Raith Rovers Controversy

[adexkola]

As I said above, it depends on the capacity of their role. I don’t think a role where Goodwillie is cheered on and looked up to by children / working with females is appropriate when they’ve had complete disregard for one with no remorse. If there is a role where they can have a profession without that then they can go ahead. Clearly multiple women have shown they feel uncomfortable working with him, as do some men.

Again this begs a wider question with regards to who we have our children looking up to. But that's another conversation so.

I think with regards to being uncomfortable with working with him, that's a valid practical reason for an employer deciding not to hire someone. But we are talking about the ethics here. Because theoretically, should anyone be comfortable working with this fella? So does he just go on the dole then, isolated from society for the rest of his life?

They’re not just paid to play football. That’s the primary reason, but there are obviously other factors that are secondary. They’re ambassadors for their club, they represent them on and off the field and their conduct interferes with sponsorships / players at the club on both the male and female side. You know as well as I do that footballers are role models and it’s daft to try and argue people don’t see them as one. I’m not saying that people should, or that they automatically are when they become a footballer and it’s a mantle they have to take up, but it’s what happens. Maybe that’s on society / football culture to shift too, aswell as not wanting to have rapists etc. associated with it.

Fair enough on the role model part, I'm arguing how it should be. You're not special because you kick a ball, is the overriding message for me from the horrific news of the last week, and going back further than that. Once the novelty gets stripped away it becomes easier for me to justify letting people continue in their professions as long as they have paid their debt to society. Ambassador status, being connected to a club, that shit should be earned, not granted.

 

[adexkola]

Well your question is disingenuous. Goodwillie is allowed to pursue a career as a footballer and is doing just that. The issue in the case of a footballer is that for want of a better description you are an entertainer and rely on the support of fans. Fans quite rightly can say they do not want to support someone capable of rape and sponsors can understandably choose not to associate their brand with rapists but that is not the same as saying he cannot work.

If he worked as a roadmender who would know or care but as fans we identify with our teams and the actions our team takes and the actions of the individual players reflect on us and our own ethical and moral viewpoints. We are all able to determine what we will or will not consider a deal breaker in that relationship so for example had the Saudis bought Manchester United I can honestly say my support would have ended the same day.

He's doing that and there's a thread full of people baffled that he's being "allowed" to do so. If he cannot work in football because no club will take him on, then effectively you're saying he can't work in a profession he's been training for all his life. And it's ok if you believe that, just say it with your chest then instead of hiding behind the fence.

And to answer your fan conundrum, fans support the team. And certain players you tend to grow a connection to over time because they are special in one way or another. This guy doesn't fit the profile of special player, he's there to do a job, and that's it. There are no fans of Raith Rovers on here (I think), so most fans on here should be able to see this from a neutral position, but they don't.

 

[DOTA]

Not playing tonight. Anyone know if he was assumed to be available?

 

[Plant0x84]

Once the novelty gets stripped away it becomes easier for me to justify letting people continue in their professions as long as they have paid their debt to society. Ambassador status, being connected to a club, that shit should be earned, not granted.

The thing with footballers I think is the public nature of their work. Its not like you can quietly go about your work as a professional footballer and not bother anybody (for want of a better phrase)

It’s bad enough when very serious offenders like sex offenders and killers are released from prison, as they are rightly shunned by society and having them integrated back into daily life can leave people (especially victims) feeling vulnerable and afraid. If said offender is a footballer who returns to playing a high level they will be in the media, they will be on TV regularly, generally they WILL be cheered for scoring (its natural to celebrate a goal- I cant see fans being silent if this player scores) and people will wear shirts with this name on it. That must serve as a constant reminder to victims of what happened and the hell they have been through.
If justice is supposed to be about the victim rather than the offender, then that sits at odds with seeing your attacker/abuser week in week out on TV etc.
It’s absolutely right that convicts are allowed to return to work and are not a financial burden to the state, but the work they return to has to be considered in the best interests of the victim I feel.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

He's doing that and there's a thread full of people baffled that he's being "allowed" to do so. If he cannot work in football because no club will take him on, then effectively you're saying he can't work in a profession he's been training for all his life. And it's ok if you believe that, just say it with your chest then instead of hiding behind the fence.

And to answer your fan conundrum, fans support the team. And certain players you tend to grow a connection to over time because they are special in one way or another. This guy doesn't fit the profile of special player, he's there to do a job, and that's it. There are no fans of Raith Rovers on here (I think), so most fans on here should be able to see this from a neutral position, but they don't.

