egafd.com

Essex Lad wrote:

> That the
> victim will pay the price for years to come is an agonising
> truth.


Just out of interest, and not meaning to sound insensitive, but what price will she pay exactly?

The victim has always maintained and still maintains that she has no recollection of the incident. There was no medical evidence available either, so she only has Evans' word that he had sex with her.

Agonising truth? That she will pay the price for years to come for a rape she can't even recollect?

Her victim statement in court didn't make any claim of that kind. So how is such a claim now considered to be the truth?

And if Evans is eventually cleared and she's no longer considered a victim what happens then? Will the truth still be the truth and will it still be agonising?

There are a number of points you make which strike me as incorrect and/or misleading.

"I see at least two of Oldham's sponsor's (Mecca Bingo and Verlin Rainwater Solutions) have said they will walk if he is allowed to play for them."

There will always be organisations willing to join a witch hunt and in so doing get themselves some free publicity on the national news bulletin.

"The Criminal Cases Review Commission is conducting an investigation into Evans's conviction, which could take 35 weeks. If he is so convinced of his innocence why can't he wait until the summer for the outcome of this review?"

I have no idea about his financial situation but given he has already spent 2 and a half years in jail, I would guess he is desperate to get back into football and prove that he can still play at that level rather than writing off another year."

" My view is that he wants to get back to playing professional football before the review reports because if they uphold the conviction it will be even harder to get back to playing then."

My guess is that the reasons are as outlined above.

" DJ I know you are aware he is still serving his sentence under licence. I was responding to Mr Man's comment "Almost no one serves their "sentence" these days. The MoJ obv think that he is not a danger to the public."

Okey dokey. It would help if you could tie your reply into the person who you are replying to, to cut out any potential confusion.

" Mr King, a nasty piece of work. What was the sexual offence he was convicted of was it rape?"

I think it was groping but I am not entirely sure. Anyway he was put on the Sex Offenders Register for 7 years during which time he played for a range of professional football teams.

"My contention is that Mr Evans is being treated as a special case because I cannot think of any other job where after a conviction for rape, after serving half the sentence in jail, still being on licence and the sex offender register, you would be allowed to walk back into your old job.

It depends on what you mean by "old job". He would be playing for a completely different team. I am sure that there are any amount of jobs where a sex offender who has served a jail sentence and is on the Sex Offenders Register has gone to work for a different company doing the same trade/profession if his original employers did not want to employ him for whatever reason e.g. personal distaste or his job has been filled etc. etc..

" The vast majority of employers wouldn?t want to take you back. Your continued employment would cause disharmony in the workplace and consequently impact on productivity. There would also be concerns regarding how your customers would react to that individuals? employment, especially if they were in a customer facing role. See potential sponsorship withdrawal detailed above."

Again you need to differentiate between going back to the same organisation and working for another company or are you suggesting that society/you take the view that no-one who is on the Sexual Offenders Register should ever be rehabilitated e.g. go to work? The decision is a business one not a legal one e.g. see the apparent offer of a contract to Ched Evans by Oldha.

"You ask????.
?You may or may not agree with these laws"
I cannot for the life of me understand why you keep saying this.

I keep saying this because I can?t remember anyone starting a campaign for ?normal job? people to have their job back after a rape conviction. By that I mean for instance when was the last time people were campaigning for a school caretaker, a bricklayer or a steelworker to have their job back after a rape conviction (and with still two and a half years to serve on licence)?"

Of course you can't, because in the wacky world of "celebrity" generally the media couldn't give a fuck about what happens to Jo Public, it is all about the "celebs". The key point to understand is that there is no "legal" reason why he should not be employed by any football team unless it appears as one of his licence conditions.

Now throughout this thread you make a number of references in one way or another to "someone on the Sex Offenders Register would not be allowed to go back to teaching, working in the NHS " etc. etc.

