Ched Evans - should he play football again?

I don't think a convicted rapist experiencing difficulty in finding employment after release is a worrying precedent. You shouldn't just be able to pick up where you left off after release. Risk to future employment is a crime deterrent.

There are lots of jobs you couldn't return to after such a crime. I'm an accountant-if was convicted of rape I'd lose my ICAEW membership and therefore my chartered status and wouldn't be able to get a job like I have now.

[iup=3651504]Tomous[/iup] wrote:I don't think a convicted rapist experiencing difficulty in finding employment after release is a worrying precedent. You shouldn't just be able to pick up where you left off after release. Risk to future employment is a crime deterrent.

There are lots of jobs you couldn't return to after such a crime. I'm an accountant-if was convicted of rape I'd lose my ICAEW membership and therefore my chartered status and wouldn't be able to get a job like I have now.

Yes, but Evans is a footballer he hasn't lost any legal right/accreditation to be a footballer...if there was legislation that said that a convicted footballer couldn't be a footballer I would agree but there isn't. The main issue people seem to have with Evans returning to football is that footballers are somehow seen as some sort of role models for kids today. I don't really buy this anymore...any 10 second google will return pictures/videos of footballers in porn videos or posing with guns and bundles of money, those days are gone I'm afraid and football is a business and footballers are but a commodity traded between business entities. I remember when Luke McCormick was released from prison and Plymouth resigned him, there was some initial uproar but this soon disappeared and I believe he is actually the club captain now. During his court case McCormick stated zero remorse for his actions. Like it or loathe it McCormick returned to his trade as he was legally entitled to do...I see no logical reason under the current law why Evans cannot do the same.

There is no legal block to him to joining a football club though. Teams just don't want to associate with him because they'll lose sponsorship money.

Regardless, in my opinion there should be a code of ethics you have to abide to as a footballer. They are paid huge amounts of money and given their public image as role models (which they absolutely are to children), they should be required to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Greg Dyke has said they are looking into this now.

[iup=3651515]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651504]Tomous[/iup] wrote:I don't think a convicted rapist experiencing difficulty in finding employment after release is a worrying precedent. You shouldn't just be able to pick up where you left off after release. Risk to future employment is a crime deterrent.

There are lots of jobs you couldn't return to after such a crime. I'm an accountant-if was convicted of rape I'd lose my ICAEW membership and therefore my chartered status and wouldn't be able to get a job like I have now.

The main issue people seem to have with Evans returning to football is that footballers are somehow seen as some sort of role models for kids today. I don't really buy this anymore...any 10 second google will return pictures/videos of footballers in porn videos or posing with guns and bundles of money, those days are gone I'm afraid and football is a business and footballers are but a commodity traded between business entities.

I agree with this.

When I was growing up David Beckham was my absolute hero, I just loved the man. My admiration for him began and ended with what he did on the football field, and had zero to do with what he did outside of that. I think the suggestion children model themselves on every aspect of a footballers life is a inaccurate.

In saying all that my major issue with Evans, and why I still think he probably shouldn't be allowed back is because of his lack of remorse. His sentencing/the system may well be out of his control, but his lack of remorse certainly isn't.

[iup=3651525]Tomous[/iup] wrote:Regardless, in my opinion there should be a code of ethics you have to abide to as a footballer. They are paid huge amounts of money and given their public image as role models (which they absolutely are to children), they should be required to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Surely "don't rape anyone" should be in the code of ethics of everyone, regardless of profession?

[iup=3651525]Tomous[/iup] wrote:There is no legal block to him to joining a football club though. Teams just don't want to associate with him because they'll lose sponsorship money.

Regardless, in my opinion there should be a code of ethics you have to abide to as a footballer. They are paid huge amounts of money and given their public image as role models (which they absolutely are to children), they should be required to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Greg Dyke has said they are looking into this now.

Regarding the sponsorship deals, I can't help but feel that especially in the oldham case it gave the sponsors more publicity saying they would retract their deals if Evans was offered a deal than actually sponsoring the clubs shirts/stand anyway.

