent as he served less than four years in prison, but as the original sentence is over four years it will never be spent.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

McDonald even making it into court was a despicable waste of public resources. I'd like to be a fly on the wall with the prosecution team when they all sat themselves down and debated just where and how they could possibly attribute guilt to the guy.

Ched Evans was and remains a prize moron, but there isn't a great deal of criticism to be levelled at McDonald, otherwise we really are arresting one quarter of the nation's town's and cities come Saturday night.

Depends on what the precise relation was between him, Evans and those other boys (who engaged in filming the action through the window, etc.) The infamous text was sent by McDonald and he occupied a hotel room rented not by himself, but by Evans.

He sends a text to Evans, proclaiming that he "has a bird", whereupon Evans heads straight to the hotel and proceeds to join in - clearly with no objection from McDonald. I'd say there's plenty to be scrutinized there - and the court clearly thought so too.

The case isn't straight-forward no matter how you look at it - so it seems to me, at least.

 

[Marching]

Ah, correct. I misread an article earlier - I thought it would become spent as he served less than four years in prison, but as the original sentence is over four years it will never be spent.

yes, the judge made a specific point to make it a 5 year sentence.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The case isn't straight-forward no matter how you look at it - so it seems to me, at least.

The complainant had no memory of being raped, she did not report that she had been raped, only that she thought something might have happened because she woke up in a hotel room alone with no memory.

The complainant had no injuries, sexual or otherwise. No date rape type drugs in her system.

A porter heard them having sex and testified in court that it didn't appear to him that anything was wrong.

A medical expert testified in court that she hadn't ingested enough alcohol where it would not be possible for her to consent, despite her memory loss.

I don't know if he did rape her or not but if you look at the case notes I am not sure where the evidence is that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

 

[brian017]

Is he really worth all the hassle and loss of revenue from sponsors especially to a League 1 club?

 

[Momochiru]

Probably because she willingly (albeit it boozed out of her head) left with the first guy, and went back to the hotel room.

When someother guy shows up, who was never part of the deal, and just gets involved, it gets to sinister levels.

That's exactly my point - if she is too smashed to answer a simple yes/no question "Do you want to have sex with me?", then she is too smashed to go with someone "willingly" to their hotel room for sex. Here are two hypothetical scenarios:

Scenario 1. Guy A is at a party, where he finds a drunk girl. He asks her "Do you want to have sex with me?", to which she mumbles something he interprets as "yes". He proceeds to have sex with her.

Scenario 2. Guy B is at a party, where he finds a drunk girl. He asks her "Do you want to come to my place and have sex?", to which she mumbles something he interprets as "yes". He calls a cab, takes her to his place and proceeds to have sex with her.

In both cases the only thing that matters is how drunk the girl was. If she is not drunk enough, in control of herself and able to make decisions, than both cases are not rape. If she was drunk enough so she wasn't in control of herself and her decision making was impaired than both cases are rape.

 

[RoadTrip]

I'm pretty sure a convicted rapist, or other violent crimes for the matter, wouldn't be admitted to such bodies, no.

That was never my argument, either. Someone made the point that certain jobs would not re-employ a convict, which someone else then disagreed with, I was just making the point that it's true.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. I am aware of someone with a violent crime who is a member of a professional body.

As with pretty much everything in life, these things are not set in stone. It's not a yes or no thing. Each individual is considered as an individual. A bad historical record does not stop you joining a professional body. It may require a longer and more strenuous process to become a member, but I can assure you that it isn't a blanket flat out no.

 

[Anustart89]

That's exactly my point - if she is too smashed to answer a simple yes/no question "Do you want to have sex with me?", then she is too smashed to go with someone "willingly" to their hotel room for sex. Here are two hypothetical scenarios:

Scenario 1. Guy A is at a party, where he finds a drunk girl. He asks her "Do you want to have sex with me?", to which she mumbles something he interprets as "yes". He proceeds to have sex with her.

Scenario 2. Guy B is at a party, where he finds a drunk girl. He asks her "Do you want to come to my place and have sex?", to which she mumbles something he interprets as "yes". He calls a cab, takes her to his place and proceeds to have sex with her.

