egafd.com

I see the question of whether Ched Evans should be given a contract or not with a football team after his conviction for rape has hit the headlines yet again.

What do we know about this?
1. He was convicted of rape, served a jail sentence and has now been released.
2. He has never accepted his guilt and is involved in a lengthy campaign to get the verdict overturned.
3. The woman who he was found guilty of raping has allegedly had to move several times to avoid hassle from supporters of Evans.
4. The possibility of his re-joining Sheffield United appears to have been scuppered by a long list of sponsors, supporters etc. threatening to withdraw their support if a contract was given to him. Internet petitions have been signed by tens of thousands in favour of preventing him being a professional footballer again on the grounds that he is a convicted rapist, has never shown any acceptance of guilt and was previously a role model for kids.

So the question is, should he be allowed to play professional football again?

My feeling is Yes. Rape is a dreadful crime deserving severe punishment. However, my points would be:

1. He has served his prison sentence so as a general principle I think it unfair that anyone who has done their time should be "banned" from returning to their profession. There has to be some element of re-integration for criminals back into society.
2. I can only assume he is guilty because he has been found to be guilty by a jury. However, I do not see why someone who feels that they have been subject to a miscarriage of justice should be "banned" or vilified for claiming "I am not guilty". There have been many, many miscarriages of justice in the UK and we should not condemn out of hand those who try to argue that they were incorrectly convicted.
3. There was no hint of underage sex which presumably would prevent say, a teacher going back into their profession. It strikes me as daft that we should expect footballers to be role models for kids. For example, I suspect that the likes of Tony Adams of Arsenal being jailed for drink driving did not make it alright to get pissed and get in a car with Arsenal fans when they would not have done that before. Parents and school should focus on teaching the difference between right and wrong, not professional footballers.
4. If fans/friends of CHed Evans have been hassling the woman he was found guilty of raping AT HIS INSTIGATION, then I think he should be brought before a court again as a precursor to being put back in prison. On the other hand the case of the woman who wanted a female on a banknote and got threatened with rape by umpteen morons on the net, shows that many trolls have no connection with the person being victimised.
5. There is an air of witch hunt about this topic and this crime and it seems to be getting out of hand.

So, a difficult one, but on balance I think he should be allowed to return to professional football.

What do the esteemed members of this forum think?

How can he be allowed to play football as the victim would have no chance of rebuilding her life due to the possibility of him appearing on TV or in newspapers and that's not including the fact that he would also be seen as a "hero" by footballing plebs who follow the game.

If you owned the company sponsoring the shirts for the club he was playing for, would you want the name of your company displayed on the chest of a convicted rapist?

Convicted rapists on the sex offenders register are excluded from working in hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I do not see what so special just because he plays football for a living.

They would not be allowed to work in the NHS, in Schools, even as school caretakers for instance.

Even if he were a bricklayer or an electrician for instance and he went back to that job his employer would not be allowed to let him work on any school or hospital projects, or any project where he could come into contact with young or venerable adults.

Don?t FA footballers have responsibility for providing football education to youngsters as part of the club?s social responsibilities?

The restrictions are very harsh, but if you disagree with them make a case to change the law. I do not understand why he is a special case just because he plays football.

It is sad that her well being and future happiness may be ruined by her abuser's public profile. But she can do things to avoid being constantly reminded. It's not like Evans will ever play for a big, well known club so unless he ends up playing for her home town team I think she can avoid seeing him on tv and in the papers.

We have to take into account that he's been tried, convicted and served his time. If he was a bricklayer or shopkeeper, he'd still be able to lay bricks and sell apples after serving his time so it's discriminatory to treat him differently unless there is a really good cause (like, if he was a rape councillor or some similar vocation).

I was one that signed a petition for Sheffield United NOT to take him back. Not because I didn't think he should play football again but because he committed the crime while he was under contract at Sheffield United and, as all players do, had signed up to the club's code of conduct. Taking him back would make that code of conduct pledge worthless and wouldn't send out the best of messages to young players coming through the ranks. He had to be sacked like you'd expect to be sacked for raping someone, regardless of your job. I see no problem, however, with other clubs giving him a chance to re-integrate and become a contributing citizen like the rest of us.

I think the media (namely the tabloid media) have made this worse. I think if they'd left it alone he may have been taken in by a club already and will have been abused from every terrace at every ground he played. That could have forced him out of the game anyway, or at least made it so that he never forgot what he did or what people thought of him. However, with this media witch-hunt it's likely he could actually end up looking like the victim here and making it more likely that more supporters would have a degree of sympathy with him than what there would have been otherwise.

I have the utmost sympathy for the girl. Anyone found to have verbally threatened or harassed her should be punished too. They're fucking vile if they think that support of their club, or a player, is more important than a rape victim's well being. But we have to believe that if you commit a crime and do the time, you're allowed a second chance.

Maybe a better argument to have would be the length of time he served before being released. Is 2 & half years enough for raping a 19 year old girl, causing her emotional harm she may never fully recover from? Should he have served the full 5 years? I'd be more open to that argument than whether he should be allowed to earn a living again.

"If you owned the company sponsoring the shirts for the club he was playing for, would you want the name of your company displayed on the chest of a convicted rapist?"

The answer to that is probably no. On the other hand as a sponsor I would not necessarily want someone convicted of assault (twice) and affray like Joey Barton to have my sponsor name on it. Nor someone like Tony Adams who was found guilty of drink driving, went on to league and cup doubles and to have a statue of himself outside the ground. Nor someone like Lee Hughes who was sentenced to six years for death by dangerous driving and got a contract with Oldham on his release in 2009.

"The restrictions are very harsh, but if you disagree with them make a case to change the law. I do not understand why he is a special case just because he plays football."

As far as I am aware there is absolutely nothing in the law that prevents him working for a football club so it is not a question of changing the law as far as the Ched Evans case is concerned. I am trying to understand why a convicted rapist should be prevented working in his chosen profession when say, a convicted murderer may not be prevented working in their chosen profession if someone wanted to employ them.

There are far, far more jobs that someone on the Sex Offenders Register can do than not. For example, you can be a solicitor and appearing on the tele every other day on high profile cases and presumably involved in cases involving children and still be on the Sex Offenders Register. So he is not a "special case" in that sense.

"Don?t FA footballers have responsibility for providing football education to youngsters as part of the club?s social responsibilities?"

Well not all footballers are involved in providing football education to youngsters, firstly and second, I am not sure if permission is dependent on a probation officer's say so.

I guess what I am struggling with is why convicted rapists like Ched Evans are being treated in a way that convicted murderers, violent criminals and convicted drink drivers are not.

That is why I use the term witch hunt.

Well, footballing dickheads will view people as hero irrespective of their crime. Secondly I give more info in my reply to Spider



but I am struggling to understand why a convicted rapist like Evans should be treated in an entirely different way to a convicted murderer, drunk driver who killed someone, violent criminal etc.

That is why I think there is a feverish air of witch hunt about this.

When I use the term "treated" I mean treated by significant numbers of the public who are signing petitions etc. rather than the law

It is indeed a difficult subject.
And I'll be honest, I'm not sure if he will ever play football again in this country.
I don't think any club will employ him again due to rent-a-mob that will always
gather outside. Maybe he will have to wait until his full sentence is served and
move abroad if allowed.
However if his conviction is overturned I can see several clubs wanting him.
Think we will have to wait and see. I think maybe clubs should wait until that
decision is made before trying to get him to sign.
But as most people are pointing out, it is a difficult subject / decision.

Yes, of course he should be allowed to play again. It's what he does for a living. He has served the sentence that the Ministry of Justice thinks appropriate.

