www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: RocketDan on October 22, 2014, 07:17:18 PM
-
Hypothetical situation - would you have him at Alty?
-
A debate likely to set off a real row that one.
For me - no. Simply because of the bad reactions he'd get from oppo fans. He has a right to work in his trade, personally I'd rather he kept a low profile and maybe worked as a coach with U21s or something similar (not children).
We have had other criminals turn out for us but a sex offender these days attracts such vitriol I'd say no thanks Ched.
-
Anyone who serves their sentence should be free to pursue their choice of career unless they come into contact with kids. For me yes
-
This will quite likely get some sort of reaction but personally I don't think he should be allowed back into the game
Just an opinion
-
This will quite likely get some sort of reaction but personally I don't think he should be allowed back into the game
Just an opinion
I think it's bit of a tough one. He is adamant he did nothing wrong and wants to clear his name. However, he has been found guilty of the offence in eyes of the law.
Either way, I think he will play again and it will blow over. The actions of Luke McCormack and Lee Hughes cost people's lives,but they were signed back on amid a storm,and still playing now.
-
This will quite likely get some sort of reaction but personally I don't think he should be allowed back into the game
Just an opinion
Why?
-
Whether what he did was rape or not he treated that girl like a piece of meat who had no worth. He can plead innocence all he likes but he still needs to come out and accept some responsibility for putting himself in that situation, taking advantage of someone who wasnt 100% and deciding its acceptable to prowl around using his profile to detrimental effect.
So far he seems to be acting like innocence of rape advocates every other act that occurred that night. if thats his take on it then his girlfriend is a mug for supporting him.
Apparently he will make a 'profound statement from his website' this week. He's had a couple of years to think up that statement, he should have done it at the prison gates and put himself to the sword like his accuser did in the courtroom.
If he gets his conviction overturned then fair enough he can get on with it, but until then he should either stay quiet and concentrate on his appeal until he's finished questioning the justice process applied to him. If it doesn't get overturned then he can play again when his sentence finishes in another 2 years or so. Five years is a poor deal for the victim if he's guilty, serving only half of that in prison is a joke, the least he can do is be deprived of his profession for the full five.
I wouldnt have him at the club even if his conviction is overturned unless he comes out and accepts the responsibility for his actions in a clear and humble manner.
-
Is he a right winger ?
-
Is he a right winger ?
No idea of his politics. Sorry.
-
He's done his time....he should be allowed to pick up the pieces. Yes, he'll get dog's abuse from opposing fans.....but I'd have him like a shot.
-
This will quite likely get some sort of reaction but personally I don't think he should be allowed back into the game
Just an opinion
Why?
Because of what he did. Irrespective of his pleas of innocence, what Beaver says is correct - he did something. Disturbingly he exploited his celebrity to gain sexual gratification at the expense of another and that, for my money, is a total no no (and yes I know others have and continue to do it but that don't make it right)
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
If the review finds that he is innocent of ANY wrongdoing then I'd reconsider.
I know that due to his conviction he would not be able to coach or Referee so I don't really see why he should be allowed to play...maybe once the whole sentence period is expired plus some but i stick to my views
-
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
No I would not and neither would anyone else...........but he is not going to join a North Wales ladies football team.......he is going to re-join Sheffield United Football Club and won't be alone on the training field and will be surrounded by 16,000 observers on match day
If he is not allowed to play football again..........what job is he allowed to pursue ?..........alternatively would it be ok for the taxpayer to pay for this ex-convict to live on benefits
-
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
No I would not and neither would anyone else...........but he is not going to join a North Wales ladies football team.......he is going to re-join Sheffield United Football Club and won't be alone on the training field and will be surrounded by 16,000 observers on match day
If he is not allowed to play football again..........what job is he allowed to pursue ?..........alternatively would it be ok for the taxpayer to pay for this ex-convict to live on benefits
why is he any different to any other criminal? do rapists who stack shelves in tesco come out of prison early and walk back into their old job? tax payers contribute towards society and all that goes with it, including feeding,clothing and housing convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters when they re-integrate to society, so yes i'll fund his benefits like i fund the counselling his victim gets. he has proved himself unfit to deal with the rigours of being high profile in modern society. He is unsafe to himself and others in the public eye, so he can find an alternative career. No more football doesnt equal life on the dole.
lets see if he spent his 2 and a half years wisely, so far it appears not.