I think for me, as stated previously, it’s the lack of consistency and also the mob mentality that doesn’t sit right.

Like I said, I don’t think Alonso should necessarily be prevented from playing for Chelsea as someone who’s killed another human being in a tragic situation that arose directly from him speeding and drinking and driving - but that is, imo, at least ‘level’ with Ched Evans or the young Utd player, I mean he literally killed a young woman through crime.

But then IF he can carry on and pursue a top pro career with absolutely minimal punishment, I think the same has to be open to other players - especially if they are actually actively rehabilitated.

If the line is moveable it becomes very dodgy due to things like corruption and institutional racism etc.

 

[Stobzilla]

When you were a kid, it just seemed nicer because nobody spoke up and the rapists got away with it.

There were a lot of people speaking up back in the early to mid 2000's. But the rapists still got away with it.

There was the one with 8 players, across 2 clubs, all in the Premiership and full internationals and nothing came of it.

The one where 3 Leicester players weren't investigated because it was inferred the women were sex workers.

Carlton Cole, Titus Bramble and Rufus Brevett were all named by police as being investigated and none of the investigations went anywhere.

Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. But it was rife at the turn of the millennium, seemed there were 2 or 3 new stories every week of allegations being made against premiership footballers and not one of them went anywhere.

 

[SilentWitness]

Again this begs a wider question with regards to who we have our children looking up to. But that's another conversation so.

I think with regards to being uncomfortable with working with him, that's a valid practical reason for an employer deciding not to hire someone. But we are talking about the ethics here. Because theoretically, should anyone be comfortable working with this fella? So does he just go on the dole then, isolated from society for the rest of his life?

Fair enough on the role model part, I'm arguing how it should be. You're not special because you kick a ball, is the overriding message for me from the horrific news of the last week, and going back further than that. Once the novelty gets stripped away it becomes easier for me to justify letting people continue in their professions as long as they have paid their debt to society. Ambassador status, being connected to a club, that shit should be earned, not granted.

I think it is appropriate to ask all employees if they feel comfortable with working with someone like this. I think it would be appropriate in any other profession too that people could make judgments on whether they wanted to work with someone that committed a crime like this. I do think that the case for him may have been slightly different if he had done jail time and admitted fault but he’s done neither so It makes it worse for him.

I don’t think this man has paid his debt to society. I don’t think the victim wanted money, they’d have wanted jail time/them not to be allowed to continue playing football, something they were passionate about. Reading the court proceedings the victim struggled to have intimate relationships for 5+ years after the crime was committed. I echo the previous poster that spoke about how justice should be about the victim, and I don’t think that having a more than healthy wage, privileged life, playing to hundreds/thousands of fans that will be cheering your goals is justice for her.

 

[Cloud7]

I think for me, as stated previously, it’s the lack of consistency and also the mob mentality that doesn’t sit right.

Like I said, I don’t think Alonso should necessarily be prevented from playing for Chelsea as someone who’s killed another human being in a tragic situation that arose directly from him speeding and drinking and driving - but that is, imo, at least ‘level’ with Ched Evans or the young Utd player, I mean he literally killed a young woman through crime.

But then IF he can carry on and pursue a top pro career with minimal time served, I think the same has to be open to other players - especially if they are actively rehabilitated.

If the line is moveable it becomes very dodgy due to things like corruption and institutional racism etc.

In most people’s moral compass it’s not though. Drunk driving is reprehensible, disgusting and dangerous to all involved, and it’s very unfortunate what happened to the passenger with Alonso, but it’s not equal to what this person did or what that United player did in any way or form.

When you’re driving drunk you take a stupid risk, but on a basic level you aren’t intending to hurt anyone. As a rapist or an abuser your aim is to hurt someone, someone vulnerable to you at that. It’s not a potential risk like with drunk driving, it is literally your intention.

There is no equivalence between the two.

The intent to rape or abuse a woman is why players like this should rightfully not ever be accepted back into the public eye.

@adexkola I will say it with my chest. People like this are scum and should not be allowed to take a job in the public eye where, rightly or wrongly, impressionable people will look up to them. If that means not being able to do a job you have trained your entire life for, then so be it.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

In most people’s moral compass it’s not though. Drunk driving is reprehensible, disgusting and dangerous to all involved, and it’s very unfortunate what happened to the passenger with Alonso, but it’s not equal to what this person did or what that United player did in any way or form.