Most interesting piece by Matthew Syed in The Times:

Mob justice making a dangerous mockery of the right to second chance



Churchill was right. It is the difficult cases that test our commitment to progressive ideals. It is easy to parade one?s belief in second chances when it comes to shoplifters and tax evaders. It is easier still when it comes to youth offenders and those who are still, basically, children. But what about drug dealers and murderers? What about rapists?

The more heinous the crime, the more tempting to fudge the idea of rehabilitation. That is what has happened with Ched Evans. That rape is a despicable crime is universally agreed. That the victim will pay the price for years to come is an agonising truth. That she has been neglected in the furore surrounding the return of the footballer to training at Sheffield United is stomach-churning. But still, the question remains: do we believe in second chances or don?t we?

?The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country,? Churchill wrote. ?A desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry of all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every person ? these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.?

The return to employment is a cornerstone of rehabilitation. Norway, which has the lowest level of recidivism in Europe, makes sure that those who leave its prisons have assistance in getting a job. They recognise that denying employment opportunities to ex-convicts feeds the cycle of crime and punishment. If plumbers and landscape gardeners deserve second chances, so too do footballers.

The crime of rape, it is worth emphasising, is savage and intimate. It is appalling that conviction rates are so low and that, for many years, the justice system often scorned women who came forward with allegations. But we signal our contempt for a crime with the severity of the sentence. We should campaign for tougher sentences and continue to educate police forces so that they investigate allegations with urgency and sensitivity. But we do none of these, none whatever, by punishing a man twice.

There is something truly saddening about the accusations of misogyny that have been levelled at those who argue that Evans should be given a chance to play football, pay taxes and reintegrate into society. It is as if Churchill had never written his warning. The idea seems to be that we show our concern for the victim by denying lawful opportunities to the perpetrator. This is both wrong and dangerous.

Due process: those are the two words that have been conspicuous by their absence in recent weeks. Evans was convicted via a fair procedure and he has now been released on licence having served half his term.

He is perfectly entitled to return to work. It is ludicrous to suggest that he should be allowed back into football only once he has confessed to his crime and shown remorse. He is seeking leave to appeal against his sentence via the Criminal Cases Review Board. How can a man seeking to demonstrate his innocence admit to his own guilt?

Some have pointed out that if a professional commits an offence, he can be stripped of his licence to practise. Doctors are struck off. Lawyers are disbarred. But this happens when the offence is related to their work and undermines the trust we place in someone in that position; it doesn?t happen when the offence is unrelated to their job.

So, how does this reasoning apply to Evans? As David Shipley, a reader of The Times, posted: ?In what way does a rape conviction undermine a manager?s confidence that a footballer can put the ball in the net??

And consider this too. Professional licences are revoked with at least a nod to due process. Doctors and teachers are fully aware of the crimes that will terminate their employment indefinitely. There are appeals procedures and frameworks to ensure that the rules are applied fairly and without individual rights being trampled by the rush to judgment. In other words, it is the polar opposite of what is happening today with Evans.

Take a step back and witness what mob justice looks like in the media age. A convict?s employment prospects as a footballer are being determined not by agreed procedures, but by social hysteria, media frenzy, online petitions, and the actions of celebrities.

To be clear: everyone has a right to express an opinion. But only a fool would deny that this process is dangerously arbitrary. Is this how we are going to determine employment prospects for all released criminals, or only for those considered newsworthy by the media?

The most egregious argument I save till last. Footballers, we are told, are role models. It is remarkable that this ludicrous red herring still does the rounds. Footballers have not auditioned to be role models and, in many cases, do not wish to be role models. If kids look up to them, it is up to adults to explain that just because someone is good at kicking a ball, it doesn?t mean they should be looked to for moral guidance.

We should never tire of repeating the words of Charles Barkley, the NBA player: ?I am not a role model . . . I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn?t mean I should raise your kids.?