-
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
No I would not and neither would anyone else...........but he is not going to join a North Wales ladies football team.......he is going to re-join Sheffield United Football Club and won't be alone on the training field and will be surrounded by 16,000 observers on match day
If he is not allowed to play football again..........what job is he allowed to pursue ?..........alternatively would it be ok for the taxpayer to pay for this ex-convict to live on benefits
He will get a job again as a player I am convinced. Legally he can and ability wise shows he will - I am however pleased it's not Alty for reasons above. He will have conditions for his release as any offender. He won't be doing the school visits, nor the trip to the crimbo party etc. His club and personal manager will be advising him to take a low profile until his legal stuff is done one way or another.
Now who is talking to his victim, helping her come to terms with the prospect of fans going bonkers when he scores a goal? That must be a sickening feeling for the girl.
-
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
No I would not and neither would anyone else...........but he is not going to join a North Wales ladies football team.......he is going to re-join Sheffield United Football Club and won't be alone on the training field and will be surrounded by 16,000 observers on match day
If he is not allowed to play football again..........what job is he allowed to pursue ?..........alternatively would it be ok for the taxpayer to pay for this ex-convict to live on benefits
why is he any different to any other criminal? do rapists who stack shelves in tesco come out of prison early and walk back into their old job? tax payers contribute towards society and all that goes with it, including feeding,clothing and housing convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters when they re-integrate to society, so yes i'll fund his benefits like i fund the counselling his victim gets. he has proved himself unfit to deal with the rigours of being high profile in modern society. He is unsafe to himself and others in the public eye, so he can find an alternative career. No more football doesnt equal life on the dole.
lets see if he spent his 2 and a half years wisely, so far it appears not.
If he was guilty which I'm not convinced of why should I have to work with a rapist on a building site but if I played football I wouldn't
-
This will quite likely get some sort of reaction but personally I don't think he should be allowed back into the game
Just an opinion
Why?
Because of what he did. Irrespective of his pleas of innocence, what Beaver says is correct - he did something. Disturbingly he exploited his celebrity to gain sexual gratification at the expense of another and that, for my money, is a total no no (and yes I know others have and continue to do it but that don't make it right)
Would you allow Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc to resume their careers with access to people similar to those they were convicted of abusing?
If the review finds that he is innocent of ANY wrongdoing then I'd reconsider.
I know that due to his conviction he would not be able to coach or Referee so I don't really see why he should be allowed to play...maybe once the whole sentence period is expired plus some but i stick to my views
He didn't exploit his celebrity, the whole case was built around the fact that the girl didn't have a clue what was going on. If she couldn't consent to sex I doubt she had the faintest idea who Ched Evans was.
As for 'giving him access to people he was abusing' all the people you mention were serial offenders who undertook this kind of behaviour over a number of years. Ched Evans has only done this once. If your game is taking advantage of girls too drunk to say no it doesn't really matter weather you work in the sewers or are a footballer, if you want to do it it isn't that difficult.
As an aside it's interesting that lots of people seem to suggest that the man should never be allowed to work with kids. I'm not sure there's any reason to think he is a danger to children.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
-
I accept that people will disagree with my post
As I said it was just a personal view - one I have held since his conviction and will continue to hold for the foreseeable future.
Good job I'm not in charge of the Country I suppose
-
I accept that people will disagree with my post
As I said it was just a personal view - one I have held since his conviction and will continue to hold for the foreseeable future.
Good job I'm not in charge of the Country I suppose
You couldn't possibly be worse than Cameron !
-
if someone that worked in a factory(they used to have them in Broadheath) was convicted of rape after he had served his sentance he would be free to start working again,so why not in football,its not as though sheffield untide are a top team anymore,so yes i would take him on.
-
if someone that worked in a factory(they used to have them in Broadheath) was convicted of rape after he had served his sentance he would be free to start working again,so why not in football,its not as though sheffield untide are a top team anymore,so yes i would take him on.