When you’re driving drunk you take a stupid risk, but on a basic level you aren’t intending to hurt anyone. As a rapist or an abuser your aim is to hurt someone, someone vulnerable to you at that. It’s not a potential risk like with drunk driving, it is literally your intention.

There is no equivalence between the two.

The intent to rape or abuse a woman is why players like this should rightfully not ever be accepted back into the public eye.

@adexkola I will say it with my chest. People like this are scum and should not be allowed to take a job in the public eye where, rightly or wrongly, impressionable people will look up to them. If that means not being able to do a job you have trained your entire life for, then so be it.

I personally think drunk driving resulting in a young woman’s death is at least equal to hitting a woman or perhaps raping someone - they are all pathetic, repulsive, antisocial acts.

But yeah, for me I certainly do view drunk driving as bad as domestic violence. It’s a horrendous crime.

In Alonso’s case, I’m referencing it because he committed a crime, killed another person, served no time, yet is playing for a top club.

If Rashford did that tomorrow, drunk driving, speeding, killed a woman, served no time would he be welcome at a PL club…? Would he play again?

Are the playing fields level? If not, why?

 

[duffer]

I personally think drunk driving resulting in a young woman’s death is at least equal to hitting a woman or perhaps raping someone - they are all pathetic, repulsive, antisocial acts.

But yeah, for me I certainly do view drunk driving as bad as domestic violence. It’s a horrendous crime.

In Alonso’s case, I’m referencing it because he committed a crime, killed another person, served no time, yet is playing for a top club.

If Rashford did that tomorrow, drunk driving, speeding, killed a woman, served no time would he be welcome at a PL club…? Would he play again?

Are the playing fields level? If not, why?

I've done exactly the same thing as the poor woman who got killed by Alonso (got into a car with a drunk friend and didn't put a seatbelt on).

It's only really through luck that nothing happened but he could've easily crashed and killed me (the passenger who was farting about with the stereo rather than putting his seat belt on) or a someone else. Were his actions worse than raping someone? The possible outcome perhaps but I hoenstly don't ever think he did me dirty by driving that day.

I still see him from time to time, 25+ years later and we always remember that, shake our heads and thank all the gods that nothing happened.

You might put this down to me defending a Chelsea player and I understand that but I don't think my friend (or Alonso) is equal to a rapist.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I've done exactly the same thing as the poor woman who got killed by Alonso (got into a car with a drunk friend and didn't put a seatbelt on).

It's only really through luck that nothing happened but he could've easily crashed and killed me (the passenger who was farting about with the stereo rather than putting his seat belt on) or a someone else. Were his actions worse than raping someone? The possible outcome perhaps but I hoenstly don't ever think he did me dirty by driving that day.

I still see him from time to time, 25+ years later and we always remember that, shake our heads and thank all the gods that nothing happened.

You might put this down to me defending a Chelsea player and I understand that but I don't think my friend (or Alonso) is equal to a rapist.

Well you were very lucky. And so was every other person whose life he put in danger without their consent to do so.

But yeah, I’m not sure regarding a rapist - my post referenced domestic violence vs drunk driving which personally for me I do view as equally bad, also both are very prevalent. There will undoubtedly be people on this forum who’ve committed both - and both are frequently done by players. Sensationalism doesn’t help get this shit out of society - it just forces it underground.

I guess the point is that drink driving is incredibly destructive, selfish and many repeat drink drivers are sociopaths.

All the stuff about offending players being role models is equally in effect with drunk driving - it’s a conscious decision, where the outcome was obviously, ‘feck other people’s lives’.

If 1 player can drink drive, speed, kill someone, avoid any punishment and then play for a top club then it at the very least provokes conversation on whether REHABILITATED players should be given a 2nd chance.

If not, do we not believe in their rehabilitation?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I'm Kirkcaldy born and bred, supported Raith since I was a boy, belted out all the chants at Starks Park including "Baldie feck" when the pond scum from Dunfermline had a cue ball in goal almost 20 years ago. I refused to speak to my dad for a whole month after I wasn't allowed to go with him and my uncle to the 1994 Coca Cola Cup final when we beat Celtic, have met Val on several occasions at events, and even remember sitting in the old railway stand before they closed it due to health and safety reasons (whilst Barbie Girl was blasted through the tannoy as the players came out). So I think I know what I'm talking about when I say;

feck Raith Rovers for giving this cnut a job.

