Honest_Man#1 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Or I remember he killed someone and was put in jail for the incident, and over the years since he signed I've let the facts fudge in my mind. If that's the case it's pretty bizarre too though. You must have known he was jailed for only 2/3 years because he signed for you straight after, so surely you didn't think he'd been given 2 years for a murder sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 If that's the case it's pretty bizarre too though. You must have known he was jailed for only 2/3 years because he signed for you straight after, so surely you didn't think he'd been given 2 years for a murder sentence? Yes, it is pretty bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So reports that United fans were singing in support of Evans at the weekend. Fucking wow. http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/sheffield-united-fans-sing-super-ched-evans-during-bradford-win/ '> http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/sheffield-united-fans-sing-super-ched-evans-during-bradford-win/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Thread has been interesting. Is he guilty? Yep. That's the law. Has he done his time, again yep. Legally can he now resume his life? Yes. Those who wish to deny him the opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Who, precisely, is denying him the opportunity to resume his life? Are you booking your Ian Watkins tickets now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Who, precisely, is denying him the opportunity to resume his life? At present many wish to deny him that opportunity. Fortunately they are not the law. The smart arse answer is, got a mirror in your hoose? Have a look. The more cogent answer is http://www.change.org/p/kevin-mccabe-chairman-of-sheffield-utd-football-club-refuse-to-reinstate-ched-evans-as-a-player-at-sheffield-united Are you booking your Ian Watkins tickets now? Several answers to that lame attempt at an incisive question. 1. Nope, he's in the pokey afaik. 2. Given that I thought his oeuvre was shite before he went into pokey it would be strange for me to be looking forward to the comeback tour. 3. No, but if and when he gets out I won't be getting the pitchforks out and rallying with those who believe they are above the law to hound him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Got a mirror in your hoose? Have a look. Several answers to that lame attempt at an incisive question. 1. Nope, he's in the pokey afaik. 2. No, you're wrong. Explicitly wrong. I've explained precisely why I have no issue with him having a normal life outside of Prison. Hint - participating in the entertainment industry is not a right. If you strongly support this particular rapist, do you also support Gary Glitter returning to our screens with new pop concerts? Be specific. I think you're drastically under prepared for this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 No, you're wrong. Explicitly wrong. I've explained precisely why I have no issue with him having a normal life outside of Prison. Hint - participating in the entertainment industry is not a right. If you strongly support this particular rapist, do you also support Gary Glitter returning to our screens with new pop concerts? Be specific. I think you're drastically under prepared for this debate. So you want to circumscribe his rights to employment? Feel free to go to law with that one. Should Glitter be able to attempt a comeback? Why not? I'm underprepared? ROFL. I'm not the one trying to deny someone his right to employment in a particular industry. Here's a clue, nor is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So you want to circumscribe his rights to employment? Feel free to go to law with that one. Should Glitter be able to attempt a comeback? Why not? I'm underprepared? ROFL. I'm not the one trying to deny someone his right to employment in a particular industry. Here's a clue, nor is the law. Yep, under prepared. Drastically. Given I've already been very specific in stating that there isn't a law prohibiting Evans taking part in football, or a law that prohibits Gary Glitters touring again. Football is an entertainment industry, hiring convicted rapists should be so bad for business that no club would dare do it. Just like no pub is going to hire Gary Glitter for a gig, it would sink the establishment, and doing this in football should sink the club. Any game would be boycotted by all but the most ardent rape apologists. It's interesting that those who, completely incorrectly, think I am preventing Evans' return and reintegration into society are exactly the same who advocate attending his games, and shouting abuse at him for his past crimes. I have no interest in shouting abuse at him, I would not participate in attending any game that he is playing in. He should be allowed to live an anonymous life free from abuse from football fans. Enablers like you would no doubt be delighted to pay to see Gary Glitter perform in concerts or on our TV screens. 2. Given that I thought his oeuvre was shite before he went into pokey it would be strange for me to be looking forward to the comeback tour. 3. No, but if and when he gets out I won't be getting the pitchforks out and rallying with those who believe they are above the law to hound him. Er, right, I'd just assumed you'd badly mucked up your basic numbering system. Anyway, point 2 totally dodges the issue. As you are surely well aware. Who is getting the pitchforks out and who is rallying to get the law to hound him? I've stated there is no law, and there isn't likely to be one. My protest at Ched Evans inclusion in a football team would be the exact opposite of getting the "pitchforks out" as I would refuse to attend the game, or watch it on television. It would be the very definition of a silent, and demonstrably, non violent protest. The very antithesis, I suspect, of the protest taking place inside the stadium by enablers. So yes, drastically under prepared, but do you yet realise this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Anyone that thinks Ched Evans should be allowed to play again is a 'rape enabler' or 'rape apologist'. I look forward to reading more of this fascinating argument in the heads gone of the week forum. Pray continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Anyone that thinks Ched Evans should be allowed to play again is a 'rape enabler' or 'rape apologist'. I look forward to reading more of this fascinating argument in the heads gone of the week forum. Pray continue. Well, obviously that's the case. Will you dare to counter? Nah, you're too smart, or too cowardly, to take on someone you know you can't beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Well, obviously that's the case. Will you dare to counter? Nah, you're too smart, or too cowardly, to take on someone you know you can't beat. If it's entertainment then it's not up to you is it? It's up to those who pay money at the gate and if they think he has payed his debt to society, has been