Regarding the code of ethics thing I do agree. If there was a code that stated a convicted criminal couldn't be a footballer then it would solve all the current issues. The only issue is if there should be some crimes that would be acceptable etc etc it could well open up a can of worms but it most certainly is a debate that needs to happen. Of course, this shouldn't just apply to football as there are many occupations that could be seen to be unacceptable for a convicted criminal to partake in so I wonder where the buck would stop. I actually also wonder where this would fit in under the rehabilitation of offenders act and any possible European legislation.

As Tomous has said, a rapist (in fact most offenders) will struggle to get a job after leaving prison. Most jobs will check your criminal background and will refuse to employ people who have criminal convictions. When it comes to job opportunities Ched Evans is not being picked on any more than any other offender.

Ched Evans has also not fulfilled his sentence yet. He served half of it in prison and is currently out on license. This imposes quite a few restrictions on what he is and isn't allowed to do. For instance, he is not able to join a foreign football team as he is not allowed to work abroad and this would have an impact on a British club that might want to play matches abroad. ( http://news.sky.com/story/1401597/rapis ... ing-abroad http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30699017 ).

As a convicted sex offender, there are a number of careers and jobs that he is barred from. He cannot teach or work with children, which would be an issue to any club as he would not be allowed near the youth side, the mascots etc etc.

So while he has not been banned from playing football, there are a lot of reasons why a club would not want to take him on and they would be perfectly legally and morally justified in refusing him employment. Fans are also well within their rights to demonstrate and complain if their club is thinking of signing somebody like Evans. Sponsors (and let's face it in football it is the money that talks!) are within their rights to pull out of paying money to a football club if they think it will harm their image.

I have said before that Evans shouldn't be banned from playing football, but I would not want him near my club and don't blame any club for not wanting to employ him. Having the right to be employed doesn't mean anybody has to employ you.

[iup=3651531]Nathanbrains[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651515]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651504]Tomous[/iup] wrote:I don't think a convicted rapist experiencing difficulty in finding employment after release is a worrying precedent. You shouldn't just be able to pick up where you left off after release. Risk to future employment is a crime deterrent.

There are lots of jobs you couldn't return to after such a crime. I'm an accountant-if was convicted of rape I'd lose my ICAEW membership and therefore my chartered status and wouldn't be able to get a job like I have now.

The main issue people seem to have with Evans returning to football is that footballers are somehow seen as some sort of role models for kids today. I don't really buy this anymore...any 10 second google will return pictures/videos of footballers in porn videos or posing with guns and bundles of money, those days are gone I'm afraid and football is a business and footballers are but a commodity traded between business entities.

I agree with this.

When I was growing up David Beckham was my absolute hero, I just loved the man. My admiration for him began and ended with what he did on the football field, and had zero to do with what he did outside of that. I think the suggestion children model themselves on every aspect of a footballers life is a inaccurate.

In saying all that my major issue with Evans, and why I still think he probably shouldn't be allowed back is because of his lack of remorse. His sentencing/the system may well be out of his control, but his lack of remorse certainly isn't.

[iup=3651525]Tomous[/iup] wrote:Regardless, in my opinion there should be a code of ethics you have to abide to as a footballer. They are paid huge amounts of money and given their public image as role models (which they absolutely are to children), they should be required to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Surely "don't rape anyone" should be in the code of ethics of everyone, regardless of profession?

I don't see why people don't get this. Yes, he was committed for the crime but and its a big but he claims he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and is appealing accordingly. If he shows remorse or offers an apology this would suggest he has done something that warrants said apology and this therefore would totally discredit his defence.

On a pragmatic level I think Evans best plan of attack on his release would have been to stay out of the public eye until his appeal was heard and then attempt to return to his employment then. Whilst he has every legal right to play professional football now he has either been badly advised or naive beyond belief to think this was going to be a straightforward affair. I think that the most likely way this ends if his appeal is unsuccessful is that once he comes off licence he ends up playing football abroad for a period of time. If his appeal is successful then that will be very interesting indeed.

[iup=3651537]Moggy[/iup] wrote:As Tomous has said, a rapist (in fact most offenders) will struggle to get a job after leaving prison. Most jobs will check your criminal background and will refuse to employ people who have criminal convictions. When it comes to job opportunities Ched Evans is not being picked on any more than any other offender.

Ched Evans has also not fulfilled his sentence yet. He served half of it in prison and is currently out on license. This imposes quite a few restrictions on what he is and isn't allowed to do. For instance, he is not able to join a foreign football team as he is not allowed to work abroad and this would have an impact on a British club that might want to play matches abroad. ( http://news.sky.com/story/1401597/rapis ... ing-abroad http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30699017 ).

As a convicted sex offender, there are a number of careers and jobs that he is barred from. He cannot teach or work with children, which would be an issue to any club as he would not be allowed near the youth side, the mascots etc etc.

So while he has not been banned from playing football, there are a lot of reasons why a club would not want to take him on and they would be perfectly legally and morally justified in refusing him employment. Fans are also well within their rights to demonstrate and complain if their club is thinking of signing somebody like Evans. Sponsors (and let's face it in football it is the money that talks!) are within their rights to pull out of paying money to a football club if they think it will harm their image.

I have said before that Evans shouldn't be banned from playing football, but I would not want him near my club and don't blame any club for not wanting to employ him. Having the right to be employed doesn't mean anybody has to employ you.

Total rubbish I'm afraid.

Do you think that Joe Bloggs who goes for a job with a local supermarket has millions of people baying for his head on social media and the ethics of the rights and wrongs of his employment discussed on BBC Question Time? It is clear that Evans would be playing professional football today if he was being treated the same as any other ex offender wishing to return to employment.

[iup=3651544]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651537]Moggy[/iup] wrote: When it comes to job opportunities Ched Evans is not being picked on any more than any other offender.

Total rubbish I'm afraid.

Do you think that Joe Bloggs who goes for a job with a local supermarket has millions of people baying for his head on social media and the ethics of the rights and wrongs of his employment discussed on BBC Question Time? It is clear that Evans would be playing professional football today if he was being treated the same as any other ex offender wishing to return to employment.

You think convicted rapists just walk out of prison and get jobs?

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/inf ... -75791.doc

And that's just for general prison discharges, sex offenders will struggle even more than most to find jobs.

[iup=3651548]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651544]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651537]Moggy[/iup] wrote: When it comes to job opportunities Ched Evans is not being picked on any more than any other offender.

Total rubbish I'm afraid.

Do you think that Joe Bloggs who goes for a job with a local supermarket has millions of people baying for his head on social media and the ethics of the rights and wrongs of his employment discussed on BBC Question Time? It is clear that Evans would be playing professional football today if he was being treated the same as any other ex offender wishing to return to employment.

You think convicted rapists just walk out of prison and get jobs?

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/inf ... -75791.doc

And that's just for general prison discharges, sex offenders will struggle even more than most to find jobs.

I think where we differ here is that my bone of contention resides in the reason why Evans is not securing the work he wants. I refer you back to my first post in this thread and that it is the job of the State and its legislation to decide this rather than social media and very often uninformed public opinion. I agree wholehearted with the emotional sentiment that many express that it seems totally wrong for a convicted rapist to walk back into a lucrative career but from a logical and legal standpoint I just see no reason why he shouldn't. It is the law that needs changing really but as I alluded to earlier this then opens up a complicated dialogue indeed.

[iup=3651555]easesprings[/iup] wrote:
I think where we differ here is that my bone of contention resides in the reason why Evans is not securing the work he wants. I refer you back to my first post in this thread and that it is the job of the State and its legislation to decide this rather than social media and very often uninformed public opinion. I agree wholehearted with the emotional sentiment that many express that it seems totally wrong for a convicted rapist to walk back into a lucrative career but from a logical and legal standpoint I just see no reason why he shouldn't. It is the law that needs changing really but as I alluded to earlier this then opens up a complicated dialogue indeed.

I do understand what you are saying but I don't think it is wrong for people to comment on social media (or forums like this!) or for supporters of a club to have their say on who their club employs. Football fans always have their say on social media about potential and current signings and are very often less than complimentary about them, even if they are squeaky clean!

When it comes to a convicted rapist, there are legal restrictions that would make it difficult for a football club, even without all of the media attention. He will not be able to attend the pre-season tour abroad or he can't help out with the youth side. A club might decide that the player is good enough that they don't care about those things, but they will always have to answer to their fans and their sponsors.

You are right that this needs to be looked at by higher powers. I don't think that it needs government legislation, but the FA should set out some guidelines/rules that clubs and footballers can follow in cases like this.

[iup=3651559]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651555]easesprings[/iup] wrote:
I think where we differ here is that my bone of contention resides in the reason why Evans is not securing the work he wants. I refer you back to my first post in this thread and that it is the job of the State and its legislation to decide this rather than social media and very often uninformed public opinion. I agree wholehearted with the emotional sentiment that many express that it seems totally wrong for a convicted rapist to walk back into a lucrative career but from a logical and legal standpoint I just see no reason why he shouldn't. It is the law that needs changing really but as I alluded to earlier this then opens up a complicated dialogue indeed.

I do understand what you are saying but I don't think it is wrong for people to comment on social media (or forums like this!) or for supporters of a club to have their say on who their club employs. Football fans always have their say on social media about potential and current signings and are very often less than complimentary about them, even if they are squeaky clean!

When it comes to a convicted rapist, there are legal restrictions that would make it difficult for a football club, even without all of the media attention. He will not be able to attend the pre-season tour abroad or he can't help out with the youth side. A club might decide that the player is good enough that they don't care about those things, but they will always have to answer to their fans and their sponsors.

You are right that this needs to be looked at by higher powers. I don't think that it needs government legislation, but the FA should set out some guidelines/rules that clubs and footballers can follow in cases like this.

Agreed but do wonder how this would stand up to a rigorous challenge under rehabilitation of offenders act etc...think this also has repercussions outside football.

[iup=3651574]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651559]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651555]easesprings[/iup] wrote:
I think where we differ here is that my bone of contention resides in the reason why Evans is not securing the work he wants. I refer you back to my first post in this thread and that it is the job of the State and its legislation to decide this rather than social media and very often uninformed public opinion. I agree wholehearted with the emotional sentiment that many express that it seems totally wrong for a convicted rapist to walk back into a lucrative career but from a logical and legal standpoint I just see no reason why he shouldn't. It is the law that needs changing really but as I alluded to earlier this then opens up a complicated dialogue indeed.

I do understand what you are saying but I don't think it is wrong for people to comment on social media (or forums like this!) or for supporters of a club to have their say on who their club employs. Football fans always have their say on social media about potential and current signings and are very often less than complimentary about them, even if they are squeaky clean!

When it comes to a convicted rapist, there are legal restrictions that would make it difficult for a football club, even without all of the media attention. He will not be able to attend the pre-season tour abroad or he can't help out with the youth side. A club might decide that the player is good enough that they don't care about those things, but they will always have to answer to their fans and their sponsors.

You are right that this needs to be looked at by higher powers. I don't think that it needs government legislation, but the FA should set out some guidelines/rules that clubs and footballers can follow in cases like this.

Agreed but do wonder how this would stand up to a rigorous challenge under rehabilitation of offenders act etc...think this also has repercussions outside football.

It would have no effect to Ched Evans. The RoO act only counts for convictions of less than 4 years. Evans was sentenced to 5 years and so his conviction will never be spent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16857388

In addition, certain professions such as doctors, accountants, bus drivers are not allowed to withhold details of convictions and the law also allows the FA/football league to obtain details to assess if somebody is suitable as a football steward ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilita ... s_Act_1974 ).

[iup=3651574]easesprings[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651559]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651555]easesprings[/iup] wrote:
I think where we differ here is that my bone of contention resides in the reason why Evans is not securing the work he wants. I refer you back to my first post in this thread and that it is the job of the State and its legislation to decide this rather than social media and very often uninformed public opinion. I agree wholehearted with the emotional sentiment that many express that it seems totally wrong for a convicted rapist to walk back into a lucrative career but from a logical and legal standpoint I just see no reason why he shouldn't. It is the law that needs changing really but as I alluded to earlier this then opens up a complicated dialogue indeed.

I do understand what you are saying but I don't think it is wrong for people to comment on social media (or forums like this!) or for supporters of a club to have their say on who their club employs. Football fans always have their say on social media about potential and current signings and are very often less than complimentary about them, even if they are squeaky clean!