The only possible lesson that youngsters are going to take from the Evans affair is that if you commit rape, you will go to jail and your reputation will be rightly shredded. But if he is afforded the right to return as a footballer, they will glimpse another precious message too: once you have been released from prison, you will be given a second chance.

The Evans case is important in its own right, but it has come to symbolise much more than the future of the 25-year-old. Ultimately, it is about our capacity to separate our abhorrence at the nature of a crime from our commitment to second chances. When these things blur, rehabilitation dies. And without a commitment to due process, as Churchill rightly argued, justice is a sham.


And from Rod Liddle:

That?s enough carping. Let Ched Evans play

There is no grimmer sight in this country than the confected politically correct furore in full swing. The liberal left whip up a perfect storm of irrational, neurotic outrage, hypocrisy and furious denunciations against something or someone ? all a little like the Hate Weeks organised by the Party in George Orwell?s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Gainsay the prosecutors and you are almost as bad as the person they are so gleefully prosecuting.

We have a perfect example of this with the case of the footballer Ched Evans, who has just been released from prison having served the usual proportion of his five-year sentence for the rape of a young woman in a hotel room. It was reported that Evans had been allowed to train with his old club, Sheffield United (though even that may be in jeopardy), and the maniacal seething and screeching began.

Look, I am not about to sell you Ched Evans as a paragon of virtue, someone you?d love to have over for dinner and be delighted if he offered to squire your daughter to the local hunt ball. I suspect both you and your daughter would find him a little trying.

Nor do I want to get into the rectitude of his conviction ? although, for the record, this is being fast-tracked for investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. As things stand he was convicted and that?s that. Even if one day the conviction is overturned, the stuff that went down in that hotel room would not necessarily commend him to you squiring your daughter.

You can read the sordid details elsewhere. My guess is that like a lot of young, not terribly bright men and an awful lot of professional footballers, he views women from a utilitarian perspective. The way these footballers behave towards women is, to my mind, utterly foul. Maybe all of them should be sent on a course, sharpish.

But the shrill demand is that he should never be allowed to play football again. And certainly not to earn money from the game. A petition insisted that Sheffield United must resile from signing him (they haven?t signed him, of course) and, terrified by this manufactured outrage, the club?s sponsors and honorary factotums and the politicians and the media and the retinue of slebs and foot soldiers of the ovine liberal commentariat all concur. It would be an insult to the woman he raped, they say, and to all women who have been raped in the past, and further to all women everywhere who might one day be raped.

Why? The reasons given are vacuous and bereft of logic and, more importantly, principle. Football is a glamorous game, they say ? hmm, tell that to the Sheffield United team who trotted out at glamorous Doncaster yesterday for a third-tier fixture ? and rapists shouldn?t be allowed to wallow in glamour. Righto.

And also he?ll be making sackloads of money from the sport! Well, the average wage for third-tier players is nothing like the enormous salaries of the Premier League ? but is this a new policy, that released prisoners should have an income cap for the rest of their lives? If so, how much money is it acceptable for them to earn? Should we draw up a table? And why is it worse for him to play football than to become a plumber, or a neurosurgeon (not much chance of that, I accept)?

And why just Ched Evans? Countless professional footballers plying their trade right now have committed heinous crimes. Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes killed people, albeit without intending to do so. Hundreds more ? such as, for example, Marlon King ? have been convicted of assaulting women.

If Evans had committed any other offence, even murder, the liberal left would be demanding he be given another chance. Because that?s what the criminal justice system is about ? punishment and then rehabilitation and remunerative work. We all believe in that, don?t we?

No. There are plenty of people out there who do not ? and boy, can they shout and stamp their feet.

Love how Rod Liddle has a go at the 'liberal left' for this when the main culprits stirring up public outrage are the Daily Mail and The Sun.

It's almost as if he doesn't really care about Ched Evans nor the victim and that he's using the story to drum up annoyance at.......erm........the liberal left.