rehabilitated who are you to argue? To put him in the same category as Gary Glitter shows a basic misunderstanding of what he was convicted of and indeed this is reflected in his sentencing. The impossibility of proving whether consent was given is very different to the predatory nature of the crimes you seek to associate with his. The need to be seen to be strong on tackling sexual offences is an added issue here. Conviction rates are incredibly low for this sort of crime and if the two protagonists are under the influence of alcohol or any other substance, how can any consent given be given properly and how can it be proved that it was given at all? Anyone shagging anyone while under the influence of alcohol could be classed as a rapist as any consent given could be questioned. This is a massive legal f**k-up which rather than be correctly addressed through legislature is being attacked via the livelihood of one man. One man who has served the sentence handed to him, is appealing his conviction, who maintains his innocence and has no legal restrictions on him returning to his chosen career. But don't let any of that disturb your cheaply bought, Daily Mail, knee-jerk morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Aberdeen are a club that represents the city. How would you feel if they signed a rapists? I doubt many of the families who attend Pittodrie would be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Aberdeen are a club that represents the city. How would you feel if they signed a rapists? I doubt many of the families who attend Pittodrie would be happy What about drink drivers, drug takers, tax cheats, folk who batter Elvis impersonators or attend IRA funerals? Where are we drawing the line? The word rape is the issue here, very easy to jump on the bandwagon and scream rapist when we are applying that he is in the same category as a predatory sex offender, which is clearly not the case. There were plenty folk saying we shouldn't have signed Goodwillie and he hadn't even been convicted. The mere suggestion of a sexual offence is enough for some to condemn a man, that is the power that the word rape holds. And precisely why we shouldn't be allowing post-sentence punishment to be allocated by the farking media and nippy wee sweety-rustling imbeciles, who plainly don't understand the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yep, under prepared. Drastically. Given I've already been very specific in stating that there isn't a law prohibiting Evans taking part in football, or a law that prohibits Gary Glitters touring again. Football is an entertainment industry, hiring convicted rapists should be so bad for business that no club would dare do it. Just like no pub is going to hire Gary Glitter for a gig, it would sink the establishment, and doing this in football should sink the club. Any game would be boycotted by all but the most ardent rape apologists. Excellent, so we both agree the club may re-sign him? Or indeed any other club may do so. It's interesting that those who, completely incorrectly, think I am preventing Evans' return and reintegration into society are exactly the same who advocate attending his games, and shouting abuse at him for his past crimes. I have no interest in shouting abuse at him, I would not participate in attending any game that he is playing in. He should be allowed to live an anonymous life free from abuse from football fans. I would not go out of my way to see him, but were he to sign for a club and play against Morton I would not avoid the game. Anyway, point 2 totally dodges the issue. As you are surely well aware. Nope again, you asked a question, I answered "2. Given that I thought his oeuvre was shite before he went into pokey it would be strange for me to be looking forward to the comeback tour. 3. No, but if and when he gets out I won't be getting the pitchforks out and rallying with those who believe they are above the law to hound him." Perhaps had you asked if it were someone whose music I cared about, Springsteen say, I would have answered, 2. I would no longer wish to attend his concerts. 3. No, but if and when he gets out I won't be getting the pitchforks out and rallying with those who believe they are above the law to hound him Your fault for asking a poor question. Guess you're poorly prepared. Enablers like you would no doubt be delighted to pay to see Gary Glitter perform in concerts or on our TV screens. Enablers?Lloving your Alice in Wonderland attempt to make language mean what you wish it to mean. Nice try but you're not on CiF now. Who is getting the pitchforks out and who is rallying to get the law to hound him? I've stated there is no law, and there isn't likely to be one. My protest at Ched Evans inclusion in a football team would be the exact opposite of getting the "pitchforks out" as I would refuse to attend the game, or watch it on television. It would be the very definition of a silent, and demonstrably, non violent protest. The very antithesis, I suspect, of the protest taking place inside the stadium by enablers. If you accept that he has the right to play football and that clubs have the right to accept him then we're agreed on the most important points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 But don't let any of that disturb your cheaply bought, Daily Mail, knee-jerk morality. Daily mail's b*****d love child with the Guardian to be exact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 It's all pretty murky tbh. Read the court summary and while it's not a cut and dry case, I dont really buy the "lad's night out" side of things and it seemed all cloak and dagger stuff at the hotel. With regards to him playing now, well that's a decision for club owners, who've shown they dont care. It doesn't sit well with me and I personally wouldn't pay to watch my team if they hired him, but I don't think there should be any laws preventing him from being signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The word rape is the issue here, very easy to jump on the bandwagon and scream rapist when we are applying that he is in the same category as a predatory sex offender, which is clearly not the case. In what way is this "clearly not the case"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The word rape is the issue here, very easy to jump on the bandwagon and scream rapist when we are applying that he is in the same category as a predatory sex offender, which is clearly not the case. It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon of what? Calling a man who was convicted of rape, a rapist? Maybe you're right though, maybe he isn't a predatory sex offender, maybe he's an opportunistic sex offender instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon of what? Calling a man who was convicted of rape, a rapist? Maybe you're right though, maybe he isn't a predatory sex offender, maybe he's an opportunistic sex offender instead. If only there were a way to avoid being convicted of rape.... Maybe not being a rapist is a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.