I never thought they could make a worse decision than giving Nicholas Anelka's brother the managers job, and yet here we are.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Just read the club statement which ignores his past and say it was a purely footballing decision. It's like PETA granting an ambassador role to Hitler because he loved dogs.

Fecking arseholes. Everyone I know in the town is fecking livid and embarrassed by it.

 

[duffer]

If 1 player can drink drive, speed, kill someone, avoid any punishment and then play for a top club then it at the very least provokes conversation on whether REHABILITATED players should be given a 2nd chance.

If not, do we not believe in their rehabilitation?

I do think a second chance is fine depending on what you did and I do think someone can lead a decent life despite doing something awful/making a huge mistake.

Goodwillie isn't on his second chance though. He's on about his 4th (3 seperate assualts and 1 rape).

 

[Wolf1992]

Why are people surprised about this.

Last time i checked there are many rapist/sexual harrassers in Hollywood, and they are doing fine, still getting hired for films, and of course many people watch their films and series (including women).

 

[golden_blunder]

Just read the club statement which ignores his past and say it was a purely footballing decision. It's like PETA granting an ambassador role to Hitler because he loved dogs.

Fecking arseholes. Everyone I know in the town is fecking livid and embarrassed by it.

I heard tonight that Dundee are looking at Adam Johnson (of Jail XI fame) as a possible signing.

 

[golden_blunder]

Why are people surprised about this.

Last time i checked there are many rapist/sexual harrassers in Hollywood, and they are doing fine, still getting hired for films, and of course many people watch their films and series (including women).

In fairness the clear out started unless you’re blind to the “me too” stuff.
we don’t watch Kevin spacey anymore for example

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I heard tonight that Dundee are looking at Adam Johnson (of Jail XI fame) as a possible signing.

Makes sense - the floodgates are open now. Jimmy Saville might end up in Aberdeen if we're lucky.

 

[Mickeza]

Makes sense - the floodgates are open now. Jimmy Saville might end up in Aberdeen if we're lucky.

I hope Keir Starmer is proud.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I do think a second chance is fine depending on what you did and I do think someone can lead a decent life despite doing something awful/making a huge mistake.

Goodwillie isn't on his second chance though. He's on about his 4th (3 seperate assualts and 1 rape).

Yeah, should be clear from my posts I’m NOT arguing the case of this dickhead, but more responding to the question in general of offending players being given 2nd chances.

Also, for me, rehabilitation is crucial in that process as it can send out a positive message to the fanbase - if you’ve fecked up and been a cretin, you can perhaps turn it around if you work fecking hard to do so. This is what we want as a society, surely (rather than the likelihood of people reoffending because they’ve got nothing and / or are too afraid to admit they’ve got a problem).

Goodwillies and Alonso have had no punishment and I’m guessing no / minimal rehab and are both being paid to play footy.

What I’m saying is that having Alonso properly and thoroughly rehabilitated and then visiting the community and actually talking about what it feels like to kill someone, the undoubted horror and sorrow he feels and how hard he had to work to get his life back on track would be powerful in making people think about drink driving more before doing it.

If Nicky Butt was talking to young people about how he slipped into domestic violence and how he felt in the aftermath, advice he had to help avoid them doing it - what to do if they felt they could commit it, that would be very powerful. It would actually help young players to understand the issue somewhat rather than just seeing the media sensationalism with stuff like the current Utd player.

 

[Wolf1992]

In fairness the clear out started unless you’re blind to the “me too” stuff.
we don’t watch Kevin spacey anymore for example

Not you, but many do...in fact House of Cards is still highly praised by many.

Plus many actors were good friends of Epstein and Weinstein for years, they knew all the stuff and did nothing about it.

Greenwood, unfortunately, will get hired by a club after his sentence...not in England obviously, but probably in Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Japan, China,etc.

 

[duffer]

Yeah, should be clear from my posts I’m NOT arguing the case of this dickhead, but more responding to the question in general of offending players being given 2nd chances.

Also, for me, rehabilitation is crucial in that process as it can send out a positive message to the fanbase - if you’ve fecked up and been a cretin, you can perhaps turn it around if you work fecking hard to do so. This is what we want as a society, surely (rather than the likelihood of people reoffending because they’ve got nothing and / or are too afraid to admit they’ve got a problem).

Goodwillies and Alonso have had no punishment and I’m guessing no / minimal rehab and are both being paid to play footy.

What I’m saying is that having Alonso properly and thoroughly rehabilitated and then visiting the community and actually talking about what it feels like to kill someone, the undoubted horror and sorrow he feels and how hard he had to work to get his life back on track would be powerful in making people think about drink driving more before doing it.

If Nicky Butt was talking to young people about how he slipped into domestic violence and how he felt in the aftermath, advice he had to help avoid them doing it - what to do if they felt they could commit it, that would be very powerful. It would actually help young players to understand the issue somewhat rather than just seeing the media sensationalism with stuff like the current Utd player.

Drink driving is a weird one, quite a few footballers have been done for it (Rooney, Firminho, Yaya Toure, Gibson in recent years) but nobody really seems to care because they got super lucky and didn't hurt anyone. It (drink driving) is seen as a shocking lapse in judgement where rape is something only a monster would do, at least that's how I see it.

 

[adexkola]

The thing with footballers I think is the public nature of their work. Its not like you can quietly go about your work as a professional footballer and not bother anybody (for want of a better phrase)

It’s bad enough when very serious offenders like sex offenders and killers are released from prison, as they are rightly shunned by society and having them integrated back into daily life can leave people (especially victims) feeling vulnerable and afraid. If said offender is a footballer who returns to playing a high level they will be in the media, they will be on TV regularly, generally they WILL be cheered for scoring (its natural to celebrate a goal- I cant see fans being silent if this player scores) and people will wear shirts with this name on it. That must serve as a constant reminder to victims of what happened and the hell they have been through.
If justice is supposed to be about the victim rather than the offender, then that sits at odds with seeing your attacker/abuser week in week out on TV etc.
It’s absolutely right that convicts are allowed to return to work and are not a financial burden to the state, but the work they return to has to be considered in the best interests of the victim I feel.

Justice is not defined by "what makes the victim feel good".

Very crude example incoming

Someone has stolen my car before. Up until now, it would make my day if I discovered that the thief got hung, drawn and quartered with a rusty cutlass. But that's not justice is it?

In my very humble opinion, justice is

1. The victim being made whole as much as possible. Probably not possible for a murder victim, but as much as possible, the victim should be made whole through financial compensation for the damage caused, and support from the state and community to heal from the trauma inflicted

2. The perpetrator being punished for their crime. Through incarceration (simply the removal of liberty, not being raped in the butt by noble prisoners acting upon the wishes of people on the internet), fines, community service, or other means that also serve as a deterrent to other would be criminals.

3. Rehabilitating ex-cons so that upon release they don't go back to a life of crime.

The wishes of the victim when it comes to the fate of the criminal, are (or should be!) a very insignificant part of how justice is served. I would not want a convicted rapist to be let free just because the victim was a Christian and desired he be forgiven. And the wishes of the victim should absolutely NOT influence the (legal) line of work an ex-con pursues. No matter how henious the crime (and beyond a certain threshold they aren't leaving jail anyways).

Goes without saying that I'm not pro-the bloke in the OP (feck him whichever way his career goes), I'm anti-an ultra punitive system that leaves ex-cons with no way back to a legal life. Because this side of the pond is ample proof of what happens afterwards. We don't have the highest incarcerated population in the world for nothing.

 

[NotThatSoph]

So, while I’m genuinely not disagreeing with you (I’m unsure what my stance is on this), what ARE they allowed to do as work?

What if they’re not allowed to be a footballer anymore, but are allowed to be an engineer, but they excelled at it and became famous… do we then say, ‘ok that’s enough of that’, and make them start again in yet another profession?

You did not answer my question.

A footballer is someone who gets paid to play football. And a footballer is not automatically a role model.

Regardless of remorse, if a person is convicted of a crime in criminal court, the penalty is that they do their time in prison (and pay a fine possibly). If a person is found liable in civil court, then they pay a fine. Once that is done, they are free, apart from having the tag of ex-convict.

So again, what jobs are ex-convicts allowed to pursue? Because it would be much more honest if people admitted they don't see any use for ex-cons making a honest living.

I'll add the caveat that people accused of certain crimes (like child molestation) are rightly barred from becoming teachers... And so on.

They're allowed to do almost whatever they like, including being a footballer. People are also allowed to not hire them. It's pretty simple.

