The mancityfans.net football forum

Been convicted and served his time at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Is all the hoo-ha justified? The situation is even being discussed at parliament level. Sponsors are threatening to pull out and fans are signing petitions in their tens of thousands.

Should a man have the right to return to a high profile profession like football after a rape conviction or has he burnt bridges and football should be closed to him? There are cases of footballers returning after jail terms,Tony Adams, Marlon King, Lee Hughes to name three, so is it right here is such an outcry over Evans?

Really tough one for me as one side thinks he has served his time and he should be allowed to get on with his life and the other thinks he shouldn't be allowed to play. After all one coudn't resume a teaching career after a rape conviction. Also there is the dressing room to consider. There may be guys in there who have had friends or family who have been raped and I doubt they would take kindly to a rapist being there. It will be a brave chairman and manager who takes him on.

All in all I think he should be allowed to return to football

This is really a tough one and I don't know where I stand on this issue at all. Just can't make my mind up either way.

Just one assorted thought though; some people who are thinking that Evans shouldn't be allowed back to play football, are saying that he is doing himself a great disservice by showing no contrition or remorse for his actions.

From Evan's perspective, he has always maintained he is innocent of the claims laid against him, so it might be understandable why he has not apologised and doesn't see the need to at this stage.

All in all, it might take the wisdom of Soloman to make a judgement on this one.

he should be keeping as low a profile as possible until his appeal (if he's granted one) has been heard

I'm for rehabilitation in most cases. It's in all our interests for ex-prisoner's to be productive members of society on their release. If we consider that the prison time was their punishment, then, once out, all we should really want is for them to get on with their lives and not to commit another crime.

This kind of case is an exception for me - a high profile 'entertainment' job, which pays huge amounts of money, is a real privilege, and frankly rape, murder, or a serious assault is enough to take away that privilege. I fully support his right to retrain, and hope that he gets support in finding another job, but not one where 30,000 people are chanting his name each week.

Nigels Tackle wrote:he should be keeping as low a profile as possible until his appeal (if he's granted one) has been heard

I agree and years later I'm not even sure he was guilty. Its such a fucked up case. Clearly he's an idiot tho. His current expectation to slide right back in without the drama that's unfolded shows that as well.

Cheers

Simple issue for me. He's served his time. He goes back to work. Don't buy all this all rape is the ultimate evil stuff. If what he did was so awful his sentence wouldn't have been so short. That;s not to say he isn't a complete twat, but life is full of them. How much he get's paid is irrelevant. IMo cant rewrite the rules of natural justice because of personal beliefs about which crimes are "worse" otherwise we'll have half the population saying you shouldn't be a footy player if you've ever mistreated an animal or conned an old lady out of her savings. Lee Hughes killed someone in his car while pissed as I recall. Not getting any invites to my dinner parties. Didn't A Morrison have a record for assault? How pleasant is that?Anyway, his employers will fudge it and everyone can be proud they're not rapists again.

For me, it is between him, his employers (or other prospective employers) and his parole officer. I have no view.

I wonder if the same liberal attitudes would be expressed if the convicted rapist was a doctor. an MP, a judge, a lawyer, a chat show host, a teacher, a journalist a TV celebrity, a Radio presenter, a preacher, a school caretaker, a senior council officer, a senior civil servant and many other jobs.

I don't think so.

In addition, whilst he is having his name chanted by Sheff U fans, his victim has had to move away and change her identity.

Where's CARL and his "Broken Britain" stuff when we need it?

Lev,

Under usual circumstances I would agree with your opinion. Those usual circumstances are that a person found guilty of a crime usually at some point acknowledges their guilt. In this case, Evans has, despite the evidence, verdict and the fact that he has already served his time, always maintained his innocence and publicised his wish to mount a legal appeal.

It may be the case that despite everything, Evans just may be an innocent man and actually telling the truth. Miscarriages of justice are quite commonplace.

If he was allowed to return, He has already served the punishment decided by the judge, who was society's arbiter on this matter. I do not believe he should then be subjected to a 2nd punishment to sate the vegeance of the crowd.

Regarding that list of jobs; many of those jobs bring the accused/guilty person into direct contact with vulnerable members of society, who we have a duty to protect. Beyond that, he has a human right to continue his life now as a free man.

don't think he was guilty in the firs place

Justice isn't enough these days, people want vengeance. I think we're around a couple of years away from a 'Running Man'/'Hunger Games' scenario.

halnone wrote:don't think he was guilty in the firs place

based on hearing all the evidence i presume?

Definitely should have waited for the outcome of his appeal
Ched was to thick to realise what he was doing was rape and still is by all accounts

Can't he change his name to Chad?

Which authority should be allowed to decide that he's no longer allowed to play football professionally?
He's done his time and should be able to go on with his life.

That said, if I were a sponsor of a club hiring him, I would not be happy, and would probably try to end the sponsorship contract.

mr_nool wrote:Which authority should be allowed to decide that he's no longer allowed to play football professionally?
He's done his time and should be able to go on with his life.

That said, if I were a sponsor of a club hiring him, I would not be happy, and would probably try to end the sponsorship contract.

It looks as though this is starting to happen now, as per this morning's news reports.

Such a weird case. I don't know how Ched Evans got found guilty but Clayton didn't. It doesn't make sense.

Anyway, my mate is a prison guard in Leyland and when we went on a stag do back in May this year he told me that Sheff Utd had re-signed Evans then. Evans has been training a lot in prison anyway and keeping fit. Our very own Joe Hart went to see him a lot. He said when Joe was there it seemed like they were good pals. He mentioned David Weir going to see him a few times as well.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

mr_nool wrote:Which authority should be allowed to decide that he's no longer allowed to play football professionally?
He's done his time and should be able to go on with his life.

That said, if I were a sponsor of a club hiring him, I would not be happy, and would probably try to end the sponsorship contract.

It looks as though this is starting to happen now, as per this morning's news reports.

Sponsors have a divine right to protect their brand and this could be interpreted as a significant change in the contractual agreement with the club. Such things could harm the company reputation and affect sales etc, so as far as the business side of things go, I can fully understand it.

As far as the patron woman, she has her views and is free to express them and vote with her feet as she has done, however, she does not have the right to tell everyone what they should be thinking and become the moral judge on what is right and wrong.

I personally think Lee Hughes case was worse, he was convicted of killing someone by dangerous driving and served about 4 years. I dont think he has ever publicly apologised either! Also he was charged with sexual assault in 2011... where was the lynch-mob there when he returned to pro footy?

john68 wrote:Regarding that list of jobs; many of those jobs bring the accused/guilty person into direct contact with vulnerable members of society, who we have a duty to protect. Beyond that, he has a human right to continue his life now as a free man.

Agreed. But (and playing Devil's Advocate here) doesn't being a professional footballer bring you regularly in contact with minors (under 18s breaking into the first team squad) as well as youth players and vulnerable people at community and charity events? Will any team signing him be required to provide proven safety measures to stop this happening?

Nigels Tackle wrote:

halnone wrote:don't think he was guilty in the firs place

based on hearing all the evidence i presume?

Well known that a Jury only hears 2/3rds of Amy case and the rest is political argument and brokering deals. Only people who will truly ever know what happened are this who were in that room. Yet when someone torally proclaims innocence and sticks with their version of events all along then it casts an element of doubt to both sides. Had he not been a footballer he most likely wouldn't have got in the situation anyway. With regards to rape the saying of rape Is rape bo matter what isn't quite clean cut. If he had aggressively pulled her down an alley the castrate the bloke. From what we know this wasn't the case. It's an odd one really all of this. I do think he will go on and his name will be cleared in which case he's free to do what he wishes bit if he doesn't clear his name then he shouldn't return to the pitch.