Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => Football => Topic started by: gardner4 on January 08, 2015, 10:18:13 AM
-
Whats your opinions on him signing for Oldham. As for myself I signed the petition against it. There seems to be no morals on Oldham's part. I really feel sorry for the girl he raped. He said she was drunk so its not rape so why say sorry to her. Scumbag. A jury never thought that did they when they convicted him.
-
If Oldham say no might he take that as a yes...........?
-
If he as served his punishment according to the law of the land , then who has the right to impose more?
-
I think Oldham have changed their minds now,according to the news,
-
imo if I was ched evans I would have a long good think about his future in football. he is going to get dogs abuse wherever he plays.
-
If he as served his punishment according to the law of the land , then who has the right to impose more?
There are lots of occupations where a sex criminal would not be able to continue in their previous line of work - teaching, social care, doctors, police (I think), and there may be a lot more I haven't identified. So lots of professional bodies/employers have taken the right to impose more.
I am content with the outcome - if it really is not employing the man. But, if one director's accusations are true (that individuals were targeted by threats), that would be appalling. However, that is not relevant to the moral issue about whether or not Evans should be employed as a footballer.
-
Maybe he should wait for the outcome of his appeal before he starts trying to start his career again..? Is he going to be able to cope with the abuse he gets on the field. ?
-
His followers started a campaign of harassment against his victim, publicly naming her and drove her from
her family, her home, her job, and Evans said s#d all.
Her career was ruined, she should have the final say on HIS career.
-
Maybe he should wait for the outcome of his appeal before he starts trying to start his career again..?
His case has actually been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who investigate possible miscarriages of justice in England and Wales.
and Evans said s#d all.
To be fair, given the above he really wasn't in a position to make any public statement in respect of remore etc for his crime.
Not defending him, his actions or those actions of his family/friends, just pointing out a few facts.
JF
-
I heard on this evening's news that Evans blames "mob rule" for scuppering his chances of a contract with Oldham. Surely his actions were far more akin to mob rule. Shame on Oldham, they could have easily avoided all this bad publicity and loss of sponsors, and like it will be tomorrow morning, still had a squad that doesn't contain an unrepentant rapist who blames everyone but himself for everything that happens in his sordid little life.
-
KARMA. ;)
-
Its good to see Oldham at last has done the right thing. I think they thought they could get him on the cheap without much of an outcry. Well they were wrong. As for Evans apology it was a joke.
-
It was, the timing of it typically self centred and shallow.
I can't believe Oldham thought this was a good idea - they have lost sponsors, goodwill and their good name - and didn't sign the guy at the end of it. They must be being run by total idiots.
-
I was disgusted Lee Hughes was taken on. His actions before, during and after the fatalities he caused were outrageous.
Just like Evans, me, me, me,
-
I have been surprised by the legal knowledge held by some people involved in football. Just this morning Judge Steve Bruce announced that he had examined the evidence and found grounds for appeal. So we can ask the RRCR to stand now and send the case straight to appeal.
-
I think there is a lot more to the debate about this guy being allowed to go back to his profession.
Everyone seems ok with Blackpool Chairman Carl Oyston (Convicted Rapist) being in the public eye and running a football club.
Also take a look at http://chedevans.com (http://chedevans.com) and read up a bit.
-
You may wish to post again my friend. Karl Oyston is not a convicted rapist. His father is.
-
Yes you're correct Owen Oyston who is a director of the club.
-
.
-
Owen Oyston remains the majority shareholder at Blackpool F.C., and is still listed as a director. (according to Wiki at least)
-
Yes, and Owen Oyston isn't Karl Oyston
-
Convicted of rape, and still allowed to run a football club.
-
Convicted of rape you are still allowed to do many jobs.
-
Without protest.
-
Agreed, but I suppose if you work in a mail room there's not too many people to protest. I think the bigger obstacle is the financial impact of taking him on, more than any role model/moral stance. Either way, he's toxic for football clubs now and that should serve to remind him he isn't above the law because he earns lots of money or can kick a ball better than others.
-
I have just been reading about Evans backer. His girlfriends father, a multi millionaire is bankrolling him
to the tune of £2 million, despite Evans cheating on his daughter to commit the rape. He has offered incentives
to get clubs to employ him, including paying his wages. Apparently he is star struck with professional footballs
stardom and fame circle. Maybe he should just employ him in his jewellery business and save football a lot of
embarrassment . He has even funded a web site set up to show Evans in a better light.
-
The problem with saying Footballers are role models is, a lot of the Premier league players are not role models if we take into account their private lives. The current England Captain for instance, slept with prostitutes old enough to be his Granny, unfortunately, he gave one of them his autograph. He also slept with two younger prostitutes in a three in a bed romp whilst his wife was pregnant. I would say he is not a great role model.
I am not condoning rape. I am saying that the idea that all footballers are role models is no longer valid.
-
I think there are two concepts of "role model" in circulation and both can be found in dictionaries. One is what I will call the Positive view that associates "role model" with "good role model" so that the phrase implies a moral superiority. The other concept, I'll call it the Neutral view, uses the term "role model" to cover a spectrum of "good" and "bad" role models. I prefer the second concept since it allows us to ask two questions:
a) Does this person/do these people act as a model for the behaviour, attitudes, values, life style, etc of others - particularly young people - who copy them?
b) Does this constitute a good or bad model?
If people are not influenced by footballers then the second question "good or bad" isn't relevant. But if they are influenced, and I think they might be, then second question comes into play. I don't think anyone supposes that Evans is a "good role model; but is he a "bad role model"?
-
I have been observing the events unfolding concerning the Ched Evans case with great interest. I have also attempted to research this issue as much as I can in order to try and get to grips with all the complexities and conundrums that it throws up. What interests me the most are the various arguments each side trots out to justify his or her point of view and on what basis they are made. People certainly try to appeal to the emotions in order to get their point of view across. Unfortunately a lot of the time, it is those very emotions that seem to override and take control in any given situation. We are, after all, “only human”. For example, Colwyn has attempted to analyse what a “role model” actually is. But for me the “role model” argument is a spurious one and has the effect of taking ones the eye off the ball (pun intended).
Whether you believe in Ched Evan’s guilt or innocence is one thing, it is another to move forward from the situation he is in now. I have to say however, that his behaviour on the night in question was despicable and any right minded person would say that. So he is at least, guilty of that behaviour and has admitted it. It is a fundamental right of every person to protest their innocence of any given crime and to pursue any legal avenue open to him/her. He has had his first appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal, but his subsequent appeal has been fast tracked under Criminal Cases Review Commission as pointed out in a previous post. They will take several months to come to a conclusion. Therefore, as the position currently stands in law, he remains guilty unless or until that judgment is overturned.
The point of my post is this: I cannot believe the breathtaking hypocrisy of people- period.
Lesley Grantham- sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a taxi driver in 1966;
Roman Polanski- on the run from the US authorities since 1978 (has received extensive celebrity support);
Geoffrey Boycott- convicted woman beater 1996, appeal dismissed (powerful lobby pushing for his knighthood);
Mike Tyson- convicted of rape in 1992.
Need I go on? All of the above have been convicted of very serious crimes and yet they were allowed to return to their chosen profession. Either these people should not be allowed to return to their professions or they should be allowed back to complete their rehabilitation. Roman Polanski on the other hand has not served time and is in effect, a fugitive and yet is continuing to make lots and lots of money, thank you very much.
Society should not be allowed to pick and choose what people are worthy of redemption. That is up to the law of the land and/or the appropriate governing bodies.
-
Ched Evans has had his case referred back to the Court of Appeal following a review by Criminal Cases Review Commission.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-34441348
-
The most surprising part of this on the news today was the fact he was found guilty of rape and was released after serving just two and a half years.
-
The 2.1/2 years will be even more surprising if he is eventually found not guilty.
-
Agreed, he would also be eligible to claim compensation as others in the British Justice system wrongly sentenced have.
-
Depends
a) whether the appeal is allowed
b) whether, at appeal he's found not guilty and
c) if found not guilty, whether the judges give him leave to claim compensation.
-
Appeal was given the go ahead yesterday. On the grounds that the defense has new evidence.
-
Conviction quashed as being unsafe. Retrial.
JF
-
Apparently new evidence has come to light. Where was this evidence in the first instance?
-
It was in the possession of the prosecution and they *allegedly* withheld it from both the defence and the jury.
JF
-
From the perspective of a "hairy arsed old copper" with a little experience of this - it seems that he has taken advantage of a drunken girl.
Can her drunkenness (who knows how drunk?) be deemed consent? Can his drunkenness be deemed mitigating?
(The "role model" nonsense is a side affair).
If a healthy, wealthy, drink fuelled, hormone - driven male takes his chances with a seemingly willing, drunken female, is that rape?
Ibiza, Magaluf, Aiya Napa et al - all these hotspots for drunken, drug - affected behaviour are so well chronicled on television.
Many "rapes", it seems, are possible in these circumstances.
Consent - hardly informed but maybe, just maybe, it's not simply a one - sided story.
-
Where was this evidence in the first instance?
Probably being hidden like the "new evidence" that's emerging in the Pistorius case.
-
It's already been presented in court that there was cocaine and cannabis found in her system.
Guesswork from here - previous behaviour/activities?
That'd be my guess but I get it wrong a lot!
-
Apparently there's new evidence that in the days prior to her death she'd been shot at least twice with an airgun and also struck forcefully with a cricket bat.
-
Not guilty.
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009)
JF