Should he be re-hired

Should he be re-hired

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 29.7%

  • No

    Votes: 26 70.3%
  • Total voters
    37
You can discuss this for the next few weeks if you wish, but he will be employed as a footballer shortly after his release.

Same as Marlon King, Joey Barton, Duncan Ferguson, Luis Suarez, Lee Hughes, Ravel Morrison and many more.
 
I haven't read through all the comments in this thread.

Regardless of whether or not the sentence was too short (that's another debate) the question was should he be re-hired and that boils down to whether you feel people with a custodial sentence behind them should ever be allowed to gain employment again.

If you think they should (and that includes me) then the bottom line is this lad is a footballer.

Should we really treat footballers differently to people in any other profession ?

Whether a club wants to employ him given his background is a different kettle of fish but ultimately their choice. It's no different to any other recruitment decision based on an individual's background.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm free to disagree with you as you are to disagree with me. Actually it's a bit naughty of you to suggest that I'm looking for a fight merely because I do disagree with you. If you make a point that I disagree with, do you expect me to say nothing? We must all strive to rise above our differences. :)

I merely ask why you (in the collective sense) should be the arbiters of what the man should or should not be able to do in his future. As I've tried to say, should you (in the collective sense) have wished to take it on board, is that I have no interest in him or his future. That is a matter for any prospective club and their sponsors, and whilst we are all at liberty to express our opinions, at the end of the day that's all they are. If, due to to the influence of the club's fans and sponsors he's condemned to a life selling The Big Issue, then fair enough. It might reasonably argued that he's brought it on himself.
 
As he has been found guilty he should not be allowed back nor should he be allowed to have a normal life.......in fact his new life should be changed to life in prison as should all convicted rapists/sex offenders should be....
 
He'll be signed by someone. He's done the crime and served his time so let him get on with his life.
 
chadders said:
Not at all. I'm free to disagree with you as you are to disagree with me. Actually it's a bit naughty of you to suggest that I'm looking for a fight merely because I do disagree with you. If you make a point that I disagree with, do you expect me to say nothing? We must all strive to rise above our differences. :)

I merely ask why you (in the collective sense) should be the arbiters of what the man should or should not be able to do in his future. As I've tried to say, should you (in the collective sense) have wished to take it on board, is that I have no interest in him or his future. That is a matter for any prospective club and their sponsors, and whilst we are all at liberty to express our opinions, at the end of the day that's all they are. If, due to to the influence of the club's fans and sponsors he's condemned to a life selling The Big Issue, then fair enough. It might reasonably argued that he's brought it on himself.
Click to expand...


;) cool.

I think it is relevant he's a footballer. I also think it sends out completely the wrong signals from him, from his probation officer and from Sheffield United if he is allowed to pick back up where he left off after being convicted of a violent crime. I think was it one of that clubs groundsmen who was in this situation then they would have been cut loose. It sends out the message that the club and its owners regard what he's done as OK. I think they should be sending a message its not.

Thats not the same as suggesting I'm sat here with a long list of crappy jobs he's allowed.

I do rather hope the sponsors and fans manage and want to put the stoppers on this.
 
archangel said:
As he has been found guilty he should not be allowed back nor should he be allowed to have a normal life.......in fact his new life should be changed to life in prison as should all convicted rapists/sex offenders should be....
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant.

It's a view that's not addressing the question - whether or not somebody who has served a sentence should be permitted to work again.
 
dinners said:
It's a view that's not addressing the question - whether or not somebody who has served a sentence should be permitted to work again.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is ... I think it's the nature of the employment and the implications of that that's the issue leading to the petition and the original question.
 
gramps said:
I don't think it is ... I think it's the nature of the employment and the implications of that that's the issue leading to the petition and the original question.
Click to expand...

I think it is. I would not want him playing for my club and would not bring myself to cheer him, but.....

How would you set the legal rules on this....after <define list of crimes> you cannot work in <x professions> or earn <x amount of money> for a period of <x amount of time> or become successful in your new job that you become a public figure.

It just would not be enforceable, IMO.

Once you are out of prison, people have to be able to work again at whatever they are best at (with some exceptions for child protection etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
viv1969 said:
He served a pathetic portion of a sentence.
Click to expand...

I would not disagree with that, but that is a separate issue i.e length of time served for various crimes. That though, is a whole other thread.
 
akr said:
I think it is. I would not want him playing for my club and would not bring myself to cheer him, but.....

How would you set the legal rules on this....after <define list of crimes> you cannot work in <x professions> or earn <x amount of money> for a period of <x amount of time> or become successful in your new job that you become a public figure.

It just would not be enforceable, IMO.

Once you are out of prison, people have to be able to work again at whatever they are best at (with some exceptions for child protection etc).
Click to expand...

Accrington Stanley
 
The ethos of soccer seems to condone violence, cheating and dishonesty: intentional fouls, biting, punching, diving, threatening the ref etc etc. Many of these would be treated as criminal offences off the field.

Allowing a rapist to be a role model to youngsters is wrong, but only to be expected of the "beautiful game"
 
So as a (soon to be) paramedic if i were to do something only slightly as heinous as this person did, not only would i go to prison but i would lose my professional registration and would lose my job and any possibility of doing it again in the future.

He is in a position in the public eye with people looking up to him as well as emulating him.