Football isn't like most other businesses. In the case of an engineer, we're mostly talking about three parties: the employer, the rapist employee, and the customer. Here the employer decides if they want to hire a rapist or go for someone else, and the customer is free to decide whether to buy services from the company sending the rapist or go with some other company.

In the case of a football club, you have a lot more stakeholders. The most important ones in this instance are the sponsors and fans. All of these support the club in varying capacities, and because we're talking about fans there's a loyalty factor that isn't present in most other businesses. Very few people are fans of companies employing engineers, so the issue isn't personal. If a company wants to hire a rapist, and if you don't want to support a company hiring rapists, then it's extremely easy to vote with your wallet and just go with another company. In sport it's obviously not like that, you're either forced to go cheer for your team now fielding a rapist, or you have to give up something that is often both a strong lifelong bond and an important part of your identity and social life.

Yet another difference, of course, is that athletes are celebrated, other people are just doing a job. In Norway right now there's a (mild) controversy going on. A guy who was part of the biggest robbery in the nation's history, and where they killed a man, is working as a chess expert for the second biggest TV channel. A lot of people don't like it. He's also working as a programmer, and no one gives a shit. The difference should be obvious, and the difference between a regular job and a footballer is much bigger than with a pundit.

 

[Shane88]

That's some serious pig-headed stubbornness.

 

[KennyBurner]

What a start to 2022. Football makes me sick sometimes. It is simply not the sport I used to love as a kid anymore.

Im sorry but statements like this are just performative. Football has always been like this and didn't start in 2022. You should be thankful we are now looking to crackdown on Rape culture in Football instead of pretending the sport has turned sour.

 

[KennyBurner]

They're allowed to do almost whatever they like, including being a footballer. People are also allowed to not hire them. It's pretty simple.

Football isn't like most other businesses. In the case of an engineer, we're mostly talking about three parties: the employer, the rapist employee, and the customer. Here the employer decides if they want to hire a rapist or go for someone else, and the customer is free to decide whether to buy services from the company sending the rapist or go with some other company.

In the case of a football club, you have a lot more stakeholders. The most important ones in this instance are the sponsors and fans. All of these support the club in varying capacities, and because we're talking about fans there's a loyalty factor that isn't present in most other businesses. Very few people are fans of companies employing engineers, so the issue isn't personal. If a company wants to hire a rapist, and if you don't want to support a company hiring rapists, then it's extremely easy to vote with your wallet and just go with another company. In sport it's obviously not like that, you're either forced to go cheer for your team now fielding a rapist, or you have to give up something that is often both a strong lifelong bond and an important part of your identity and social life.

Yet another difference, of course, is that athletes are celebrated, other people are just doing a job. In Norway right now there's a (mild) controversy going on. A guy who was part of the biggest robbery in the nation's history, and where they killed a man, is working as a chess expert for the second biggest TV channel. A lot of people don't like it. He's also working as a programmer, and no one gives a shit. The difference should be obvious, and the difference between a regular job and a footballer is much bigger than with a pundit.

Good post.

 

[adexkola]

They're allowed to do almost whatever they like, including being a footballer. People are also allowed to not hire them. It's pretty simple.

Which is what happened here. A club hired a footballer. Case closed, supply and demand, the efficient market matching worker to employer right?

Wait, hang on...

Football isn't like most other businesses. In the case of an engineer, we're mostly talking about three parties: the employer, the rapist employee, and the customer. Here the employer decides if they want to hire a rapist or go for someone else, and the customer is free to decide whether to buy services from the company sending the rapist or go with some other company.

I disagree that football isn't like other businesses. Apart from the fact that it centers around 22 men chasing a ball, it and sports on general shares a lot in common with other businesses.

Yeah, sure on the rest of the paragraph. That said, if you boycott a company for hiring an ex-con/ex-rapist, then for me it's easy to make the conclusion you don't believe that ex-rapist should have employment. Which is fine.

In the case of a football club, you have a lot more stakeholders. The most important ones in this instance are the sponsors and fans. All of these support the club in varying capacities, and because we're talking about fans there's a loyalty factor that isn't present in most other businesses. Very few people are fans of companies employing engineers, so the issue isn't personal. If a company wants to hire a rapist, and if you don't want to support a company hiring rapists, then it's extremely easy to vote with your wallet and just go with another company. In sport it's obviously not like that, you're either forced to go cheer for your team now fielding a rapist, or you have to give up something that is often both a strong lifelong bond and an important part of your identity and social life.