My main feeling is that he hasn't served his sentence, he's served half of it. He is now serving the rest on licence or whatever terms it is, or at least he should be. So, for me there's another 2 years or so until he should be allowed to play football again. In the meantime there are still factories around, i'm sure one of them is hiring.
-
If he's innocent fair enough, but if he's guilty I would no more employ him as a decorator, plumber, footballer, anything. How can you look someone in the eye on a daily basis, knowing what they have done? You tarnish the name of the company by employing someone like that in my book. Once a rapist, always a rapist. In years gone by, they'd have whipped off his nads and hung them from a tree. If guilty, he deserves no compassion.
Neither him, nor his family, have covered themselves in glory over this, regardless of guilt.
-
He shouldn't play a spectator sport of any sort until he has cleared his name. If he manages to do that, then fair play to the man.
-
if someone that worked in a factory(they used to have them in Broadheath) was convicted of rape after he had served his sentance he would be free to start working again,so why not in football,its not as though sheffield untide are a top team anymore,so yes i would take him on.
If you work in a factory, or a warehouse, or on a building site, then you are pretty much anonymous to the customer (although of course not colleagues) so it is easier to get back into society and work.
If you are a professional footballer, then you are performing to a paying audience. You have a public profile, can be a role model and attract fans. If you were an actor, DJ or TV presenter and were convicted of rape your career would be over in an instant. The same should apply to footballers too.
And Sheffield United are still a well supported club, they get about 17-20,000 on average over the last few years despite their decline and get TV coverage every week. Hardly Sunday League stuff.
-
Regardless of him being a footballer I think a lot on here are damming someone who it's not a open and shut case is guilty of rape
-
Regardless of him being a footballer I think a lot on here are damming someone who it's not a open and shut case is guilty of rape
you think he innocent?
-
Not sure uday to be honest if he is he shouldev stayed inside for life and this should not even be a debate
-
It's getting some attention. He's being portrayed as as vital as John Charles or ian Rush.
He's a 19 goal a season league 1 journeyman centre forward.
As for the hypothetical question of him at Alty. No, on account of him coming across as a bit of a T**t to be honest.
Also, if the first XI were the only team then it might be a different debate slightly but if as a club on the whole you are including things like the girls team of 17/18 year olds then it would be a bit off to have him as a major player at the club.
Generally though, you have to go by the principles that the jury's verdict must be respected and if a person does their time then they should be free to work. Whether the sentence was harsh enough is an entirely different matter.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
Yes the law is correct
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
Yes the law is correct
Glad we've got that sorted.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
Yes the law is correct
The law is correct. Nobody is seriously going to campaign for any watering down of child protection in the current climate.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
Yes the law is correct
The law is correct. Nobody is seriously going to campaign for any watering down of child protection in the current climate.
Meh, I don't like the idea that all sex offenders are a danger to children. It's irrational and preys on some of our stupidest instincts.
Ched Evans might have made some poor moral choices but I really don't see the harm in letting him supervise some 17 year olds run around some cones.
-
Because he is a sex offender - so he can't work with children by law
Well yes, I'm just questioning whether, given the nature of his crime, it's reasonable to stop him coaching 17 year old lads.
17 year olds are children in terms of child safeguarding. That is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1, Article 1 unless local laws say otherwise, and UK law does not say otherwise. He is barred from that level of work.
I understand the law - I'm asking whether the law is correct.
Yes the law is correct
The law is correct. Nobody is seriously going to campaign for any watering down of child protection in the current climate.
Meh, I don't like the idea that all sex offenders are a danger to children. It's irrational and preys on some of our stupidest instincts.
Ched Evans might have made some poor moral choices but I really don't see the harm in letting him supervise some 17 year olds run around some cones.
The nature of those poor moral choices is the exact reason why he should not be allowed. Assuming guilt, he took advantage of vulnerability to impose sex. Especially when his fame and therefore extra clout is taken into account, putting him in a position of such close contact with 17 year olds would be asking for trouble.
The question is, if you had forced someone into sex and experienced remorse at your actions, would you want to put yourself in a position which leaves you vulnerable to being tempted into a repeat? If your answer is no (in my case it certainly would be) then since we are talking about children ie. protecting those who are more in danger of being exploited, what would normally be a personal moral decision must be enshrined in law.
So in short, the law is correct on this one.