No, i don't feel he should be taken back on. Then again, i don't feel 2 years is a suitable punishment for rape. A blunt spoon on the other hand...
 
Laudrup said:
He did his time and is entitled to go back into employment. Doesn't really matter if you agree with the sentence or not.
Click to expand...


I don't agree, because he still does not admit it, and shows no remorse.
Here is an example of someone who committed a crime, boasted about it on Twitter/FB, then tried to deny it once the SHTF. She subsequently lost her job over it, so, I for one will lose no sleep if this footballer is reduced to picking up rubbish for the rest of his days.

http://road.cc/content/news/99247-emma-way-trial-opens-bloodycyclists-driver-denies-charges
 
jakeblu said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don't give a hoot about the jury or the judge, because I use my own eyes.
Do you really think that SG was innocent of the offence with which he was charged?
Please do not sit on the fence, just a simple answer will do.
 
andy700 said:
I don't give a hoot about the jury or the judge, because I use my own eyes.
Do you really think that SG was innocent of the offence with which he was charged?
Please do not sit on the fence, just a simple answer will do.
Click to expand...

It beggars belief that he got away with that
I mean its there to see plainly on video
 
gramps said:
I don't think it is ... I think it's the nature of the employment .
Click to expand...

Lots of posts have passed since so it mat be lost - but yes - the nature of the employment is key.

Should it be though ?

Footballers earn a s***load of money and we (as normal folk) take umbrage at the best of times.

Should we just kill their career because they are doing ok ?
 
Laudrup said:
He did his time and is entitled to go back into employment. Doesn't really matter if you agree with the sentence or not.
Click to expand...

And any employer in the land is entitled to tell him to sod off.
 
jakeblu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Surely that argument also stands for the sentence handed down to the footballer. There's a number saying it wasn't long enough.
 
andy700 said:
I don't agree, because he still does not admit it, and shows no remorse.
Here is an example of someone who committed a crime, boasted about it on Twitter/FB, then tried to deny it once the SHTF. She subsequently lost her job over it, so, I for one will lose no sleep if this footballer is reduced to picking up rubbish for the rest of his days.

http://road.cc/content/news/99247-emma-way-trial-opens-bloodycyclists-driver-denies-charges
Click to expand...

I was interested so spent some time researching the case. Have you read the details about why Evans was convicted and why he still protests his innocence. Did you see the tweets from the victim? Some interesting things on here from the accused side and the reasons for the appeal.
http://www.chedevans.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Fubbytucker said:
He is in a position in the public eye with people looking up to him as well as emulating him.
Click to expand...
As I wrote before, he's a footballer, people should only look up to him for that, nothing else. If people do think otherwise, they are sad and need to get a life or seek psychiatric help.
 
andy700 said:
I don't agree, because he still does not admit it, and shows no remorse.
Here is an example of someone who committed a crime, boasted about it on Twitter/FB, then tried to deny it once the SHTF. She subsequently lost her job over it, so, I for one will lose no sleep if this footballer is reduced to picking up rubbish for the rest of his days.

http://road.cc/content/news/99247-emma-way-trial-opens-bloodycyclists-driver-denies-charges
Click to expand...

She got sacked due to bringing the company into disrepute. Accountants have to show honesty and good character, she didn't. But I didn't agree with the dismissal.
 
dinners said:
Lots of posts have passed since so it mat be lost - but yes - the nature of the employment is key.

Should it be though ?

Footballers earn a s***load of money and we (as normal folk) take umbrage at the best of times.

Should we just kill their career because they are doing ok ?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just money either ... it's the public eye/role model issue that most people are concerned about.
Watch kids coming out of any school/playing football in the park etc and you will see how they emulate footballers - of course this doesn't mean every kid will go on to be a rapist by watching him but it does mean that he should not, at least for some considerable time, be in a position where he is a role model again. Employment - yes of course, even in some football capacity, but not where he could be viewed as a role model.
 
ST4 said:
That doesn't mean they should if he has the right skills for the job.

The fact he's appealing it <might> mean he's innocent
Click to expand...

But currently he stands guilty.
I certainly wouldn't hire someone on a "might".
 
ST4 said:
That doesn't mean they should if he has the right skills for the job.
Click to expand...

Cant see why an organisation in the public eye would want a convicted rapist representing them. Nor would the sponsors of that organisation.
 
andy700 said:
I don't agree, because he still does not admit it, and shows no remorse.
Click to expand...

Since he's still pursuing an appeal, that's hardly likely is it?
 
ST4 said:
The fact he's appealing it <might> mean he's innocent
Click to expand...


Hasn't he had his leave to appeal denied? If every person in prison who appealed or who claimed to be innocent truly was you'd be safer in there then out here
 
Last edited:
I think he should have his balls cut off and if he can still play football after that ... then good luck to him.
 
Suarez lost at least one sponsor - sponsors do care when it might affect sales/image.
 
gramps said:
Suarez lost at least one sponsor - sponsors do care when it might affect sales/image.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and Rooney lost a few back in the day, and that was just for boinking grannies! :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Since he's still pursuing an appeal, that's hardly likely is it?
Click to expand...


I can see where you are coming from Ruth, but there are a few "celebrities" in recent times who have protested their innocence and appealed, and then had their appeals turned down.
There does seem to be a culture of - "no regrets, no apologies, no admitting guilt" these days.
Suarez and his team and the Uraguayan prime minister are "convinced" that Suarez didn't bite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top