Or you can just... root for your team without it meaning you're supporting a rapist? There's a middle ground between the two extremes you've mentioned. The same way Chelsea fans can support their team without supporting Alonso and his history, or us with Wan-B, or... The severity of the crime is immaterial to the parallel being drawn.

Yet another difference, of course, is that athletes are celebrated, other people are just doing a job. In Norway right now there's a (mild) controversy going on. A guy who was part of the biggest robbery in the nation's history, and where they killed a man, is working as a chess expert for the second biggest TV channel. A lot of people don't like it. He's also working as a programmer, and no one gives a shit. The difference should be obvious, and the difference between a regular job and a footballer is much bigger than with a pundit.

The difference is society being idiotic/irrational and placing undue importance on kicking a ball around, and the answer is not to then treat the profession as this sacred place, because it's not. Footballers being treated as special is one of the root causes of footballers acting out and being cnuts. The sooner we drop this facade of them being "role models" the better.

The difference in your example provided is people being logical when he's an engineer, and people being illogical when he's a chess expert. He literally has more impact on society as an engineer (he could break shit, literally) than someone chatting shit on TV. Yet the ire is reserved for the chess expert (who, mind, has served his time I imagine).

I get what you're trying to say. It's just not consistent, and if like @Cloud7 you said "this view is influenced by my emotions regarding sexual assault but people convicted of rape shouldn't be footballers or have any jobs as TV pundits or whatever cause feck em", then fair enough

 

[Dargonk]

Unsurprising really from the Club. Though I do have to laugh when they claim they are a community focused club, and then in their statement state they have signed him solely based on his footballing ability. You would think a community focused club who factor in it's community a bit more if it was clear they didn't want that particular player playing for them.

Full credit to the sponsors and players that pulled out, hopefully they can find other clubs quickly and their isn't to much legal issues coming back on them.

 

[Stig]

There is consistency. Nobody wants these predators at their club. it’s that simple

That is patently not true. He is at Chelsea.

 

[Stig]

Yeah, should be clear from my posts I’m NOT arguing the case of this dickhead, but more responding to the question in general of offending players being given 2nd chances.

Also, for me, rehabilitation is crucial in that process as it can send out a positive message to the fanbase - if you’ve fecked up and been a cretin, you can perhaps turn it around if you work fecking hard to do so. This is what we want as a society, surely (rather than the likelihood of people reoffending because they’ve got nothing and / or are too afraid to admit they’ve got a problem).

Goodwillies and Alonso have had no punishment and I’m guessing no / minimal rehab and are both being paid to play footy.

What I’m saying is that having Alonso properly and thoroughly rehabilitated and then visiting the community and actually talking about what it feels like to kill someone, the undoubted horror and sorrow he feels and how hard he had to work to get his life back on track would be powerful in making people think about drink driving more before doing it.

If Nicky Butt was talking to young people about how he slipped into domestic violence and how he felt in the aftermath, advice he had to help avoid them doing it - what to do if they felt they could commit it, that would be very powerful. It would actually help young players to understand the issue somewhat rather than just seeing the media sensationalism with stuff like the current Utd player.

I agree with visiting the community, talking about it etc; but wasn't the charge against Nicky Butt dropped ?

 

[Jippy]

The latter. Announced at 10.30pm, just after the newspapers go to print, and hoping to hide in the immediate aftermath of the Aaron Ramsay unveiling an hour earlier.

If only they’d shown the same tactical mindset when it came to assessing the reaction of fans and the wider public.

Wow, so they knew on one level it would potentially create a shitstorm, but then when it did released that tone deaf statement on the decision.

@adexkola you talk about rehabilitation but is remorse not a factor in that for you? You say he's served his dues by paying the civil proceedings fine, but he's also made several failed attempts to overturn the decision, so he's not only a rapist, but an unrepentant one, with a string of violent convictions.

No way a club, which like it or not represents the wider community, should be recruiting him as a player, with little kids wearing his shirt looking up to him.

As others have said, it's a privileged profession and anyone committing such a heinous crime deserves to be excluded, as @NotThatSoph very eloquently explained.
People using examples of players who have potentially gotten away with rape (without mentioning names), or still play after serious crimes (like Alonso) is not a reason for clubs to continue to turn a blind eye to players' offences.
No expects Mendy to play again for example.

