Ched Evans

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am glad we have been able to have a discussion, the reason I put it in the Leicester forum with a Leicester slant was because it would attract more participation.
 
I know I'm being emotive; it's how I respond to topics like this but I make no apologies for that. We have a society where those with power see rape in degrees and misogynists would believe that the only “proper” rape is one occurring to a female with threat of violence. It isn't.

This issue spans gender, age, class and personal choices. Crop tops, short skirts and abuse of alcohol of substances – none of it justifies forcing a member into a body that is unable to say no.
The implication by those seeking to justify Evans being allowed back into the sport is that the victim bears culpability because of what snippet they read in a sensationalised article somewhere, because Evans says he's innocent. He isn't. He is guilty in front of a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the appeal court.

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

Read the transcript: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

To seek to justify the behaviour or to believe he is a fit person to grace any football side is a grubby, distasteful and morally bankrupt perspective built on the patriarchy and misogyny fused into lad culture. Spurious apportioning of blame due to the perceived character of the victim is why so many fail to come forward to be heard.

Football lags behind society and this is why he has no part to play in the game. It’s playing catch-up with racism and has totally failed to address homophobia. A clear message needs to be sent out to players and anyone else thinking he is not guilty – or not totally guilty.

Evans has already been offered a position by his father-in-law to be, let him **** off and do that. Oldham aren't employing him in order to fight for the right to rehabilitate someone, they're doing it for a player on the heap and **** the morality.

There can be no rehabilitation when the convicted refuses to be contrite, he remains the same **** he was when he entered the hotel. And this is the whole point if you are clear on the facts of the case and not busy plucking finger hair from the keyboard.

And so the **** what if numbered among the 160,000 on a petition some of them don’t go to games or have little interest in football? Instantly their opinion is invalid? It must be nice to be able to discount things that cause a cognitive disconnect. If you aren’t reviled by the man, his PR managers, the despicable actions of his girlfriend and her website then you really aren’t paying attention.

He has no part to play in the game - it's a moral call. If you get it then you understand, if you don't then you're part of the reason why it should happen.
 
Macky said:
No, legally he hasn't
Click to expand...

OK that implies that someone on parole does not have the right to return to work - which, legally speaking, is not the case.
 
Mawsley said:
I know I'm being emotive; it's how I respond to topics like this but I make no apologies for that. We have a society where those with power see rape in degrees and misogynists would believe that the only “proper” rape is one occurring to a female with threat of violence. It isn't.

This issue spans gender, age, class and personal choices. Crop tops, short skirts and abuse of alcohol of substances – none of it justifies forcing a member into a body that is unable to say no.
The implication by those seeking to justify Evans being allowed back into the sport is that the victim bears culpability because of what snippet they read in a sensationalised article somewhere, because Evans says he's innocent. He isn't. He is guilty in front of a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the appeal court.

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

Read the transcript: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

To seek to justify the behaviour or to believe he is a fit person to grace any football side is a grubby, distasteful and morally bankrupt perspective built on the patriarchy and misogyny fused into lad culture. Spurious apportioning of blame due to the perceived character of the victim is why so many fail to come forward to be heard.

Football lags behind society and this is why he has no part to play in the game. It’s playing catch-up with racism and has totally failed to address homophobia. A clear message needs to be sent out to players and anyone else thinking he is not guilty – or not totally guilty.

Evans has already been offered a position by his father-in-law to be, let him **** off and do that. Oldham aren't employing him in order to fight for the right to rehabilitate someone, they're doing it for a player on the heap and **** the morality.

There can be no rehabilitation when the convicted refuses to be contrite, he remains the same **** he was when he entered the hotel. And this is the whole point if you are clear on the facts of the case and not busy plucking finger hair from the keyboard.

And so the **** what if numbered among the 160,000 on a petition some of them don’t go to games or have little interest in football? Instantly their opinion is invalid? It must be nice to be able to discount things that cause a cognitive disconnect. If you aren’t reviled by the man, his PR managers, the despicable actions of his girlfriend and her website then you really aren’t paying attention.

He has no part to play in the game - it's a moral call. If you get it then you understand, if you don't then you're part of the reason why it should happen.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
Nottingham Fox said:
Yeah of course it is Matt, but you seem to be quite keen to point out the fact that the jury found Ched guilty so therefore it definitely happened, he definitely raped her, but the same jury found the other man not guilty, but you think it's wrong and should have been found guilty. On that basis, Ched could conceivably be innocent?
Click to expand...

To be clear, the fact that he has been found guilty is why he shouldn't be able to return. Whether the verdict was right or wrong (we have to assume right until proven otherwise now), that is what we judge it on. For that reason I'd have less issue if his friend wanted to return to football (though of course he isn't a footballer) as he is innocent.

Evans could have accepted what he did was wrong even if he didn't accept it was rape. Also, what kind of ego would even want to return to a public industry where you know everyone hates you? You really couldn't pay me enough to put my family through the shit storm that will follow. But I don't think his family are top of his priorities.
 
Mawsley said:
To seek to justify the behaviour or to believe he is a fit person to grace any football side is a grubby, distasteful and morally bankrupt perspective built on the patriarchy and misogyny fused into lad culture. Spurious apportioning of blame due to the perceived character of the victim is why so many fail to come forward to be heard.

Football lags behind society and this is why he has no part to play in the game. It’s playing catch-up with racism and has totally failed to address homophobia. A clear message needs to be sent out to players and anyone else thinking he is not guilty – or not totally guilty.

Evans has already been offered a position by his father-in-law to be, let him **** off and do that. Oldham aren't employing him in order to fight for the right to rehabilitate someone, they're doing it for a player on the heap and **** the morality.

There can be no rehabilitation when the convicted refuses to be contrite, he remains the same **** he was when he entered the hotel. And this is the whole point if you are clear on the facts of the case and not busy plucking finger hair from the keyboard.

And so the **** what if numbered among the 160,000 on a petition some of them don’t go to games or have little interest in football? Instantly their opinion is invalid? It must be nice to be able to discount things that cause a cognitive disconnect. If you aren’t reviled by the man, his PR managers, the despicable actions of his girlfriend and her website then you really aren’t paying attention.

He has no part to play in the game - it's a moral call. If you get it then you understand, if you don't then you're part of the reason why it should happen.
Click to expand...

Great post - male dominated sports and pastimes in general lag behind broader society on these issues, as do academic institutions here in the US.
 
NYC Fox said:
OK that implies that someone on parole does not have the right to return to work - which, legally speaking, is not the case.
Click to expand...
I made no implication whatsoever. I was stating, as a matter of fact, he has not served his time.
 
Macky said:
I made no implication whatsoever. I was stating, as a matter of fact, he has not served his time.
Click to expand...

OK then, let's stick to the facts. Just the facts.

The point of my first post was the article I was referring to says

" Is it aspirational to want to live in a country where football – football! – is expected to mitigate the fact that the law is an ass? I know the longest journey starts with a single step, or whatever the puppy poster peeling off your dentist’s wall says, but the relentless focus on explaining why a footballer is not covered by the idea of paying his debt to society via the criminal justice system is both irrational and increasingly concerning.

A principle isn’t a principle until it is tested, so it is said. For a worrying amount of people, the belief that debts to society are paid via the corrections system seems to have found its limit in the case of Ched Evans, which makes one wonder just how muddled their philosophising has got. Or how important League One has become – do take your pick between these bizarre options."

Obviously pedantry is far more important than the spirit of meaning in any discussion, especially in a forum, so you're quite correct he hasn't served his time.
 
Last edited:
There's so much comment on how he hasn't admitted guilt
or apologised. Call me cynical in my old age but I can imagine there'd be just as much objection to him returning to football if he fessed up.
 
East Anglia Fox said:
Surely you understand how society works now. Rape gets much, much more attention than killing people because we're obsessed with rape anyway. You don't have to look very far on the internet to find somebody somewhere talking about "rape culture" and how many rapists supposedly don't get convicted, and how many men love raping. Cosmopolitan (online) have articles about it one way or another every week.

So rape is something society was already talking about when the Ched Evans thing happened. Now every football club that expresses an interest in signing him gets an online petition, from people who probably don't even follow football ordinarily, forcing them not to sign him.

What makes this such an emotionally-charged issue is who the victim is: women. It's not people, it's not men, it's women.

There are activists whose only purpose in life is to make women feel like they are victims and second-class citizens who are conspired against by "patriarchy" so the Ched Evans case to them is nothing short of a Godsend. They want society to keep talking about this for as long as possible. These are the kind of people who say all sex without the word "yes" is rape, which pretty much makes everyone a rapist -- male or female -- including me.
Click to expand...
I hope I never meet you in real life because you scare me
 
I blame the Vikings
 
Well this has all got a bit heated, but then again we are talking about rape. There were two points I was attempting to make and they are based on observing the world around me rather than having a preconceived hatred of certain groups or people. Those points are these:

1. Rape attracts more interest than killing, whether its murder or death by dangerous driving.
2. Whether you like it or not, there is a movement (probably mainly just on the internet, naturally) of people calling themselves feminists whose hatred of men is comparable to the Nazi Party's hatred of Jews or Islamic State's hatred of liberal democracy. These kinds of people don't want their struggle to end because they love their struggle. Whatever the reality may be they will carry on hating men, because that's their main purpose in life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1639
2Chelsea1735
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Bournemouth1728
6Aston Villa1728
7Manchester C  1727
8Newcastle1726
9Fulham1725
10Brighton1725
11Tottenham 1723
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1722
14West Ham1720
15Everton1616
16Palace1716
17Leicester1714
18Wolves1712
19Ipswich1712
20Southampton176

Latest posts

Back
Top