Corky Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 It's time for clubs to wait until the case review has closed now, this is still an extremely emotive issue and with threats being bandied about all over the place is it really worth the hassle? If families are being threatened then that is absolutely disgusting, you've slid from your moral high ground right into the gutter you believe Evans is from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 DB11's final comment is so far away from the point Wookie was making that he may as well be talking another language. Why does it need to be another term? The nature and circumstances of it are what affect the punishment and sentencing guidelines already exist to take into account mitigating and aggravating factors, of which using violence would be an aggravating factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovejoy Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 I wasn't aware the law stated you couldn't continue in your trade having served your sentence? If he shouldn't be playing, he should have done more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So let me get this right. People are complaining about a rapist by making death threats to board members and their families. What the actual fvck Someone threatened to rape an Oldham board members daughter if Evans was signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlaneyLCFC Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 politicians? really?! errr........yes really. Putting more pressure on the Oldham's decision along with the General public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 its a sad state of affairs when they sponsors are picking the players on the pitch. a guy on 5live who sponsors oldham said this (web based solutions or something) he said it wasn't his decision, as a sponsor, who plays for the club. rightly so in my eyes. That guy may have his screws on tight, but even if it's a sad state of affairs, is it a surprising one? We're talking about a club whose home stadium is something now called "SportsDirect.com Park," and wear kits which feature SportsDirect.com's logo more prominently than any other, including their own. They compete in competitions called "SkyBet League One," the "Capital One Cup," and the "Johnstone's Paint Trophy," whatever they are. Sponsors may not go as far as picking the lineups, but their money comes with clout.On the other hand, I don't think anyone would complain if FIFA's corruption and subsequent consumer pressure forced FIFA's sponsors to threaten to withhold their money unless the organization made several reforms, so this can work in more than one way. Did you actually read what was written?That there was "enormous pressure from sponsors" against the move? What do you think is the most credible threat out of all the ones mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Oldham have said no to Ched Evans. He's signed anyway after taking it as a yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndWhat? Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Somebody has threatened to rape a staff members family member at Oldham if they sign him lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 He's apologised for the effects his actions have had on other people - but not for his actions obviously maintaining the fact he believes he's innocent and shouldn't be coined with the term 'rapist'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 After learning he will not be signing for Oldham, Ched Evans has issued an apology via the PFA… “I’m grateful for the support of the Professional Footballers Association in helping me return to football and in helping me continue my career. “Upon legal advice I was advised not to discuss the events in question. This silence has misinterpreted as arrogance. I would like to state that this could not be further from the truth. “I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral for the CCRC, and while I continue to maintain my innocence I wish to make it clear I wholeheartedly apologise for the affects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned. “Finally it’s been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Should have made that statement when he got out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So Marlon King sexual assaulted a women, Lee Hughs caused death by dangerous driving and Luke McCormick kills 2 children by drink driving. How come none of these were treated the same as Ched Evans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So Marlon King sexual assaulted a women, Lee Hughs caused death by dangerous driving and Luke McCormick kills 2 children by drink driving. How come none of these were treated the same as Ched Evans? Because they all happened before things like Twitter could gather together thousands of people to get outraged and sign an online petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 He's apologised for the effects his actions have had on other people - but not for his actions obviously maintaining the fact he believes he's innocent and shouldn't be coined with the term 'rapist'. Well it'd be silly for him to apologise for his actions because that'd pretty much be an admission of guilt which wouldn't be too good for his appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Oldham have said no to Ched Evans. He's signed anyway after taking it as a yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 "But Your Honour, I only raped her a little bit so it's not that bad really" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 A quick read from this week's Spectator. A new name to help us welcome in the new year: Jean Hatchet. A name which is almost certainly too good to be true for a perpetually infuriated radical feminist — much as, say, Roz Termagant or Betty Hitler would be. It is a pseudonym, apparently. Ms Hatchet — I assume that is the title she would prefer, although Mx is catching on quite quickly — is the woman behind the petitions to prevent the footballer and convicted rapist Ched Evans from earning a living from his trade. The first petition was got up when Evans began training with his former club, Sheffield United — who quickly washed their hands of him as a consequence of the publicity. There was a sort of furore. The actual number of people who felt so angry that Evans should be allowed to work for a living at his chosen profession were very small indeed — Hatchet’s latest petition contains just 30,000 signatures, a mere microdot in today’s world of click-democracy. But the issue had become politicised and the subtext now read: if you are in favour of Ched Evans playing professional football again, then you are in favour of rape. To argue that he has served the required amount of his sentence is also to be in favour of rape, and in favour of rapists and in favour of sexual violence per se. And so this laughable, stupid and fatuous premise has terrified the politicians, who have now, of course, become involved. None of them dare suggest that one of the purposes of prison is to rehabilitate and that the best possible outcome for a former prisoner is that he should go straight into a job (rather than on to benefits). One of the ironies is that the people who have signed these various petitions are more usually lenient on the issue of criminal justice — unless it is a crime to which they particularly object. Burglary, armed robbery, manslaughter, drug dealing etc. — they’re OK. Crimes against women and any racist stuff — nope, no rehabilitation, you’re scum and that’s that. Oh, and homophobia. Scum he may well be. Don’t know the bloke. Once Sheffield United had ditched him, most other league clubs ran a mile. Hartlepool, rooted eight points adrift at the very bottom of the bottom division, showed a vague interest and then swiftly bailed. Then Oldham Athletic fancied taking him on — and they have form when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders. Oldham employed another striker, Lee Hughes, when he had been released from prison for killing someone as a consequence of dangerous driving — there was, of course, no petition designed to prevent them. Nor have there been petitions against the multitude of other ex-offenders plying their trade in the football league. Just Ched Evans. The arguments against Evans playing football again are so vacuous as to be beyond parody; it is a froth of fashionable PC outrage, and odious in its implications. First, it is alleged that in playing football, rather than being a plumber or a taxidermist, Evans is in a position of ‘influence’. Really? Playing football for a third-rate team in front of 5,000 supporters? The objectors insist that he can carry on playing football — just not for a team anyone has heard of, which is sort of mad. They also say he can get a job — but not the one he wants to do and is qualified to do. Is it possible to be more utterly ludicrous and petty? Next, they insist that he did not serve his full sentence and is therefore on licence, rather than properly at liberty. Well yes, but that applies to almost everyone released from prison. Are we to say that none of them should work? Or work only where Jean Hatchet and a bunch of moronic columnists decide is suitable? Where do you think he should clock in, Jean and friends? Why not drop him a line and explain what work you think is suitable for someone who has recently come out of prison. And then do the same thing to the other few hundred thousand people in a similar situation: you decide where they can work and how much they can earn. Then there is the allegation that he has shown no remorse; he has not said sorry to his victim. I am not aware of this stipulation being raised in any other case. The reason he has not apologised is that he does not think that he is guilty, and his lawyers have lodged an appeal with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so he would be ill advised to say sorry. In a civilised country you would expect people to be delighted that he was now about to be offered full-time, remunerative work after leaving prison. One air-headed columnist suggested that even though he had served his sentence, the woman he raped would have to live with his crime her entire life and, therefore, so should he. Ergo, he should not be allowed to play professional football. But what of the victims of muggers, killers, robbers, burglars? Do they not continue to suffer? Should we stop all criminals working on account of the legacy of misery and trauma they have left behind? I can see a case for saying ‘Yes we should!’ I don’t agree with it, but I can see the case. But I can’t see the case for saying: no, only Ched Evans. Just him. The truth is that his case is the perfect example of the moronic inferno, the howl round of witlessness and politically motivated confected outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 I thought the 'hasn't served his sentence as he's still on license' argument is pretty much destroyed there. If you believe in that then you never think a person given a life sentence should ever be able to have a job when released no matter how young or old as they are on license until the day they die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 There's sort of two issues, the fact he might not be guilty and the fact that if he was completely guilty would it be right for him to play football again? I've not read anything to make me think he should have been found guilty although his actions put his character into question. If I genuinely thought he was a rapist, I don't think I would want him at the club. I didn't want us to sign Marlon King, I'm glad we no longer have Joe Mattock. However, I don't really like the idea of anonymous militant feminists and risk averse morally ambiguous corporate sponsors deciding who a club should sign. Drink driving is a tricky one. Our Wes had an incident where there was a suspicion of alcohol involved. But nobody was killed. Therefore, as with many driving offences, the punishment and stigma often follows the consequences of drink driving rather than the act itself. I don't really like that attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerrrFox Posted 8 January 2015 Author Share Posted 8 January 2015 Scared that he's not gonna get a new contract so coming out with an apology without admitting guilt. Bit late Ched. Should have done that in the first place. Now it just looks insincere and money motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny the fox Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Is Gordon Taylor the most boring mother fooker on this planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Cher Evans has his own website. Nuff said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacamion Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Gordon Taylor will be fine. The Scousers are known everywhere as a forgiving bunch who are rarely unnecessarily offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKCJ Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 How to piss off Scousers for no reason. By Gordon Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Gordon Taylor will be fine. The Scousers are known everywhere as a forgiving bunch who are rarely unnecessarily offended. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.