Hob Nob Anyone?

So he's a convicted rapist, and any player who has those 5 words as the first you'd use to describe him you'd notmally want to stay well clear of.

But reading the case notes, he's hardly the 'jump out of a bush in a raincoat in the middle of the night' case.

Plus, 35 goals in 42 games for Sheff Utd in his last season. Prolific.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans

Wow, its a very grey area!

No thank you. Will be lucky to get a league 2 spot after being out of the game for 5 years.

Also slightly worried about the fact that someone with Fred West as their pic could be an advocate of employing a rapist!

Not a grey area, IMO.

He commits a crime, goes to prison, pays his debt to society, should be given a chance to work again.


The idea that his punishment should mean loss of livelihood is just plain wrong.

You might decide that 5 (2.5) years is "not enough" but that was the law as it stood at the time, and he's done his time.

Snowball wrote:Not a grey area, IMO.

He commits a crime, goes to prison, pays his debt to society, should be given a chance to work again.


The idea that his punishment should mean loss of livelihood is just plain wrong.

You might decide that 5 (2.5) years is "not enough" but that was the law as it stood at the time, and he's done his time.

I think what needs to be thought about is the crime in question. It's all very well saying he's served his time and deserves to be able to ply his trade, but if your boss employed a convicted rapist to work in your department at work, how would you feel?

Rapists and paedophiles have no place in society as far as I'm concerned.

Tilehurstsouthbank wrote:

Snowball wrote:Not a grey area, IMO.

He commits a crime, goes to prison, pays his debt to society, should be given a chance to work again.


The idea that his punishment should mean loss of livelihood is just plain wrong.

You might decide that 5 (2.5) years is "not enough" but that was the law as it stood at the time, and he's done his time.

I think what needs to be thought about is the crime in question. It's all very well saying he's served his time and deserves to be able to ply his trade, but if your boss employed a convicted rapist to work in your department at work, how would you feel?

Rapists and paedophiles have no place in society as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah but it's all a bit blanket condemnation isn't it - I mean someone convicted as a paedo for doing it with a 15 year old, is not the same as someone molesting a 5 year old in my book; equally what Ched was convicted of is not in the same category for me as someone assaulting a stranger in the park ... although I admit it's a grey area and should not be belittled either.

As much as I love a game of "who's rape is worst" the fact is he is a convicted rapist. He went to prison and if he is rehabilitated then I think he should be able to work again however I think he and a lot of people don't actually think he did anything wrong. Victim blaming is rife in this society.

I certainly would feel very very uncomfortable cheering this guy on, hoping he scores etc. before we start thinking about poor old Ched Evans and his career prospects I would spare a thought for his victim and how she might feel seeing this rapist back in the public eye being cheered on by thousands of fans.

Super Kevin Bremner! wrote:So he's a convicted rapist, and any player who has those 5 words as the first you'd use to describe him you'd notmally want to stay well clear of.

But reading the case notes, he's hardly the 'jump out of a bush in a raincoat in the middle of the night' case.

Plus, 35 goals in 42 games for Sheff Utd in his last season. Prolific.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans

That's like saying a murderor who knew their victim well isn't a psycho stabbist. And the vast majority of rapists arn't jump from the bushes types. Rape is still rape.

given we're open about how we look for the right personality as much as talent I'd hope and expect we wouldn't touch this guy with a barge pole.

He certainly has a right to be rehabilitated and work. But high profile jobs which involve an aspect of role models should be out until he can prove he's utterly reformed.

there are plenty of jobs you can't get with a criminal record, let alone as a sex offender.

Snowball wrote:Not a grey area, IMO.

He commits a crime, goes to prison, pays his debt to society, should be given a chance to work again.


The idea that his punishment should mean loss of livelihood is just plain wrong.

You might decide that 5 (2.5) years is "not enough" but that was the law as it stood at the time, and he's done his time.

And that is the bottom line.
However, if he were to come back, there is no doubt he would be given a hard time.

Not the sort of character we want tbh. I think he'll probably re-sign for Sheffield United.

Super Kevin Bremner! wrote: Plus, 35 goals in 42 games for Sheff Utd in his last season. Prolific.

24 in 125 career games if you take those out. 59 in 167 otherwise. Three years without practice. He might only hit 1 in 4 in League 1.

We have Pogrebnyak and Murray, Cox as back up and Cardwell waiting to break through. We play with one striker. We don't need to consider him.

Snowball wrote:Not a grey area, IMO.

He commits a crime, goes to prison, pays his debt to society, should be given a chance to work again.


The idea that his punishment should mean loss of livelihood is just plain wrong.

You might decide that 5 (2.5) years is "not enough" but that was the law as it stood at the time, and he's done his time.

Sorry, I meant that the law here is a grey area.

For those that aren't sure, a rape is the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, by a male penis (or other object) without the consent of the other party involved. It doesn't matter if you jump out of bushes and pin someone down, or if you take advantage of the fact that someone is not in a capable position to offer consent. There is no 'grey area'. You either have consent or you don't. The psychological damage is the same. A rape is a rape.

