Ched and Sheffield United.

Its not about bolstering anyone's opinion AL.

Clearly Evans thinks it was all consensual and some of the undisputed evidence points in that direction and the woman writer was trying to differentiate between a undisputed rape in an alleyway and the one here.

I make no judgement on who is right and who is wrong but to continue calling him a Rapist as though he had done that in an alleyway and all the public fury seems very uncharitable and unfair especially as he has done his time in Prison no matter what the court of appeal says.

I have mixed views about the parties beingd in any court case and both have their points of view. Why should any person be charged with *** crimes with no anonymity and the other side is protected even if the court finds them not guilty as we have seen in some cases.

But we can see why that should be so as well.

This case is far from being as straightforward as some are making out.

With all the publicity and resignations at SU, I can't see ho

Where do you get the ideas that someone has accused this rapist of raping a girl in an alleyway.
She was clearly drunk and incapable of considered thought ('undisputed evidence') and she was ***ually assaulted by two men in a hotel room (one of whom was cleared of rape). There can be absolutely no mitigation in the fact that these men were capable of ***, nor that this girl was capable of denying them. She was drunk. She was, and all the evidence clearly states this, taken advantage of in the most horrible way.

The two men also thought it was funny - so funny that they filmed themselves.

Who are the other victims? Her family and friends? Yes, I'll accept that. Evans's girlfriend, friends and family? No, not victims, just a few more of the people he has to apologise to.

That she didn't clearly enunciate the word 'no' is not a defence to rape.

Evans is a rapist. He has committed rape. Just as Hughes is a killer - he killed someone - he will always have the prefix 'killer'. Something

Mike and Aston Alex.
I am afraid Evans has NOT served his time. He was sentenced to FIVE years and he has served a proportion of that in prison. He is still under the juridication of the courts and has another 3 and half years to go before he has "paid his debt" to society. Until that time is passed he should not be touched with a barge pole.

As he is still technically serving his sentance, do Crewe or any other club have the right to deny him access to their facilities. After all we have women working in the ground and their safety and worries have to be taken seriously.

Everyone excepts what he did was shocking and wrong.

However I struggle to understand where the correlation is that someone who has committed rape shouldn't play football again.

I could understand if he was trying to secure a role working within a care home or a hospital where female patients could be vulnerable.

Returning to football is just a case of a man who has served his time returning to the profession he is best equipped for ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supercrewe

Everyone excepts what he did was shocking and wrong.

However I struggle to understand where the correlation is that someone who has committed rape shouldn't play football again.

I could understand if he was trying to secure a role working within a care home or a hospital where female patients could be vulnerable.

Returning to football is just a case of a man who has served his time returning to the profession he is best equipped for ?

---

I think the answer is that he aims to become a role model to young lads. That conviction, and the total lack of apology to or remorse for the victim, should disqualify him.
It isn't a return to football he wants, it's a return to big money playing in front of tens of thousands - and being a role model will follow that.

I've been reluctant to comment on this but have succumbed to temptation, thoughts tempered by an acknowledgement that the only people who really know what went on in that hotel room are Evans, McDonald and the victim (and possibly not even her if she was drunk and incapable).

1. If he wants to play football, let him clear his via criminal review board first, that's surely the right set of priorities.

2. I'm not sure Sheff U have done too much wrong in letting him train at the request of the PFA (he's not employed by Sheff U and therefore not getting paid) - would like to see Gordon Taylor stick his head above the parapet and cop some media flak - mind, we're talking about a man who thinks it's acceptable for a Trade Union leader to have six figure gambling debts when many of his contemporaries are fighting their members' corner on issues like zero hours contracts and payment of the minimum wage. Anyway, I digress...

3. Personally find it refreshing that people - sponsors, patro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstonAlex

Not sure that I would want a convicted rapist working as a plumber or electrician in people's homes, nor that someone on the *** Offenders Register would get the clearance to do so . . and rightly so.

Someone with that profession would not be allowed to return to their previous work for the obvious reason of potentially being alone with women, vulnerable or otherwise.

---

As you say, he will be on the SOR and that may prevent him from returning to football as he will come into contact with the young and the vunerable.
OK, maybe some of the occupations weren't correct but you get my meaning - he can find work, it doesn't have to be football or nothing.

I don't remember all this argument and fuss when Lee Hughes returned to football after his prison sentence

There was when Luke McCormick was released, but he I now enjoying a successful spell at Plymouth.

He is rather more remorseful than Evans and, ironically, Hughes were but there was a campaign to stop him at the time and he started back in non-League before returning to Home Park, where he is now club captain.

Go figure the consistency of public opinion!

Only the employer - Sheff Utd or whoever eventually offers Ched Evans work - can come to this decision. How can football judge him as unfit to play when others with convictions - inc one at Crewe - are deemed okay. Where is the line? Murder, manslaughter, rape, GBH?

The most disturbing fact about this case is the way it has been media managed. Ched Evans imminent release was trailed by the press to get reaction and feed the story. We are all going along with this