In both cases the only thing that matters is how drunk the girl was. If she is not drunk enough, in control of herself and able to make decisions, than both cases are not rape. If she was drunk enough so she wasn't in control of herself and her decision making was impaired than both cases are rape.

From what I can understand, McDonald wasn't acquitted because it was proven that she was sober enough to agree to sex when she agreed to it with him. He was acquitted because the events of the night (going to a kebab shop together, leaving together in a taxi etc), regardless of her level of intoxication, compelled the judge and jury to think that he had reasonable cause to believe that he had her consent, which is one of the criteria in not judging it as rape. Evans was deemed to not have reasonable cause to assume consent and was therefore deemed guilty of rape.

 

[Momochiru]

The whole thing is sinister, add the part about two other footballers watching from the window and it all starts to paint a picture of a group of guys that have no respect for women and thought they could do whatever they wanted.

You hit the nail on the head with the post. Macdonald took advantage of a drunk girl but was in a decent enough state to give consent. By the time Evans came in was she in the same frame of mind? I'd even wonder if she was conscious. Add the public flogging of a victim who cant defend himself makes Evans look like a bigger twat than he already is.

Also who receives a text from a friend saying hes "got a bird" to think they better get their butts over there?

I agree - the whole thing was disgraceful and all people involved showed no respect for women. What happened to the woman after was also disgraceful, texting "got a bird" is pretty pathetic too, but being a pathetic, disgraseful human being doesn't make someone a rapist - the only thing that matters is whether there was a consent or not.

 

[Brown Toothpick]

Is he a good player?

 

[Momochiru]

From what I can understand, McDonald wasn't acquitted because it was proven that she was sober enough to agree to sex when she agreed to it with him. He was acquitted because the events of the night (going to a kebab shop together, leaving together in a taxi etc), regardless of her level of intoxication, compelled the judge and jury to think that he had reasonable cause to believe that he had her consent, which is one of the criteria in not judging it as rape. Evans was deemed to not have reasonable cause to assume consent and was therefore deemed guilty of rape.

I know that's the reasoning, but it doesn't make any sense to me. From what I read, the woman did all the drinking before she met Mcdonald - it's very hard to believe that her inebriation changed so drastically without consuming more alcohol, if anything she might have sobered up with time. The fact that she spent more time with Mcdonald in the kebab shop, taxi, etc. doesn't matter - both men believed she gave them consent. If she wasn't drunk enough, she could give consent even after 5 seconds - it's still consent. On the other hand if she was too drunk, than no matter how many kebab shops he dragged her to, she is still not capable to give consent.

 

[peterstorey]

It shows you didn't follow the trial. He is not innocent. He is a rapist. He is on the sex offenders list.

No. The verdict is clearly unsafe. You were too lazy to respond to redmeister's post which spelled out why.

 

[Offside]

Is he a good player?

At league 1 level yes. Scored a hat full of goals before his conviction. Would normally cost about 2 million pounds and play for a league 1 promotion chasing team.

 

[hp88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Would be understandable if they were a major sponsor but all they do is give away a free meal to one family at half time, seems like the feckers are jumping onto bandwagon to get a bit of publicity. His agent (if he still has one) needs to keep any potential deals private as it's obvious what happens, local media get a sniff and it's an outcry. The sooner he's signs a deal / retires the better it is for everyone as it has been dragging on for ages now.

 

[Feeky Magee]

It's happening...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Unlike him to agree personal terms

 

[Dion]

12 people guided by trained legal professionals came to the conclusion that he raped her, obviously miscarriages happen but anyone pretending to know better is just seeing what they want to see.

 

[ivaldo]

12 people guided by trained legal professionals came to the conclusion that he raped her, obviously miscarriages happen but anyone pretending to know better is just seeing what they want to see.

Why would they WANT to see a rapist walk free? No one here has any connection to Ched, most think he's a moron, but that shouldn't hold any weight when deciding if he is guilty or not. In the cold light of day the evidence against him is weak. How can anyone say beyond reasonable doubt he raped her, if the victim herself can't even say it?

 

[Marching]

Why would they WANT to see a rapist walk free? No one here has any connection to Ched, most think he's a moron, but that shouldn't hold any weight when deciding if he is guilty or not. In the cold light of day the evidence against him is weak. How can anyone say beyond reasonable doubt he raped her, if the victim herself can't even say it?

For the very reason Dion said...all the evidence was put before a jury and a judge and they decided he was a rapist.

It seems Evans father in law is putting £2m into the club to cover any losses from Oldham signing Evans. That's a lifeline to a club like Oldham so it appears they need Evans as much as he needs them.

 

[golden_blunder]

He's married?

If I was his father in law I'd be telling him to sling his hook.

For the very reason Dion said...all the evidence was put before a jury and a judge and they decided he was a rapist.

It seems Evans father in law is putting £2m into the club to cover any losses from Oldham signing Evans. That's a lifeline to a club like Oldham so it appears they need Evans as much as he needs them.

 

[Rednotdead]

He's married?

If I was his father in law I'd be telling him to sling his hook.

Engaged. What sort of father not only allows, but actively supports, this kind of behaviour from his daughter's (then) boyfriend?

 

[ivaldo]

For the very reason Dion said...all the evidence was put before a jury and a judge and they decided he was a rapist.

It seems Evans father in law is putting £2m into the club to cover any losses from Oldham signing Evans. That's a lifeline to a club like Oldham so it appears they need Evans as much as he needs them.

And how are members here acting any different to those on the jury? Giving an opinion based on the evidence provided? To suggest anyone here with no affiliation with Evans would want to see a rapist walk free is ignorant dont you think?

I can't fathom how McDonald can be found not guilty while Evans can be, I don't see the evidence to suggest that the complainant was any more intoxicated when meeting Evans than when she met McDonald (undisputed evidence by the way that the original advances where made by the complainant and not McDonald).

"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."

Now I don't pretend to beleive that being 2.5 times over the legal driving limit wouldn't lower the girls inhibitions, but I find it highly unlikely she wouldn't be able to give consent.

 

[Rednotdead]

And how are members here acting any different to those on the jury? Giving an opinion based on the evidence provided? To suggest anyone here with no affiliation with Evans would want to see a rapist walk free is ignorant dont you think?

I can't fathom how McDonald can be found not guilty while Evans can be, I don't see the evidence to suggest that the complainant was any more intoxicated when meeting Evans than when she met McDonald (undisputed evidence by the way that the original advances where made by the complainant and not McDonald).

"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."

Now I don't pretend to beleive that being 2.5 times over the legal driving limit wouldn't lower the girls inhibitions, but I find it highly unlikely she wouldn't be able to give consent.

Firstly, she agreed to sex with McDonald when she was in a fit state to do so. She only met Evans when he walked into the hotel room unannounced. McDonald was clearly concerned about her condition as he asked the night porter to keep an eye on her.

The evidence of the "expert witness" didn't tally with the known fact that she consumed a large amount of alcohol at about 3am, just before leaving the club, therefore the jury discounted it.

 

[ivaldo]

Firstly, she agreed to sex with McDonald when she was in a fit state to do so. She only met Evans when he walked into the hotel room unannounced. McDonald was clearly concerned about her condition as he asked the night porter to keep an eye on her.

The evidence of the "expert witness" didn't tally with the known fact that she consumed a large amount of alcohol at about 3am, just before leaving the club, therefore the jury discounted it.

And what evidence was there she wasn't when she met Evans? How much more intoxicated was she when she met Evans? Or is there no way proving it, which is the crux of the whole thing?

Edit: btw not stating its wrong but where did it state the evidence of the medial expert was thrown out, can't remember that.

 

[MancFanFromManc]

I'm all for criminals being given a chance to redeem themselves. Surely giving them a second chance is better than them returning to a life of crime. But before this can happen they have to show some remorse and say sorry, as I'm sure they do. Can you imagine a boss of any company employing an ex con who refuses to admit they did any wrong. I certainly cant

The British public can be very forgiving, but they expect some humility at the very least

 

[Eric'sCollar]

It's such an interesting debate but I spent some time with him when I used to play over there, always seemed like a nice enough guy. So from my point of view, he has done his time, he should be allowed to play if a club is willing to give him a chance.