Not really sure why someone can feel this is a 'grey area' if the facts are laid out as stated. It is up to the jury to decide whether the thought of consent was reasonable, in this case they seem to have decided that the evidence meant that McDonald could reasonably believe he had consent from the young lady (hence the not guilty verdict) while they believed that Evans did not. I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not. Certainly on the outside looking in, the decision seemed a bit strange, however, I am not really sure how you could say a girl you just picked up agreeing to your mate watching you have sex is an agreement for him to join in. The jury sat through all of the case, and heard all the evidence, then presumably thrashed it around in their deliberations before coming to a verdict.

How would people feel if he'd just pillaged?

Pepe the Horseman wrote:How would people feel if he'd just pillaged?

They would probably think you weren't taking this seriously and wouldn't bother rising to the bait.

chedwynn
lol

M Brook wrote:

Pepe the Horseman wrote:How would people feel if he'd just pillaged?

They would probably think you weren't taking this seriously and wouldn't bother rising to the bait.

It would be the biggest mistake they've ever made.

Elm Park Pasty wrote:For those that aren't sure, a rape is the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, by a male penis (or other object) without the consent of the other party involved. It doesn't matter if you jump out of bushes and pin someone down, or if you take advantage of the fact that someone is not in a capable position to offer consent. There is no 'grey area'. You either have consent or you don't. The psychological damage is the same. A rape is a rape.

Not really sure why someone can feel this is a 'grey area' if the facts are laid out as stated. It is up to the jury to decide whether the thought of consent was reasonable, in this case they seem to have decided that the evidence meant that McDonald could reasonably believe he had consent from the young lady (hence the not guilty verdict) while they believed that Evans did not. I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not. Certainly on the outside looking in, the decision seemed a bit strange, however, I am not really sure how you could say a girl you just picked up agreeing to your mate watching you have sex is an agreement for him to join in. The jury sat through all of the case, and heard all the evidence, then presumably thrashed it around in their deliberations before coming to a verdict.

Not sure it's right to say that the psychological damages is the same .... being assaulted in public and fearing for my life I'd say would result in more psychological damage to most people, than having sex with someone when blind-drunk .... (and not even being able to remember that it happened - in this case, it only came out that CE had had sex with the girl based on his own admission I think).

Royalwaster wrote:

Elm Park Pasty wrote:For those that aren't sure, a rape is the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, by a male penis (or other object) without the consent of the other party involved. It doesn't matter if you jump out of bushes and pin someone down, or if you take advantage of the fact that someone is not in a capable position to offer consent. There is no 'grey area'. You either have consent or you don't. The psychological damage is the same. A rape is a rape.

Not really sure why someone can feel this is a 'grey area' if the facts are laid out as stated. It is up to the jury to decide whether the thought of consent was reasonable, in this case they seem to have decided that the evidence meant that McDonald could reasonably believe he had consent from the young lady (hence the not guilty verdict) while they believed that Evans did not. I have no idea if Evans is guilty or not. Certainly on the outside looking in, the decision seemed a bit strange, however, I am not really sure how you could say a girl you just picked up agreeing to your mate watching you have sex is an agreement for him to join in. The jury sat through all of the case, and heard all the evidence, then presumably thrashed it around in their deliberations before coming to a verdict.

Not sure it's right to say that the psychological damages is the same .... being assaulted in public and fearing for my life I'd say would result in more psychological damage to most people, than having sex with someone when blind-drunk .... (and not even being able to remember that it happened - in this case, it only came out that CE had had sex with the girl based on his own admission I think).

"having sex"

erm she was raped...you have completely missed the point

I'm not sure a man is particularly well placed to talk about what psychological damage a woman would suffer under different types of rape.

For the people I've known who've been raped, it was things like feeling dirty, ashamed or like they'd be judged at fault by society that did more damage than any violence or force that was involved. Whether it's violent, with the threat of violence, forceful or taking advantage of incapacity it's the same issue of having had your freewill overridden and been abused that causes the damage, and difficulties in coping with social interactions afterwards.

To be honest my inclination is its actually worse if it's not some sort of crazed loony pulling them into the bushes, because it's pretty hard for anyone to say that's your fault. Although there would probably be similar psychological problems to any violent crime with that. Whereas getting raped by a partner, or someone you've been drinking with is far easier for outsiders to look at you as a liar or having been "asking for it".

Professional footballers are a bit different from 'the ordinary man in the street' and they get extremely well rewarded for the 'burden' of being treated differently.

They have very high public profiles and are seen by many, particularly youngsters, as role models. So Mr Evans, through his conduct and apparent lack of public remorse despite being found guilty, has IMO forfeited his right to return to his highly paid profession. However, having done his time he is perfectly entitled to take up an ordinary job elsewhere out of the public limelight.