 

[UweBein]

What about [Irrelevant point] then?

 

[padzilla]

Drink driving is a weird one, quite a few footballers have been done for it (Rooney, Firminho, Yaya Toure, Gibson in recent years) but nobody really seems to care because they got super lucky and didn't hurt anyone. It (drink driving) is seen as a shocking lapse in judgement where rape is something only a monster would do, at least that's how I see it.

I see the difference as drink driving being a bad decision that was made while drunk, with no intent to hurt anyone, even though the risk to others is obvious.
However, there is clear intent to inflict severe physical harm on another person with sexual assault and rape.
The difference should be reflected in the level of sentencing.

 

[FromTheBench]

Either u punish them legally and keep them locked, death sentence or whatever or let them have a career atleast.

He was punished not criminally but in a civil case which is based on probability it said. Based on that I don't know how u can stop his career 10 years down the line? Is he now not entitled to earn a living ever in his life?

Afaik he has been out of any trouble now for 10 years as well and been through the legal process.

 

[Doracle]

I see the difference as drink driving being a bad decision that was made while drunk, with no intent to hurt anyone, even though the risk to others is obvious.
However, there is clear intent to inflict severe physical harm on another person with sexual assault and rape.
The difference should be reflected in the level of sentencing.

Except this specific case is about 2 (well 3) people having sex whilst all of them were very drunk. The two men gave evidence that she consented. However, the court concluded (on balance of probabilities) that the woman was too drunk to have validly consented and effectively ignored the fact the two men were also very drunk, and probably weren’t themselves in the best condition to judge how drunk she was.

I find these type of cases troubling. Here, the CPS understandably decided that the criminal threshold wouldn’t be reached but he is still being labelled a rapist on the back of a civil decision (to a much lower standard of proof) and people saying he shouldn’t be able to continue his career ten years down the line.

 

[MayosNoun]

Drink driving is a weird one, quite a few footballers have been done for it (Rooney, Firminho, Yaya Toure, Gibson in recent years) but nobody really seems to care because they got super lucky and didn't hurt anyone. It (drink driving) is seen as a shocking lapse in judgement where rape is something only a monster would do, at least that's how I see it.

I completely agree. My best friend has a DUI and he is now a Social Worker.

He is lucky that his incident was a one-off moment of stupidity and no-one was harmed. There was no underlying urge to harm anyone as a rapist would have.

He has definitely suffered for it, as he had to explain the incident and discuss it to get into college, then onto placement, then into University and again on placement every year for 4 years. It was mortifying for him.

Then going into employment was a whole new challenge as it shows up on an enhanced disclosure. He’s mid 30s now and this happened when he was 18 and he is still having to explain himself and rationalise his actions.

He’s very open about it though and understands how one moment of stupidity could have ruined his entire life and he takes that into his role. It’s almost used as a life experience to support others without judgement.

To put drunk drivers on the same level as rapists is way off the mark for me. Repeat drunk drivers is another story however these charges can be taken in isolation. Rape, in my opinion, shouldn’t.

 

[FromTheBench]

Except this specific case is about 2 (well 3) people having sex whilst all of them were very drunk. The two men gave evidence that she consented. However, the court concluded (on balance of probabilities) that the woman was too drunk to have validly consented and effectively ignored the fact the two men were also very drunk, and probably weren’t themselves in the best condition to judge how drunk she was.

I find these type of cases troubling. Here, the CPS understandably decided that the criminal threshold wouldn’t be reached but he is still being labelled a rapist on the back of a civil decision (to a much lower standard of proof) and people saying he shouldn’t be able to continue his career ten years down the line.

Yes exactly. Either punish him legally or let him continue his livelihood.

How is a free man supposed to survive if he isn't allowed to earn? Govt benefits?

 

[padzilla]

Raith Rovers won't be the last club to employ someone with questionable character because they are good at football sadly.

There's a good piece on it here: https://www.football365.com/news/op...debacle-show-how-deep-footballs-misogyny-runs

 

[cyberman]

Yes exactly. Either punish him legally or let him continue his livelihood.

How is a free man supposed to survive if he isn't allowed to earn? Govt benefits?

Who says he isnt allowed to earn? What right does he have to be imposed on a fanbase that finds him repulsive?
He can be hired, this is the reaction that follows him.