If there is then fair enough. But his website just seems to go over the same (or possibly selective) ground which 2 sets of judges and a jury have all considered and made a decision on.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Brighton TID
- Start date
If there is then fair enough. But his website just seems to go over the same (or possibly selective) ground which 2 sets of judges and a jury have all considered and made a decision on.
I guess that's the same as fining someone for dropping litter £10 if you don't work and £1,000 if you are a successful businessman, same crime so why different punishment?
Sheffield Utd refuse to confirm that they won't re-sign him. I find this very odd indeed. I can only assume they are keeping silent because they believe there is a way they can get him playing for them once again, I'd assume that scenario needs a successful appeal.
The impact/effect of these "different" punishments might be the same though. Fines used to be means tested. Is this still the case?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I think he is due to be released in October having served half his term.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29541498
Interestingly written article, I think the writer is quite possibly one of the 90000 to sign the petition. My opinion is he should be allowed to resume work, he's going to be reminded from the terraces about his misdemeanour for the rest of his career.. Rightly or wrongly.
Interestingly written article, I think the writer is quite possibly one of the 90000 to sign the petition. My opinion is he should be allowed to resume work, he's going to be reminded from the terraces about his misdemeanour for the rest of his career.. Rightly or wrongly.
Braggfan
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
- May 12, 2014
- 1,831
drew
Drew
When he is released there is nothing legally to stop him playing for anyone. What people are talking about seems to be the morality of it.
The appeal is to quash what he believes is an unfair conviction and to prove he is innocent. Yes, he was found guilty but there is a website which goes into the case and it has stuff on there, which will need to be raised and challenged in a court of law, that creates the impression this conviction is unsafe at the very least. Perhaps all those that have signed this petition should take a look at the website and then consider whether they should sign an emotive petition.
albion534
Well-known member
he should resume football
why should he be victimized and Marlon King doesnt have petitions to stop him? or that Plymouth keeper
served his time
why should he be victimized and Marlon King doesnt have petitions to stop him? or that Plymouth keeper
served his time
JCL - the new kid in town
New member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
You mean the website that is run by his family/friends, hardly a source of unbiased evidence.
JCL - the new kid in town
New member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
Has he though, he was given 5 years and is out in 2.5. Now that doesn't seem to me that he has served his time, but that isn't unique to this case, i always wonder why they bother sentencing them longer terms and then release after half if they've been good in prison.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
The director of communications for Rape Crisis England and Wales Katie Russell, said the charity was not questioning the right of Evans to return to employment but hoped "football would seize the chance to send a strong message condemning sexual violence against women".
"Obviously Rape Crisis completely supports and recognises the right of any convicted criminal to return to work after they've completed their sentence, that's not something we're disputing," Russell said.
(but then in the same breath, goes on to completely contradict her previous sentence...)
"But we have to accept that in this case it is an incredibly high-profile figure who will inevitably return where he will be highly paid, he will get a lot of profile and will be celebrated of course for his sporting prowess.
"We would say that the responsibility is really with the clubs and the football authority more widely to send a very strong message."
Russell continued: "They need to send a strong message that rape and sexual violence - and violence against women and girls more broadly - will not be tolerated within football."
What a ridiculous load of old GUFF. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with football, it didn't happen "within football", the incident didn't happen on a bloody football pitch at half time did it. Football just happens to be his job. He got convicted, served his time, and is entitled to continue his profession IF there are any football clubs willing to give him that opportunity. And whats his salary got to do with the price of fish ?? Daft bint.
Are we saying that all footballers convicted of offences against women automatically have to take mandatory retirement from the game ? What about footballers convicted of driving offences, do they have to find an alternative profession after serving time too ? Beating up a taxi driver, should that signal the end of a career in the game after serving a few months behind bars ?
I wouldn't particularly want the likes of Ched Evans or Lee Hughes at my club, but I can't see any logic in calls for them to be banned from earning a living once their time is served.
"Obviously Rape Crisis completely supports and recognises the right of any convicted criminal to return to work after they've completed their sentence, that's not something we're disputing," Russell said.
(but then in the same breath, goes on to completely contradict her previous sentence...)
"But we have to accept that in this case it is an incredibly high-profile figure who will inevitably return where he will be highly paid, he will get a lot of profile and will be celebrated of course for his sporting prowess.
"We would say that the responsibility is really with the clubs and the football authority more widely to send a very strong message."
Russell continued: "They need to send a strong message that rape and sexual violence - and violence against women and girls more broadly - will not be tolerated within football."
What a ridiculous load of old GUFF. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with football, it didn't happen "within football", the incident didn't happen on a bloody football pitch at half time did it. Football just happens to be his job. He got convicted, served his time, and is entitled to continue his profession IF there are any football clubs willing to give him that opportunity. And whats his salary got to do with the price of fish ?? Daft bint.
Are we saying that all footballers convicted of offences against women automatically have to take mandatory retirement from the game ? What about footballers convicted of driving offences, do they have to find an alternative profession after serving time too ? Beating up a taxi driver, should that signal the end of a career in the game after serving a few months behind bars ?
I wouldn't particularly want the likes of Ched Evans or Lee Hughes at my club, but I can't see any logic in calls for them to be banned from earning a living once their time is served.
supaseagull
Well-known member
I'm with [MENTION=19150]piersa[/MENTION]
You need to forget the fact that he has a career in football, which perversely is considered to be a profession within the entertainment industry.
Rolf Harris made a career working as effectively a children's entertainer, once he has "served his time", would you let him resume his career working in the same profession?
How would you feel if you were the victim in this case to know that some fickle football fans started cheering his name just because he was able to score a couple of goals and win a game of football...The trivial matter of the game, makes the incident of rape appear trivial for the victim.
Add to what [MENTION=20100]JCL[/MENTION] - the newkid in town has quite rightly said...He hasn't served his time - only serving 2.5 years for raping anyone someone is frankly grotesque. The guy should not be allowed to play professional football and earn the money and plaudits that will no doubt go with it and an honour only a small number of people could only dream of getting the chance to do.
You need to forget the fact that he has a career in football, which perversely is considered to be a profession within the entertainment industry.
Rolf Harris made a career working as effectively a children's entertainer, once he has "served his time", would you let him resume his career working in the same profession?
How would you feel if you were the victim in this case to know that some fickle football fans started cheering his name just because he was able to score a couple of goals and win a game of football...The trivial matter of the game, makes the incident of rape appear trivial for the victim.
Add to what [MENTION=20100]JCL[/MENTION] - the newkid in town has quite rightly said...He hasn't served his time - only serving 2.5 years for raping anyone someone is frankly grotesque. The guy should not be allowed to play professional football and earn the money and plaudits that will no doubt go with it and an honour only a small number of people could only dream of getting the chance to do.
In response to these specific points, firstly, no. I would want Harris to get back into that industry but that's mainly because he used the freedom afforded him by his job to do what he did. To a degree, that was the case with Evans but it wasn't football that provided him the opportunity to do what he did. I'm sure his "celebrity" was a contributing factor but he wasn't in that club (or wherever) for his job whereas it seems a lot of the Harris crimes were work-related.
On the second one, I agree that the sentence is pathetic given the crime and it's far too lenient but Evans has served what the judicial system has laid down: 2.5 years. I very much doubt anyone would put their hand up and say "Excuse, me, I was sentenced 5, I want 5". My issue is the same as almost all cases like this, and that's the ability to down-size sentencing based on "good behaviour". It seems wrong that you can be given a sentence in proportion ti your crime, only to have it reduced if you behave in prison.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I think thats a peculiar perspective. Its a very arbitrary demand that because he is a convicted rapist, he's no longer allowed to perform in front of an audience in case they cheer him. Rape is a heinous crime, and I wouldn't blame the victim if they wanted to see the perpetrator rotting in jail for the rest of his life. But it has nothing to do with football. Its not down to football to "send out a message" - football is not some kind of moral beacon for everyone to look towards to set a standard. Its just another job.
As for Rolf Harris - he has proved to be a danger to children, so of course his right to work with them is removed because he represents and inherant risk to them.
But who is at risk from a rapist at a football match ?
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
You would like to think that any club thinking of taking him back on a contract would be petitioned by their own supporters to not do that in respect for victims of sexual crimes.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Agree with all of this.