Sheffield United have said
convicted rapist Ched Evans
will not be returning to train
at the club following public outcry over the decision.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3JeKXawKO

http://news.sky.com/story/1377321/sh...evans-training

Good.

Embarrassing u-turn, Sheffield United have made a complete hash of the whole case

yes makes sense

ffs at this quote from them: "Our vice-president has offered the contract until the end of the season to this glorious player to come over to Malta and play for our top team. We are leading the table at the moment" :joker:

I'm pretty sure they are just trolling people with it really

Meanwhile the victim has had to move 5 times and couldn't spend Christmas with her family.

Well,He'll be moving abroad so away from his 'victim'.Probably the best move he could make tbh.Those like Jessica Ennis who were against him going back to Sheffield will also be pleased that he's moving abroad.

Possible he may play for Malta
but UK has Blocked that.

Convicted rapist Ched Evans is in talks about signing with an unnamed League One club, according to Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association.

Taylor revealed the news on BBC Radio 5 live's Sportsweek, and says the club will hold a news conference on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30671692

Here we go.

I can see that this is already a 7 page thread but I'm gonna throw my two pennies worth just because this interests me.

I don't think he should be allowed back on a pro football team considering this really. When you think of the fame and the money he'll receive and the support he'll get from people for getting back into football it just.. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like the tacit assent from a large institution and vast swathe of people that this is their view on rape: so long as you spend a couple years in prison after forcing yourself on someone and traumatising them for life, we'll still love and adore you afterwards don't worry.

I just don't think he should be allowed that kind of privilege, fame and fortune after committing such a morally depraved act. Yes that might send a message about convicts in general but this is a crime that's particularly traumatising, and especially rife within society with violence against women being something at epidemic levels throughout the western world. Think of how the victim would feel if he becomes a pro footballer again, earning stupid amounts of money? It'll look like nothing more than society giving him a low-key thumbs up despite how he's ruined her life. It's not right, but then I suppose that's rape culture at work. Defend the rapist at the expense of the victim. :shrug:

Oldham apparently, pretty lucky if so landing at a team barely a step down from the Blades

Oldham were also the first team to sign Lee Hughes after his death by dangerous driving conviction

Edit - mind you the Star are saying its Port Vale, think most of the tabloids are just guessing really

To play the Devil's Advocate though, if someone's served their sentence do they not have the right to carry on with their lives? If not then what's the point of sentencing someone in the first place? It shouldn't really matter whether someone is famous or not since, in the eyes of the law everyone should be equal when it comes to crime and punishment.

I'm still pretty conflicted about it tbh. It's a very difficult topic.

Maybe Oldham have calculated they can withstand the inevitable press uproar and still obtain a premiership quality player for a knock down price.

Business always trumps morality.... It seems




.

He's not Premier league quality though, he was having a great season in league 1 at the time of his arrest but hes been out of football nearly 3 years now and will have lost a lot of fitness

Lot of the fans on their forum already saying they won't be attending matches while hes there if they sign him

Plus, what Niall's saying is only really valid if we're to believe that Evans really did rape the victim. Everything about the trial is so shaky that I don't believe he even committed a crime; why is it that the first guy who had sex with the girl wasn't convicted of rape but Evans was? Why would you willingly go to a hotel room with a bunch of footballers if you weren't keen to have sex with a bunch of footballers? I think there are certain types of women who go after footballers because they expect to be the next Mrs Beckham, Rooney, Cole; and this young lady took it too far.

Either way, we'll never know for sure what happened but Evans maintains his innocence and has never said sorry and I think that speaks volumes about what really happened that night. You're not going to say sorry if you've got nothing to be sorry for. Let the man play football. The girl still has her anonymity as far as the masses are concerned, she can go on to lead a normal life - he'll forever be deemed a rapist in the minds of many people regardless of whether he did it or not and I think that's punishment enough.

Maybe she consented to sex with A footballer but not footballers?
The court had enough evidence to convict, the fact he hasn't said sorry isn't any guarantee, prisons are full of people protesting their innocence.
She isn't leading a normal life, mainly due to the opinion that she's a money grabbing *****.

If I walked down the street blindfold with £200 sticking out of my back pocket and someone took it would it still be theft, or not because it was on show and I was oblivious?

I'd have thought like with most rape cases all they have for evidence is the words of the parties involved and whether they stack up against the alleged timeline of events; what else could there be? I think the word rape is a really loaded term - personally I don't consider a scenario like the Ched Evans one to be in the same ballpark as a guy stalking a woman down an alleyway and brutally violating her - do you? I think there ought to be a distinction made, there are surely degrees of rape in the same way there are degrees of murder. Somebody who plans to kill someone and somebody who accidentally kills someone both still have blood on their hands but it seems wrong to bunch them both together as "murderers" - I guess that's why I have an issue with this case and think he should be allowed to return to football. If he did do it, it certainly wasn't a violent violation of this woman.

I do yes because you can't 'accidently' rape someone can you?

All rape is violent as it's an assault, she may have consented to sex with the other guy which is why he was not convicted of rape.

She was mortal drunk according to the reports so its not even close really

You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.

Yep.

totally agree.

I know, but you have to think of the implications of what it all means. If football clubs are willing to sign a ex-con who's committed a sexual offence as depraved as rape with nary a care in sight then it just says that their attitude is something along the lines of this, "Aw well he's spent his time in the corner I mean he did only rape that woman once, so who cares about what it says to our female fanbase and women in general if we hire him!" Like, it just seems iffy.

And I know everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, but seeing as this is a high profile case with implications being played out across a highly publicised field (excuse the pun), then it kind of sets the tone for everything else. Letting him carry on in such a cushy job with no-one in else in that career really reacting to him forcing such a traumatic act on another human being is just.. no. It's not right. Moreover I'm not sure how he can have the gall to want to show his face in public after doing something of that calibre.

Rape is simple: if there is an absence of consent, then it's rape. If someone is inebriated they cannot consent because they aren't in a clear and lucid state of mind. Therefore, it is rape. That's taking advantage of someone sexually. You cannot argue against that. It is not 'drunken stupidity', it's someone preying on someone else who's in a vulnerable state. Consent is a constant and enthusiastic 'Yes!' and nothing else.

The entirety of what you've said highlights the problem here, and it's that people often think that the victim 'had it coming' because they shouldn't have gone somewhere with the assailant, and quite frankly it's the most stupid argument in the book. Let's apply that logic somewhere else: would you say that if someone walking home from the train station at 10pm is at fault if they're mugged? It's ridiculous. She shouldn't have to go somewhere with the expectation that she might have to give herself up sexually. And even if she did lead them to think that that's what might happen, any normal human being knows the line in terms of consent. Like I'm pretty sure if someone was drunk etc, or even gave the slightest hint of uncomfortableness when it comes to all this stuff most sane people would know to back the fuck off. Whereas if you don't and you force yourself upon, or take advantage of someone, then that's a rather terrifying thing for someone to do, no?

To reiterate: victim blaming is absolutely the problem at hand. The misogynistic view that "She shouldn't have done this...", or "She shouldn't have done that...", or "Her skirt was too short..", is just an argument both terrifyingly disgusting as it is paper thin.

A man cannot accidentally rape a woman was the point based on your murder analogy, murder may be subject to degrees but sex without consent is always rape... there are no good rapes.
Rape is as a rule defined as a sexual violation.
I have to say I do find your opinion distasteful on this subject, no matter how drunk and suggestible she was not obliged to have sex with anyone in that room.

:clap1: