QuoteSay what you want about the article itself, but it has no place on the PFAI website. If he had submitted that to a newspaper or on his own blog or something then fair enough but the PFAI website?!
Obviously the PFAI are not enjoying the reaction to it. I can't believe this lad is an experienced solicitor.
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
Say what you want about the article itself, but it has no place on the PFAI website. If he had submitted that to a newspaper or on his own blog or something then fair enough but the PFAI website?!
Gubu !
Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...vans-1.2005209PFAI removes article defending convicted rapist Ched Evans
Solicitor had likened footballer’s treatment to that of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six
Speaking generally, rather than is direct response to the article/ blog post - there appears to be quite a reinterpretation of the original case going on by his supporters tbh. I'd prefer to trust the court system (multiple times at this stage), rather than PR spin.Originally Posted by Titan
I say that as someone who isn't really comfortable with the reaction to the prospects of him getting re-employed, essentially because footballers are deemed as "role models". That's where the debate should be focusing, rather than the basis of the original conviction.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
PFAI/Stephen McGuinness dodging any blame or criticism I see, "we took it down as soon as we came in this morning". Who put it up in the first place?
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
This pretty much proves it wasn't a great article at all. In fact it was dangerous bull****
http://everydayvictimblaming.com/sub...on-ched-evans/
Gilhooly was on BBC ulster and admitted he hadn't seen all the evidence
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Love that. "None of us have computers at home so we had to wait until we came in to work today."
Google cache of the article here, for anyone that missed it. Please keep the discussion on the level it's at.
EDIT: With the exception of the extremely misguided post by Titan, of course. I'm leaving it there because it's been dealt with very well by others.
Last edited by dahamsta; 18/11/2014 at 8:55 PM.
Errr misguided??Google cache of the article here, for anyone that missed it. Please keep the discussion on the level it's at.
EDIT: With the exception of the extremely misguided post by Titan, of course. I'm leaving it there because it's been dealt with very well by others.
I just don't understand how on one hand it's ok for a guy who drives drunk and kills 2 kids to just resume his career and life but this Evans lad caused uproar. I just think it's a bit odd. That's all!
That is not all you said. Don't be facetious about rape FFS
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
If you think that all these people who are causing a hullabaloo about a rapist playing football are all genuinely outraged at this man being allowed resume employment after serving his (ridiculously lenient) sentence then fine. But I suspect there's an element of hypocrisy about it.
He says he's not a rapist but the courts thought otherwise. Therefor in the eyes of the law he is a rapist. Fair enough.
But the same law sentenced him to 5 years. Then let him out after 2 and a half years!
Given that he has served his sentence the law requires that he is allowed resume his life!
We can't pick and choose which element of the law we uphold.
Of course the victim doesn't get off so easy but that's another thread entirely.
It just bugs me that people are so quick to choose which elements of the law they adhere to and the grief that Sheffield United are getting is unfair. At the end of the day they are doing as instructed by the law of the land.
And I suppose that's my real gripe!
And my real gripe is you continuing to dismiss the fact that he's a convicted rapist and that implying somehow his rape may not be as bad as others.
The court heard all the evidence and they decided he's a rapist.
Whether you think he is or not (based on media reports) and whether you think others have been incorrectly accused of rape is immatterial.
In this case, he raped a woman. The courts convicted him. You can call it hullabaloo and suspect what you like about the intentions of people that comment on it, but the facts remain. He is a convicted rapist.
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Woah! You've basically agreed with the main points I made regarding his guilt. I said he was guilty because the courts said he was. You've ignored my main point however. Has he not served his sentence?
The sentence is a joke. But he's served it.
Unfortunately he is entitled to resume his career. I doubt Sheffield United are happy about it but they must have got some legal advice on the matter.
By the way I didn't dismiss anything. Also I didnt dispute his guilt.
So he's served his sentence and should be able to walk back into his old job? Much the same way as you or I, had we been convicted of anything really? I suppose?
Personally I don't think you can compare him with a drink driver. Whose bad judgement was, in spite of however many people he killed, illegal from the moment he sat behind the wheel. But at least the drunk drivers seemed to show some contrition!
Neither should be a role model. But only one of them is a sex offender, which should preclude them from some of the duties of a modern high profile professional footballer.
Yep agree with this.
That said if I was convicted of anything I would not be allowed to return to my job! That's standard for where I work.
Had Sheffield United been waiting outside the prison with a contract for this lad then it would be worse.
The fact is that the club are responding to a request to allow him train with them from the PFA.
Therefor I don't understand the outrage directed at the club.
If they offer him a contract however then all bets are off and it will be time to get the pitchforks!
Last edited by Titan; 20/11/2014 at 7:27 AM.
If he has served his time and a company are willing to hire him he should be allowed to be employed by them.
He's guilty because he raped a girl.
And clubs' fans have a right to get a say in who represents them
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
I sense you're being emotive here. He's guilty (legally-speaking) because he was found by a court of law to have raped a girl. Legal guilt is a determination made by a court based on the evidence and testimony available. The evidence would appear to point towards a fact, but, as you know, Evans disputes his guilt and claims to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. However much the evidence might seem to point towards the occurrence of a crime, the status of guilt is still an externally-made determination. For what it's worth, perhaps he doesn't feel guilty in a personal emotional sense.
However, to realise what is fundamentally problematic about the above comment, take a step back from Evans' case and think about proven miscarriages of justice in history. They have happened and they do happen. Now, I'm not at all saying that there has been a miscarriage of justice here, but, generally-speaking, to necessarily assume the absolute guilt of an alleged and convicted offender on the basis of a court having said he or she is guilty would set a dangerous social precedent; it would be to render the status of such guilt irreversible. On the basis of your words, there would be no room for the notion of appeal or, to take them to their logical conclusion, even for reform of the justice system because there is a presumption of infallibility of the court therein. Of course, we know courts aren't infallible; they're entirely human, like Ched Evans. (I understand Evans' conviction was upheld on appeal, but I speak generally.)
Fans can have their say and the club owners can consider it, but ultimately it's the employer's call. I don't see how fans could have a direct say or (legal?) right to have a say in any decision-making process, unless they have a direct stake in the club or hold some sort of legal relationship with the club besides being voluntary benefactors, if you will. They're certainly entitled to voice disapproval with their feet, but why should a club be legally obliged to entertain or conform to their wishes?And clubs' fans have a right to get a say in who represents them
Aren't the notion of redemption and a faith in the possibility of rehabilitation foundations of western criminal justice? If you have an issue with Evans being deemed re-employable, then surely your problem is primarily with the justice system. As it stands, he was served his punishment and remains indefinitely on the violent and sexual offenders' register. If you have faith in the finding, or the court that found him guilty, why not trust the sentence of the court?
Evans wouldn't be the sole beneficiary from his possible re-employment either. Whilst re-employment would certainly help re-integrate him back into society, the potential net benefit of that doesn't necessarily flow one way towards Evans; he would be using his talents and abilities in a way beneficial to society again (entertaining on the football field thousands of people who love being entertained by football) and would be contributing a very significant amount back to the public purse in taxed earnings.
For those who feel Sheffield United should not re-employ Evans, what constructive and socially-beneficial alternative do they suggest? Another few years in prison, at the cost of the taxpayer, I might add? A life on the dole, also at further cost to the taxpayer? A life of poverty having been permanently deprived of any form of social support? Could he ever become re-employable in your minds and what criteria would you deem it necessary for him to fulfill in order for him to become re-employable? Generally, further needless punishment (as far as society and the offender's rehabilitation are concerned) and social alienation only increase the prospects of recidivism or similar/worse.
I've seen it written that football exists in its own moral bubble because of things in the game like Evans' possible re-employment by Sheffield United, as if it would be a throw-back to the misogynistic/sexist dark ages or as if his re-employment would amount to a condoning of the act of which he was found guilty. I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think it would have been a very brave and progressive stance had the club stuck to their guns and allowed him to train with them. It would have been restorative rather than retributive justice in action.
I should add that I thought the PFAI publication bizarre in that it was totally unnecessary for the body to engage itself with such a contentious issue not directly relevant to its own professional affairs.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 21/11/2014 at 9:51 AM.
So your argument is that we should assume everyone is innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law and some indefinable "social" court? Perhaps we should just toss out the whole legal business altogether and let The Journal decide?
Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, too many of them. But they're a tiny minority of cases. The man is guilty. If he believes there's been a miscarriage of justice then I hope he's actually doing something about it, rather than actually just telling people that's the case.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks