Cycling UK Forum

I agree on what most have said here, many want the law to be adapted for certain types of individuals only. It would seem killing someone (dangerous driving in this case) is a lesser crime than a rape, is that because there's a lack of intent maybe?

There is a lot of talk that the conviction is unsafe in the Ched Evans case. I for one have watched the video of the supposed 'drunk' young lady and it's an absolute nonsense. The CCTV in the hotel shows her In high heels, able to walk unaided to a taxi from the lobby, lean over into the cab remaining steady, pick up a pizza box, stand back upright again without any signs of a wobble and walk perfectly ably through the doors to join the friend of evans.
She even told Evans to perform oral sex on her BEFORE they had intercourse,hardly someone whom is too drunk to not remember anything or out of control!
That she subsequently then posted on Twitter about how she was going to coin it in which she then subsequently deleted just all looks more than a tad shady.
The tweets were unearthed on a French variant of Twitter by a US fireman of all people. http://chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets

IF he gets off I hope those that have condemned him have the decency to apologise in public especially those in the media.

Ben@Forest wrote:Other than Evans (and of course Millar) I don't know any of the details of the various cases mentioned here but what might be different is that Evans has expressed no remorse or apology and is looking to appeal his conviction. Millar was fully honest about what he did and did not try to appeal or justify it.

That's my understanding too; Millar has both admitted what he did, and said what he'd done was wrong.

Flinders wrote:

Ben@Forest wrote:Other than Evans (and of course Millar) I don't know any of the details of the various cases mentioned here but what might be different is that Evans has expressed no remorse or apology and is looking to appeal his conviction. Millar was fully honest about what he did and did not try to appeal or justify it.

That's my understanding too; Millar has both admitted what he did, and said what he'd done was wrong.

I don't understand how that is relevant to employment. Saying "rape is wrong" is not exactly a bold statement and admitting guilt might somewhat undermine his appeal against his conviction We're in danger of saying he may have his job back as long as he doesn't maintain his innocence

But it is relevant. Clubs are dependent on the support of their fans. It's not like this is some official ruling.

By maintaining his innocence, Evans gives himself the burden of providing evidence to overturn the guilty verdict. If he succeeds, then of course he should be employable. If he had admitted guilt, then I suspect he would not have had so much opposition.

Just to get the situation straight. Ched Evans has no direct route to appeal against his conviction.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has the remit of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice and it has the authority to refer cases to the appeal courts. The CCRC has agreed to investigate this case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

https://www.justice.gov.uk/about/crimin ... commission

mike_dowler wrote:But it is relevant. Clubs are dependent on the support of their fans. It's not like this is some official ruling.

I've forgotten who wrote:democracy is not a synonym for justice or for freedom. Democracy is not a sacred right sanctifying mob rule. Democracy is a principle that is subordinate to the inalienable rights of the individual

Should clubs cater to all the prejudices of their fans? Or just this particular one? I don't buy into the idea that something which is wrong on an individual level can be right when demanded by a number of vocal people. I'm not criticising the club, rather that proportion of the public who consider themselves entitled to put pressure on an employer to not employ someone for reasons completely unrelated to their occupation.

By maintaining his innocence, Evans gives himself the burden of providing evidence to overturn the guilty verdict. If he succeeds, then of course he should be employable.

Innocent or guilty, that has nothing to do with his ability to kick a ball.

If he had admitted guilt, then I suspect he would not have had so much opposition

Quite. But should this be the case? It is an inalienable right to protest one's innocence. Should somebody be treated differently for exercising this right? It is absurd that people would be willing to look more kindly upon someone who had committed a crime or admitted to something they hadn't done than somebody who steadfastly refused to admit to something they hadn't done.

What we are seeing here is a public desire to punish somebody for their offences, to stick the boot in. Some people have decided that the sentence of the court was inadequate and want this man to be subject to additional extra-judicial punishment. That this goes against the principle of due process is of little concern, after all he has deserved it, he is a "bad person", he is "evil". The smug sense of superiority may be satisfied by having him prostrate himself before a gleeful public and plea for mercy. The feeling that "someone like that" should never again be permitted to be successful may be harder to shake

It is rarely the rights of the popular which need protecting. Sometimes we need to take a step back from emotive issues surrounding unpopular (even hated) individuals or groups and remind ourselves that rights are for everyone, not just those we think worthy.

Bicycler wrote: It is absurd that people would be willing to look more kindly upon someone who had committed a crime or admitted to something they hadn't done than somebody who steadfastly refused to admit to something they hadn't done.

But that is just the point - legally, he has done it. At some point in the future, sufficient new evidence might be produced to demonstrate that this finding was incorrect. Until then, he cannot be distinguished from any other rapist who thinks that a drunk woman is fair game.

Beyond that, there is the question of the undisputed facts. He admits that he picked up a girl who was drunk and took her to a hotel for sex. This in itself shows fairly questionable (though by no means unknown amongst footballers) morality.

Footballers are primarily entertainers. Their job is not merely to win matches, but to play football that people will pay to see. Off pitch activity certainly affects this.

But that is just the point - legally, he has done it. At some point in the future, sufficient new evidence might be produced to demonstrate that this finding was incorrect. Until then, he cannot be distinguished from any other rapist who thinks that a drunk woman is fair game.

Whether he has done something, legally or actually, is completely irrelevant to his ability to play football. Whether or not he makes an apology affects neither the facts of the case nor his ability to play football. It would serve only to placate those members of the public who have arrogated themselves the right to decree how he ought to act.

And, yes, I believe "any other rapist" or for that matter any other person convicted of any other crime is entitled to the same basic human rights. Their punishment should be solely a matter for the courts and never subject to the whims of a baying lynch mob. Convictions should not prejudice a person's chance of obtaining employment for which they would otherwise be eligible unless they are of direct relevance to the job itself.