When it comes to a convicted rapist, there are legal restrictions that would make it difficult for a football club, even without all of the media attention. He will not be able to attend the pre-season tour abroad or he can't help out with the youth side. A club might decide that the player is good enough that they don't care about those things, but they will always have to answer to their fans and their sponsors.

You are right that this needs to be looked at by higher powers. I don't think that it needs government legislation, but the FA should set out some guidelines/rules that clubs and footballers can follow in cases like this.

Agreed but do wonder how this would stand up to a rigorous challenge under rehabilitation of offenders act etc...think this also has repercussions outside football.

Some really interesting points here guys. I get that it is frustrating that the weight of uninformed public opinion can sway actions -although I personally feel the general consensus on the fact he shouldn't play is correct.

That said, we can't and shouldn't stop people voicing their opinion. Evans can't force fans to want him at their club, nor can he force sponsors to feel comfortable with him playing just because he protests his innocence. Neither should he have the right to. There is a line though - those that made the threats that forced Oldham's hand have no right to force their agenda by doing so.

The decision to employ him should be - as Moggy says - the club's alone. If they feel they can deal with the fact that people will be unhappy - up to them. I am sure they will be aware of the consequences. Football is a game where fans vote with their feet/cash. Protesting his innocence or the relative fairness of it all won't change that. I strongly suspect that 'the market forces' - if that's the right phrase - will ultimately consign him to obscurity on the pitch eventually.

Couple of other thoughts - I very much doubt that Evans is naive about how 'easy' it would have been to come back. He will have some very well paid lawyers to point out that obvious fact if he doesn't realise it himself!

Second, all this talk of appeal is actually wrong. He was refused an automatic appeal as such a thing can only be granted if a) New evidence comes to light or b) the trial was deemed flawed (note that it is not flawed if a jury returns a surprise verdict). He is currently in the process of a case review, which is the process in which the trial is assessed for any flaws. The result of that may give him the right of appeal. Fair to say it's not a common occurrence for it to be successful though.

[iup=3651585]mrspax[/iup] wrote: There is a line though - those that made the threats that forced Oldham's hand have no right to force their agenda by doing so.

This is an important point and one I meant to make. Nobody should be threatening clubs, the employees of clubs or the families of people employed at the clubs with anything other than withholding their money/support from the club. Disgusting behaviour.

[iup=3651587]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651585]mrspax[/iup] wrote: Likewise, those that made the threats that forced Oldham's have no right to force the issue in doing that.

This is an important point and one I meant to make. Nobody should be threatening clubs, the employees of clubs or the families of people employed at the clubs with anything other than withholding their money/support from the club. Disgusting behaviour.

Thanks for quoting my crap sentence structure before I got a chance to edit it

[iup=3651589]mrspax[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651587]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651585]mrspax[/iup] wrote: Likewise, those that made the threats that forced Oldham's have no right to force the issue in doing that.

This is an important point and one I meant to make. Nobody should be threatening clubs, the employees of clubs or the families of people employed at the clubs with anything other than withholding their money/support from the club. Disgusting behaviour.

Thanks for quoting my crap sentence structure before I got a chance to edit it

Fixed.

[iup=3651592]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651589]mrspax[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651587]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3651585]mrspax[/iup] wrote: Likewise, those that made the threats that forced Oldham's have no right to force the issue in doing that.

This is an important point and one I meant to make. Nobody should be threatening clubs, the employees of clubs or the families of people employed at the clubs with anything other than withholding their money/support from the club. Disgusting behaviour.

Thanks for quoting my crap sentence structure before I got a chance to edit it

Fixed.

You are a gent, but sadly the damage is done with the subsequent quoting and my complete and utter laziness that prevents me from bothering to change it.

I am going to just have to deal with the consequences.

I'm a bit late to reply to the earlier point but having worked in schools for the past seventeen years and as the head teacher of a very large school I can say with some confidence that for many young boys footballers are definitely role models.

I don't think there needs to be any legal block on offenders returning to football. It's logical to block sex offenders working with children as that could pose a direct risk, but in Ched Evans case it's probably far safer that his job is on a football pitch watched by a few thousand people rather than at a local Tesco.