Should he be re-hired

Should he be re-hired

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 29.7%

  • No

    Votes: 26 70.3%
  • Total voters
    37
This will have a longer run than the Mousetrap, if the mods don't step in first.
 
Byker28i said:
Yup and rather than be influenced by talk of what a footballer did and served time for (that in itself an influence?) for sexual matters they are more than likely influenced by the porn thats easily accessible on the internet.
Click to expand...
i think both is bad to be fair (assuming looking for simulated rape media etc online).
 
viv1969 said:
Err no. He's paid the very least price the courts could get away.
I suspect the majority of "society" would like to see him still locked up with his nuts in a sling.
Click to expand...

I agree the sentence was very short, scandalously so. You, anyone, the crown can appeal it as it's too lienient. I agree, however as that's not been done do we want another dole seeker out there or someone who's nicely in the upper rate tax bracket .

Is it legal to not hire someone based on a criminal record? Just asking.

I can see arguments for and against him playing, the argument against being he shouldn't be free
 
gramps said:
No I don't think it is, not by the world's standards today.
Click to expand...
We obviously live in different worlds then. My kids could (and have) spend all day long playing video games yet they know the difference between that and real life. I realise some obviously struggle to tell the difference, but if they all thought like that, they'd all be rapists etc. by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
nilagin said:
We obviously live in different worlds then. My kids could (and have) spend all day long playing video games yet they know the difference between that and real life. I realise some obviously struggle to tell the difference, but if they all thought like that, they'd all be rapists etc. by now.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the world, not your little world ... glad you are confident in everything your kids do :)
 
nilagin said:
We obviously live in different worlds then. My kids could (and have) spend all day long playing video games yet they know the difference between that and real life. I realise some obviously struggle to tell the difference, but if they all thought like that, they'd all be rapists etc. by now.
Click to expand...

Quite. He's there to play sport, whether he's be done or not is irrelvent. The opposing teams he comes accross will chant abuse, making children understand, if they do not already, that what he did was bad.
 
nilagin said:
We obviously live in different worlds then. My kids could (and have) spend all day long playing video games yet they know the difference between that and real life. I realise some obviously struggle to tell the difference, but if they all thought like that, they'd all be rapists etc. by now.
Click to expand...
i think computer games are slightly different, especially the less realistic ones (the more realistic and violent generally have a higher age rating anyway). but how many kids have been hurt etc by replicating stuff theyve seen real life people do on TV? for example i remember a story where a kid was injured quite badly replicating WWF/E (or whatever it's called these days) that they'd been watching.

im sure your kids have been fine, obviously some kids develop in different ways/speeds/yadda.
 
andy700 said:
It was Woodgate and Bowyer, and it was a disgraceful verdict IMO

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/16/football.race

There was also the Steve Gerrard incident

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/24/steven-gerrard-verdict-affray

It would seem that the courts adopt a different policy regarding "justice" when it comes to court appearances by well known footballers.
Click to expand...
You mean juries of course seeing as Bowyer and Gerrard were acquitted by a jury of their peers. Its worth noting a quote from the judge after Gerrard's verdict was announced

"The verdict is a credible verdict on the full facts of this case, and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

He clearly didnt feel the verdict a disgrace. Perhaps he was a Liverpool supporter ;)

if your happy to call into question some verdicts then it is completely legitimate for supporters of Ched Evans to call his conviction a disgrace, he has after all never admitted his guilt.

I just like to add that I am not personally saying Chad Evans was innocent of the crime he was convicted of, I'm just commenting on the double standards
 
Last edited:
I would hope Sheffield Utd don't allow him to return. I would also hope that the clubs sponsors bring pressure to that end.

Simply if I was sacked from a job as a result of a criminal conviction then I'm sure I'd never get it back.
 
ST4 said:
Is it legal to not hire someone based on a criminal record? Just asking.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly legal to refuse employment based on unspent convictions, and as convictions for sexual offences are never spent, in theory he could spend the rest of his life unemployed.
It's is illegal to refuse employment based on spent criminal convictions on the whole, but there are exceptions to that too.
 
boyfalldown said:
I would hope Sheffield Utd don't allow him to return. I would also hope that the clubs sponsors bring pressure to that end.

Simply if I was sacked from a job as a result of a criminal conviction then I'm sure I'd never get it back.
Click to expand...

So, that being the case, what would you do? Crawl off in a corner and die or perhaps think that society was not giving you the opportunity to try and rehabilitate yourself?

Seems to me this argument hinges on the fact that the guy is a footballer (and hence earns top dollar). If he wasn't high profile, nobody would care less. We wouldn't all be in here arguing the toss if he was a road sweeper or such. As I understand it he hasn't got a job yet. We've yet to see the reaction of fans and sponsors if he ever does. They may well make his position untenable, in which case he'll sink into obscurity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
chadders said:
So, that being the case, what would you do? Crawl off in a corner and die or perhaps think that society was not giving you the opportunity to try and rehabilitate yourself?