Beyond that, there is the question of the undisputed facts. He admits that he picked up a girl who was drunk and took her to a hotel for sex. This in itself shows fairly questionable (though by no means unknown amongst footballers) morality.

Footballers are primarily entertainers. Their job is not merely to win matches, but to play football that people will pay to see. Off pitch activity certainly affects this.

This sounds quite reasonable. The problem here of course is the lack of any real previous attempts to maintain standards of morality in the game. Anyone ever heard of a player being refused employment on grounds of morality? The Professional Footballers Association and The Football League approved of him coming back into the sport which surely they wouldn't if they thought him unfit on professional grounds. The list of bad behaviour amongst current professionals is near endless, so being well behaved or a 'good person' clearly isn't a requirement of the sport. As the OP pointed out, you can kill people and re-join the game without much fuss being made. A conviction of even greater severity without any of the hysteria of the Evans case. Where were the self-appointed defenders of football's morality there? There is clearly no moral code, merely a convenient excuse which exists solely to punish the only individual to whom it is applied.

The idea of footballers as primarily fan entertainers is interesting. Is there any evidence of entertaining players being employed in preference to ones better at playing football? In truth I don't know any Sheff Utd. fans. I know a good many football fans and, to be honest, a lot of the fury seemed to come from outside their ranks. Are we now including in a normal footballer's job the role of pleasing the public at large and, particularly, vocal feminist groups?

This whole thing is more about the public view of the type of crime of which he was convicted than any attempt at preserving the moral integrity of the beautiful game. Those convicted of sexual offences have become the Untouchables of our society. Did you hear the outrage recently when Jamie Oliver hired a convicted paedophile? http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/5 ... paedophile
No possible claims about a moral code of restaurant workers or having to entertain their customers, just pure resentment that someone convicted of that crime should be permitted to have the opportunity to make a success of the rest of his life. Many employers feel that way and simply turn away people with convictions like that. A decent proportion of people would rather have them hanged than employed.

Bicycler wrote:... Many employers feel that way and simply turn away people with convictions like that. ....

John Timpson, the chairman of Timpson's, has a regular column in the business pages of the Daily Telegraph. His firm has a policy of employing people released from prison so that they may have an opportunity of rehabilitation through finding employment and he claims to have good results in terms of a reduction in repeat offending. One thing that surprises me is that he doesn't think that convictions disqualify somebody from being a mobile locksmith. I'd be very reluctant to trust the locks and keys of my house to somebody who had been in prison for dishonesty, partly because even if they were going straight, they might come under pressure from former associates. OTOH, he says that the company has a total ban on sex offenders.

Odd how Mike Tyson a convicted rapist repeatedly gets a visa to come into the UK (well he does make money for the big boys) yet a person who has been nicked for smoking dope doesn't.

I think the major part with the Evans case is that people don't want him to be looked to as a role model.

Makes me shake my head in disbelief if people think that rape is something to spire to.

there's a tough decision to make about where to draw a line with something like dishonesty. I think I'd favour a narrow restriction excluding jobs requiring a great deal of trust rather than any job where people ought not to be dishonest because that would bar people from almost all jobs.

I interviewed a few applicants for positions working in a goods yard some years back. Just unskilled work with few requirements so potentially ideal for those wanting to make a fresh start. Unfortunately for them I didn't have the final say. Whilst there was no strict rule about convictions all who declared even (very) minor ones got turned down, often on those grounds alone. With a couple of lads I took matters into my own hands and got them to fill in the forms again removing the spent convictions which they had very honestly and in good faith included on the first.

For sex offenders I would have thought it was often hopeless trying to get work. I was flatly told to dismiss an applicant who had been convicted of a sexual offence out of hand. The job involved no contact with the public, or vulnerable minors or adults, or even women. If they can't get jobs like that what hope do such people have? I would never advocate allowing people with such histories to work in jobs where they might be allowed extensive contact with vulnerable people, but somebody who is judged safe to be released onto the streets should be able to be employed in a range of normal jobs.

maxcherry wrote:I think the major part with the Evans case is that people don't want him to be looked to as a role model.

Makes me shake my head in disbelief if people think that rape is something to spire to.

I don't think kids would look at somebody spending time in prison and not on the football field because they committed a crime as anything to emulate. As I said further up the thread, parents worried about this need to stop leaving the moral education of their children to dubious sportsmen and celebrities. There is an opportunity here to teach kids about not just the wrongs of rape, but also about rehabilitation of offenders; how criminals aren't cartoon caricatures driven by evil but real people who have made the wrong decisions. It seems actually addressing the issues raised is that bit less appealing than pretending they don't exist

I can see why any employer would have a problem employing Evans and I fully understand the fuss made by Jessica Ennis and others.

What I find really surprising is that there was no fuss about Luke McCormick.

That's the real issue here. From the lack of moralising articles and items in the Guardian, the Telegraph and on TV and radio about McCormick it is very obvious that the crime of killing two children when drunk is not nearly as serious as Evans' rape in the opinion of many influential people who get to write for newspapers or appear on TV.

To me, killing people while drunk driving is as serious a crime as rape, and probably more serious as by definition it eliminates any possibility whatsoever of the victim rebuilding their life.

For all the dreadful consequences suffered by Evans' victim I doubt she or her family would have preferred her to have been killed by a drunk driver rather than raped.

Press and TV commentators are right to condemn Evans' for his crime, but their failure to condemn the likes of McCormick's effectively condones and excuses drivers who kill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30112715

The presenter's views here seem crass, but I suspect he'd have got away with blaming a crash victim for not wearing a helmet.

he's not wrong though

Sheffield United has changed its position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30054475