[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by lostalex

yea, that's not how justice works. You can't punish a footballer for what other footballers MIGHT do in the future.

I do agree that footballers should be taken down a few pegs, but that's the job of the league and the media, you can't do it by just punishing this one person. He shouldn't be made a scapegoat for all of the problems in our sport and media culture.

I'm saying that the English FA and any other Football Associations need to ban anyone that commits a really serious crime, starting with this Ched Evans as his the most recent case.

Footballers and criminals in general should not go back to their lives as normal if they have affected someone elses life on purpose as what sort of punishment is that? Especially considering Ched Evans only spent a few years in prison anyway with the cosy XBOX, so I doubt his been punished that badly.

[lostalex]

but if you just focus on him, and really put his nose to the grindstone, he becomes a scapegoat and everyone gets to go on as normal thinking, oh we took care of him so we have solved the problem. that's not addressing the systematic problems in the league and the media.

It's like the jimmy saville case, we can all focus all the attention on him and horrible he was, but how many real changes have been made systematically at the BBC? none. Name one thing that's changed at the BBC after that whole fiasco? nothing, we just all think, ohh he's just one bad egg, even with all the evidence that it was systematic and that the BBC covered it up and must have covered up countless other stars, nothing has changed in the system. same for the catholic church. when you just focus on specific cases it does no good.

The systems in place create the permissive environment for these monsters to thrive. The media, the environment gives them a playground.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by StupidHoe

Nope. His job elevates him to a celebrity of sorts, his face could be in a paper somewhere and his victim sees it by accident. He should be allowed a job back in conjunction with football but not the one he had, keep him in the background.

But isn't he front page of the paper now with all this stuff going on? I sort of feel that saying he should work in the background is like saying that someone can return to work at the local sweet shop, but they have to be behind at all times.

Although we have to protect her as much as him, so I see where you're coming from

[Novo]

Would he be in any condition to do so anyway? but personally I don't think I would want him if I owned or managed a club same with Lee Hughes, I wouldn't hold it against other clubs though, just seems to much baggage for it to be worth the time I suppose with Lee Hughes though he got his head back on the game and had a successful career at Notts County so their can be light at the end of the tunnel for people in these situations if others are willing to give them a chance, not sure I could do though. like others have said though he has served his time so he should he at least allowed to get his life back on track now, maybe he's a scumbag but he's still a human being with rights

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

What's the point of making someone serve a sentence as punishment if the punishment is actually going to go on forever. If he is not allowed to return to his job, whatever that job may be, that will surely affect others who have served jail time, paid for their crime and then continued to be punished after they're released.

The exception would obviously be for people who have been convicted of crimes against children, they should obviously not be allowed to work with children ever again.

Absolutely this,I agree with every word of this post.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Pothuthic

But isn't he front page of the paper now with all this stuff going on? I sort of feel that saying he should work in the background is like saying that someone can return to work at the local sweet shop, but they have to be behind at all times.

Although we have to protect her as much as him, so I see where you're coming from

I understand the argument that he should not be punished forever and if he was a shop assistant and he could return to a job and the victim was not around him then that's fine but he was a job which means he could be in the papers day in day out and his victim have to suffer seeing him again and again just by simply getting on a train and seeing a newspaper on a seat with his face on it.

I'm not against him earning a living but such a high profile one...I don't personally feel he should be allowed to return to it.

[Shaun]

I voted no from the football club's point of view. I wouldn't dream of signing him; it's a PR nightmare and whilst he's indeed served his sentence it's always going to antagonise fans, and it's a pretty poor message to the victim of him. I'm not sure on the issue really, I just wouldn't sign him.

[user104658]

"Playing Footie" is not a position of care / responsibility so, yes, he should be able to continue doing it once he has served his sentence. If an ex-con can't go back to something like that then, surely, you're basically saying that they can't do anything ever again. It's basically the least important job in the world.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I voted no from the football club's point of view. I wouldn't dream of signing him; it's a PR nightmare and whilst he's indeed served his sentence it's always going to antagonise fans, and it's a pretty poor message to the victim of him. I'm not sure on the issue really, I just wouldn't sign him.

That is, of course, a completely separate issue to him being "allowed". Of course no one should be forced to sign him to their team. But that's different to it being disallowed.

[Locke.]

Obviously it's not speaking for all their fans, but their biggest forum are 70% in favour of resigning him - http://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php...s-or-no.36371/

[Brother Leon]

If he's good enough to play.

[Redway]

Nope.

[Northern Monkey]

I believe it should be down to the employer if they want to employ convicted criminals.

[user104658]

Thinking about it - he's not kicked a ball (other than maybe a little prison kickabout) for 2 and a half years... he's probably pretty **** now, so it won't really matter.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Playing Footie" is not a position of care / responsibility so, yes, he should be able to continue doing it once he has served his sentence. If an ex-con can't go back to something like that then, surely, you're basically saying that they can't do anything ever again. It's basically the least important job in the world.

I disagree with that, they may not ask to be but they are looked up to by many fans of all ages. They are required to behave in a way that will not bring the club or the sport into disrepute, as the top sportspersons in their field their job is important to reflect how those associated with football in the UK behave.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That is, of course, a completely separate issue to him being "allowed". Of course no one should be forced to sign him to their team. But that's different to it being disallowed.

I know He should be allowed, but I think clubs would be wise to avoid him.

[the truth]

of course he should be allowed to play football, what an absurd question

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

[/B]

I disagree with that, they may not ask to be but they are looked up to by many fans of all ages. They are required to behave in a way that will not bring the club or the sport into disrepute, as the top sportspersons in their field their job is important to reflect how those associated with football in the UK behave.

That may well be the official line but, let's face it, it's not the reality... Most high level footballers are a shower of *****. He'll fit right back in.

[lily.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That may well be the official line but, let's face it, it's not the reality... Most high level footballers are a shower of *****. He'll fit right back in.

Ain't that the truth. lol

[arista]

Originally Posted by Redway

Nope.

but the Club may re-hire him

He can never work near children now



Will the Boss of the Club
get abuse? - Maybe

[rubymoo]

I might be a bit controversial here.

Definition of rape:

The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.

He didn't force her against her will, yes she was intoxicated, but he had also been drinking, i think he took advantage of a drunken young lady, but surely she should take responsibility for being that drunk.

There are a lot of opportunists out there and that's exactly what he did, he saw an opportunity and took it, was it right.....no! Did he make a bad judgement.....yes!

I think this highlights the problem with alcohol and i don't think he should have been charged with rape.....and i say this from experience, when i was 14 i got very drunk and a 17 year old friend fancied me, i had told him before i got drunk that we were just friends and i didn't see him that way.......fast forward a couple of hours to me being very drunk and him having sex with me on a bathroom floor, did i cry rape.......no.......why........because he took advantage of a very drunken girl, we had both been drinking and we both needed to take responsibility, that's how i see it.

I think she took the opportunity to make some money off him, seeing as he was a very well known footballer, this is just my opinion.

[Niamh.]

wow when you were 14 Ruby? That's pretty bad, he could have actually been charged for statutory rape considering how young you were, even if you had been sober.

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

wow when you were 14 Ruby? That's pretty bad, he could have actually been charged for statutory rape considering how young you were, even if you had been sober.

I know!

But it was a bad decision on both parts, so i feel non of us should be blamed/accused and i think this is where legally things get a bit sticky.

There is a definition of what rape is and this definition should be stuck to, however with date rape drugs being used it makes things even more difficult as there is intent behind date rape, if it can be proven that date rape drugs were used by an offender to gain sex then this is rape, the society in which we live in is ever changing and maybe there should be an overhaul regarding laws in this area.

As you know i have young teenagers myself and i've already educated them and will continue to educate them on the danger of alcohol and drugs.

[arista]

[I think she took the opportunity to make some money off him, seeing as he was a very well known footballer, this is just my opinion. ]


Sure
but there is Massive Help Rape Group against him
they forget that.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by rubymoo

I know!

But it was a bad decision on both parts, so i feel non of us should be blamed/accused and i think this is where legally things get a bit sticky.

There is a definition of what rape is and this definition should be stuck to, however with date rape drugs being used it makes things even more difficult as there is intent behind date rape, the society in which we live in is ever changing and maybe there should be an overhaul regarding laws in this area.

As you know i have young teenagers myself and i've already educated them and will continue to educate them on the danger of alcohol and drugs.

I don't know, there's a massive difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old imo, 3 years is alot more than 3 years at that age If you were my daughter (and I have a 14 year old daughter atm) I would probably kill that boy :/