Seems to me this argument hinges on the fact that the guy is a footballer (and hence earns top dollar). If he wasn't high profile, nobody would care less. We wouldn't all be in here arguing the toss if he was a road sweeper or such. As I understand it he hasn't got a job yet. We've yet to see the reaction of fans and sponsors if he ever does. They may well make his position untenable, in which case he'll sink into obscurity.
Click to expand...
You're right. But then a road sweeper generally isn't in a position to be looked up to ( no offence to road sweepers ).
 
chadders said:
So, that being the case, what would you do? Crawl off in a corner and die or perhaps think that society was not giving you the opportunity to try and rehabilitate yourself?

Seems to me this argument hinges on the fact that the guy is a footballer (and hence earns top dollar). If he wasn't high profile, nobody would care less. We wouldn't all be in here arguing the toss if he was a road sweeper or such. As I understand it he hasn't got a job yet. We've yet to see the reaction of fans and sponsors if he ever does. They may well make his position untenable, in which case he'll sink into obscurity.
Click to expand...

I would hope society would complete his rehabilitation. But that's different from his old employers welcoming him to a position where he has influence. Yes that's lots to do with him being a footballer, you'd be naive to think otherwise. However you'd be equally naive to believe footballers at his level have no influence either.

What would you do?
 
I'd let him get on with it. If they want him back and the sponsors and fans stand for it then that's their business, and the rest of us can draw our own conclusions according to our prejudices.
I have no feelings for the guy one way or another, but I know hypocrisy when I smell it.

So, whilst we're on the subject of naiveté, it's naive to to think that just because a guy has some expertise in kicking a football about he has a god given responsibility to a paragon of virtue to your kids or anybody else's.
If that were the case, then you'd never let your kids listen to pop stars, go to the movies or watch TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
jakeblu said:
You mean juries of course seeing as Bowyer and Gerrard were acquitted by a jury of their peers. Its worth noting a quote from the judge after Gerrard's verdict was announced

"The verdict is a credible verdict on the full facts of this case, and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

He clearly didnt feel the verdict a disgrace. Perhaps he was a Liverpool supporter ;)
Click to expand...

Here is the CCTV footage of the attack. There is absolutely no question of this being "self defence". The guy had about five people including SG punch and kick him. The judge was a coward as were Gerrard and his "brave" mates.

 
Well it was the jury who aquitted, not the judge, unless they were directed to a not guilty verdict and acquiesced.
 
chadders said:
So, whilst we're on the subject of naiveté, it's naive to to think that just because a guy has some expertise in kicking a football about he has a god given responsibility to a paragon of virtue to your kids or anybody else's.
If that were the case, then you'd never let your kids listen to pop stars, go to the movies or watch TV.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's naive at all to expect ANYONE in the public spotlight to set a good example to younger or future generations (even some adults).

Obviously combined with reasonable parenting.
 
viv1969 said:
Well it was the jury who aquitted, not the judge, unless they were directed to a not guilty verdict and acquiesced.
Click to expand...

Which might indicate that juries are not infallible. As Timothy Evans would testify…if he hadn't been hanged.
 
neil_g said:
I don't think it's naive at all to expect ANYONE in the public spotlight to set a good example to younger or future generations (even some adults).

Obviously combined with reasonable parenting.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong to wish that were the case, but naive to expect it, when the evidence is all around you that people in the public spotlight are as guilty as anybody of not living up to others expectations of them. Examples are endless in that respect.
All I am saying is that if he does return to football, and the club, fans and sponsors welcome him back ( and it's far from certain they will) then that's their business. That will say a lot about their "morals" if you will. The rest of society can/will show their disapproval, if that is their wish. I'm pretty sure opposing teams fans will. It's not up to any of us to demand that he isn't reinstated. Even though we might wish it so.
 
neil_g said:
I don't think it's naive at all to expect ANYONE in the public spotlight to set a good example to younger or future generations (even some adults).

Obviously combined with reasonable parenting.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying everyone in the public eye should become a rapist, far from it, but they need to be allowed to live, you don't have to like and want to emulate everything about them. I think Marilyn Manson looks a right **** yet I like some of his music.
 
nilagin said:
I'm not saying everyone in the public eye should become a rapist, far from it, but they need to be allowed to live, you don't have to like and want to emulate everything about them. I think Marilyn Manson looks a right **** yet I like some of his music.
Click to expand...

Has he ever been charged with rape? Let alone found guilty?
 
chadders said:
Which might indicate that juries are not infallible. As Timothy Evans would testify…if he hadn't been hanged.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
 
andy700 said:
Here is the CCTV footage of the attack. There is absolutely no question of this being "self defence". The guy had about five people including SG punch and kick him. The judge was a coward as were Gerrard and his "brave" mates.

Click to expand...
The jury saw that video as well as other evidence that the prosecution brought to try and convict Gerrard. They took just over an hour to decided that there was insufficent evidence to convict him. That's after hearing all the evidence and arguments in full, not condensed newspaper articles, something neither you or I was party to.
 
chadders said:
I'd let him get on with it. If they want him back and the sponsors and fans stand for it then that's their business, and the rest of us can draw our own conclusions according to our prejudices.
I have no feelings for the guy one way or another, but I know hypocrisy when I smell it.
Click to expand...

Its not hypocritical to think he shouldn't be able to return to that job following a conviction and prison sentence. I'd be very surprised if a street sweeper was able to (or for that matter most other jobs). Thats not prejudice either
 
chadders said:
Which might indicate that juries are not infallible. As Timothy Evans would testify…if he hadn't been hanged.
Click to expand...
I believe Ruth was responding to a previous post claiming it was a cowardly judge who acquitted him. And no juries aren't infallable but they're far preferable to kangaroo courts or trial by media
 
viv1969 said:
Has he ever been charged with rape? Let alone found guilty?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that at all. Forget the rape charge, I wasn't referring to that. Pick any celebrity of your liking, what do you like them for? What it was that made them a celebrity in the first place for surely, it is pointless to expect them to be a 100% goody two shoes role model and it is naïve to expect any celebrity to be a role model. They are a sportsperson, actor, or singer nothing more.
 
nilagin said:
I'm not saying that at all. Forget the rape charge, I wasn't referring to that. Pick any celebrity of your liking, what do you like them for? What it was that made them a celebrity in the first place for surely, it is pointless to expect them to be a 100% goody two shoes role model and it is naïve to expect any celebrity to be a role model. They are a sportsperson, actor, or singer nothing more.
Click to expand...

I see.....Thanks for explaining.
 
boyfalldown said:
Its not hypocritical to think he shouldn't be able to return to that job following a conviction and prison sentence. I'd be very surprised if a street sweeper was able to (or for that matter most other jobs). Thats not prejudice either
Click to expand...

So, what's YOUR solution Do YOU actually have anything to useful to offer than he should not be allowed to earn a living? Or should he be only allowed to earn a living on YOUR terms?

viv1969 said:
I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd just state the obvious as you usually do.
 
neil_g said:
no. i dont think he should be in a position where people/children can look up to him as a role model.
Click to expand...

Since when are footballers role models? They are anything but. So as it stands I couldn't care less
 
jakeblu said:
I believe Ruth was responding to a previous post claiming it was a cowardly judge who acquitted him. And no juries aren't infallable but they're far preferable to kangaroo courts or trial by media
Click to expand...

Agreed Steve 100%. Which is exactly what some in this thread are doing.

But also inferring that although the guy has been found guilty and served the time decreed, he still protests his innocence. I don't know about that, he may well be as guilty as sin. On the other hand there just might be a chance the jury was fallible. Probably not, but anyone want to stake their life on that?
 
Last edited:
chadders said:
So, what's YOUR solution Do YOU actually have anything to useful to offer than he should not be allowed to earn a living? Or should he be only allowed to earn a living on YOUR terms?



I thought I'd just state the obvious as you usually do.
Click to expand...


You missed my earlier reply to you then?

boyfalldown said:
I would hope society would complete his rehabilitation. But that's different from his old employers welcoming him to a position where he has influence. Yes that's lots to do with him being a footballer, you'd be naive to think otherwise. However you'd be equally naive to believe footballers at his level have no influence either.

What would you do?
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say he can't earn a living. Does it? I don't think I've said that anywhere.
 
Last edited:
chadders said:
I thought I'd just state the obvious as you usually do.
Click to expand...

Really. Well, I don't believe I have stated that the jury were fallible or otherwise.
The fact is that they found him guilty.
Has he maintained his innocence? Of course, as most do.
But until an appeals court find him innocent, he will remain guilty of rape.
That's not stating the obvious....it's stating the facts.
And i'm not talking about the Gerrard case, I'm talking about the OP's case
 
ST4 said:
No. But this guys been released. He's got to do something, might as well be football.
Click to expand...

Or cleaning the sewers. Both jobs.
 
ST4 said:
No. But this guys been released. He's got to do something, might as well be football.
Click to expand...

Possibly.
But if they choose to say goodbye to him then he has no recourse.
 
boyfalldown said:
You missed my earlier reply to you then?

Nowhere does it say he can't earn a living. Does it? I don't think I've said that anywhere.
Click to expand...

Well of course your previous answer to me was no answer at all. Platitudinous perhaps, but no solution.

You say you didn't say he can't earn a living? Well just what sort of living would you like to see him make? One of your choosing? Who are you, or indeed anyone else to decree what he may or may not do?
 
chadders said:
Well of course your previous answer to me was no answer at all. Platitudinous perhaps, but no solution.

You say you didn't say he can't earn a living? Well just what sort of living would you like to see him make? One of your choosing? Who are you, or indeed anyone else to decree what he may or may not do?
Click to expand...


To be honest, I disagreed with you. I've said why. You're free to disagree but you seem to wish a fight - look elsewhere :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top