Unless the law has changed recently I do not think this is true. First it depends on the restrictions placed upon you by the licence terms. These vary from person to person. Secondly, as far as I know there are people who are on the Sex Offenders Register such as doctors and surgeons who are still working in the medical profession just as there are/have been footballers on the Sex Offenders Register who have carried on in their profession. I may be wrong but as far as I know there is no law which says anyone on the Sex Offenders Register cannot legally work in the NHS unless for some reason e.g. it is a condition of their licence and the same goes for schools. So it is a question of whether the relevant organisation wants to take the risk.

If as a result of a particular sexual offence the Medical Council struck a doctor, surgeon, nurse off the register, then it would be illegal to carry on working in that profession.

CHeers

You have to wonder at the business acumen of a club who even thinks about employing someone so toxic?

Forgot to post this link, Spider about how the register works

DJ - I notice that your response makes no reference whatsoever about my comments about this being all about money and that this (and the other cases you have mentioned where criminals have been accepted back into football) is all about money.

The moral perspective and all the talk of offender rehabilitation is just guff.

These quotes from the Guardian sums it up better that I could.

"The clubs claims to be community organisations, with their funded programmes designed to teach children literacy and wellness through the elixir of football, will seem like empty marketing".

"Professional football, and Evans, a product of it, really ought to know already there is more to rehabilitation than coming out of prison."

"I see at least two of Oldham's sponsor's (Mecca Bingo and Verlin Rainwater Solutions) have said they will walk if he is allowed to play for them."

There will always be organisations willing to join a witch hunt and in so doing get themselves some free publicity on the national news bulletin.

I'm sure Verlin and Mecca really, really need the publicity.

Porn Baron wrote:

> You have to wonder at the business acumen of a club who even
> thinks about employing someone so toxic?


Let me explain it for you. If there were no rape conviction, Evans would be worth several millions on the transfer maket. The amount of money they would lose from the sponsors that are saying they will pull out is trifling in comparison. One of them pays Oldham ?60,000 a year.

Use your own business acumen Porn Baron and work it out for yourself. Striker worth millions (cost Sheffield Utd ?3m and his value had increased before the rape conviction) against the loss of what sum exactly? Do the sums and tell me what answer you reached.

If Sports Direct pull out that would make the picture a bit different as they apparently pay Oldham ?1m a year - they are the one sponsor that actually matters. But even then your business acumen should tell you that Oldham would still be getting a several million pound striker for no fee.

"Someone mentioned that football clubs employ lawyers. I bet they employ accountants as well. I also bet that at this very moment there are teams of accountants drawing up cost / benefit statements attempting to assess the impact on the club bottom-line if they employ him."

Exactly. The beancounters have won (for the moment).

I think there's going to be a lot more shit-hitting-the-fan before this is over.

"DJ - I notice that your response makes no reference whatsoever about my comments about this being all about money and that this (and the other cases you have mentioned where criminals have been accepted back into football) is all about money."

What I was trying to do is explain that:

1. Whether Ched Evans is employed by a football team has nothing to do with the law other than if it is a license condition.

2. Therefore, in reality it is a business decision. You may find this deplorable but I am merely explaining the reality.

Now let's move onto the moral question you raise. Clearly there are moral issues here and as part of the reality of a business decision I am sure that Oldham would have weighed this up.

However, what I would do is that anyone who looks to footballers for moral guidance or as a role model, is as misguided as anyone who looks for guidance from Madonna, Harrison Ford or next door's dog. It is the role of first of all the parents, then the schools and churches to provide that guidance. Footballers are completely incapable of providing moral guidance to the public.

I also doubt if Tony Adams and Joey Barton's convictions for drink driving and assault have led kids to believe that this is totally moral and that they are giving them the go-ahead to act in a similar way.

So you agree then to paraphase the Guardian quote...

"Football clubs claims to be community organisations, with their funded programmes designed to teach children literacy and wellness through the elixir of football, is just empty marketing".

Profressional Football is just business - everything else is just guff.