Discussion
Whether he was guilty or not (i know nothing of the case).
In the eyes of the law, he's done the crime & served his time, therefore, he should be allowed to do what anyone else who's served their time is allowed to do.
I don't condone rapists, however the Football Clubs should just suck it up & sign him if they want too, do you really think the majority of their fans are going to give a s
t if he starts performing well for them, 90% of fans on a Saturday i'd imagine are probably blokes anyway.
Most of these signatures will be peple signing it for the sake of it.
In the eyes of the law, he's done the crime & served his time, therefore, he should be allowed to do what anyone else who's served their time is allowed to do.
I don't condone rapists, however the Football Clubs should just suck it up & sign him if they want too, do you really think the majority of their fans are going to give a s
t if he starts performing well for them, 90% of fans on a Saturday i'd imagine are probably blokes anyway.Most of these signatures will be peple signing it for the sake of it.
Oldham need to do the right thing and get him signed up. People need to see that bullying and victimisation are not acceptable.
Even if he is guilty, he has served the amount of time he should in prison (don't give me the crap about half - all prisoners get released early). And he should be allowed to get on with his life.
Really hoping he plays well, has a great career and settles down with the girl who stood by him. Would be a nice end to the story.
Even if he is guilty, he has served the amount of time he should in prison (don't give me the crap about half - all prisoners get released early). And he should be allowed to get on with his life.
Really hoping he plays well, has a great career and settles down with the girl who stood by him. Would be a nice end to the story.
ascayman said:
BrabusMog said:
Surely at some point this little vendetta is going to cross the line into harassment?
The only person being harassed is the woman who has just had to move for the 6th time.... BrabusMog said:
I genuinely do feel bad for her if that's the case, but Evans has now probably just been denied a second opportunity by this "radical feminist". I don't think it's right and, if his conviction is overturned, would he be able to go after her for loss of potential earnings?
The snivelling little coward doesn't even reveal her name... She does it all behind a fake name.Charlie1986 said:
So if Ched Evans is acquitted could he bring a loss of earning law suit against the woman?
my view is he has served his time and should be allowed to play and the 20,000 people who have signed it Oldham should be selling out every week if they care that much about the side!
the woman hiding behind anonymity you mean? Jessica Ennis and Paul Heaton were public about their views and while I disagree with them they had the courage of their convictions, this 'radical feminist' seems to be rather good at 'whispering in the shadows', would coward be too strong a phrase?my view is he has served his time and should be allowed to play and the 20,000 people who have signed it Oldham should be selling out every week if they care that much about the side!
As far as OA are concerned I hope they have the courage of their convictions and sign said chap up (I suspect they too will bow to pressure, huge amounts of it not connected with their supporters)... we will see
glasgowrob said:
on a sidenote to the evans case why is it the case that a man has to obtain consent, why does a woman not have to also obtain consent?
because the argument is, partially, that if a man is THAT drunk he's unable to perform It provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery. It makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.
Also men are (generally) stronger than women and so more likely to be able to fight off undesired advances
London424 said:
What I find the most strange is that Ched Evans being given such a hard time, while Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick were able to pick up their careers relatively easily...and they killed people!
Especially as Lee Hughes initially left the scene to (allegedly) get the booze out of his system...
Interest is dwindling. He's gone from 120,000+ signatures to 20,000. Give it another few months and people will be too concerned with the newest headline story.
The guy needs to earn a living, yet every avenue seems to be getting slammed in his face.
The review of the case needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I'm not sure what to make of the conviction, but I'm not sure the case is beyond reasonable doubt.
I highly doubt he can sue the girl if later cleared, as it wasn't her that convicted him, It was the court.
Two and half years in jail and then months without getting work at the level of wages he'd command otherwise, that's a lot of money. Probably about £3M, probably more with bonuses.
The guy needs to earn a living, yet every avenue seems to be getting slammed in his face.
The review of the case needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I'm not sure what to make of the conviction, but I'm not sure the case is beyond reasonable doubt.
I highly doubt he can sue the girl if later cleared, as it wasn't her that convicted him, It was the court.
Two and half years in jail and then months without getting work at the level of wages he'd command otherwise, that's a lot of money. Probably about £3M, probably more with bonuses.
Think I've said it before, but he should have no restriction on his career from the FA, or law or whatever. He's served his time.
Would I sign him, if I were running a club? No. Bad for PR, bad for fan relations and bad morally employing someone who works very much in the public eye who is a convicted rapist. He's supposed to be a role model.
Would I sign him, if I were running a club? No. Bad for PR, bad for fan relations and bad morally employing someone who works very much in the public eye who is a convicted rapist. He's supposed to be a role model.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You can't really put it like that though. Having drunken sex happens a million times every weekend. Most people treat it as a mistake and leave it at that.
People hold the fact that Ched was convicted of rape, even though there is reasonable doubt, as the only thing that really matters.
The fact other people have killed others due to their actions, surely that's all should matter in their cases too?
I don't see how you can excuse one and accept the other.
It all comes down to money; people don’t want to see him earning, to 90% of the population, excellent money. I can’t think of another time when a large group of people have objected so strongly to someone convicted of a crime being employed.
It would be a full time job setting up petitions against the employment of every person how had been convicted of horrible crimes.
It would be a full time job setting up petitions against the employment of every person how had been convicted of horrible crimes.
irocfan said:
Kitchski said:
He's supposed to be a role model.
no he's not - he's supposed to be some tt who kicks a football around and gets paid handsomely for it. I suspect that it's the 'handsomely' that has most people's knickers in a twist I find it a little annoying that every time he's covered in the news it's "convicted rapist" Ched Evans. Why not just use his name?
Does everyone else have their crime consistently before their name?
"Convicted for perverting the court of justice, Chris Huhne"...
Does everyone else have their crime consistently before their name?
"Convicted for perverting the court of justice, Chris Huhne"...
Driver101 said:
People hold the fact that Ched was convicted of rape, even though there is reasonable doubt, as the only thing that really matters.
'reasonable doubt' was apparently precisely absent. Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff