Ched Evans

[AMMjag]

"mixed up wee chick"

Mask well and truly slipped.

[yoda]

I'll paraphrase the arguments:

Webster:

Football players do become "role models" for young children, and that a convicted rapist should not be put in the position where he can be a "role model" for young children.

She fully believes in rehabilitation (and reintegration into the community) but her bone of contention lies with Evans and his inability to say "accept the verdict". She also questioned as to why Evans says "he's learned his lesson" without accepting the verdict and without apologising to the victim - what lesson has he learned?

Webster doesn't want him to be hired by any football club. She believes that hiring a convicted rapist contradicts any "community ethos". A teacher can't return to work after a rape conviction. The FA must act and implement a code of conduct regarding rape.

She's being punished (changing her identity twice) for being the victim.

Portillo:

Says Evans should be allowed to play football again and opposes any attempt to "ban" him (be it through a formal ban or "intimidation" by lobby groups). Portillo believes you shouldn't be punished more than once for a crime. Evans is a role model to show that you have to behave within the confines of the law. Prison sentences need to be longer, if anything.

​Stopping Evans from playing football is a punishment. He maintains his innocence - like the Birmingham Six - so he can't show remorse because it will undermine his defence.

Alan Johnson:

No, Evans shouldn't be allowed to continue his career as a professional footballer. Rehabilitation doesn't have to be in the same profession. There's a struggle to get rape taken seriously, so what message does this send out? Get raped and your rapist spends a couple of years in prison then continues on as if nothing has happened?

[MarkoRaj]

Webster:

Football players do become "role models" for young children, and that a convicted rapist should not be put in the position where he can be a "role model" for young children.

She fully believes in rehabilitation (and reintegration into the community) but her bone of contention lies with Evans and his inability to say "accept the verdict". She also questioned as to why Evans says "he's learned his lesson" without accepting the verdict and without apologising to the victim - what lesson has he learned?

Ludicrous argument. So he shouldn't be allowed the right of appeal now?

Webster doesn't want him to be hired by any football club. She believes that hiring a convicted rapist contradicts any "community ethos". A teacher can't return to work after a rape conviction. The FA must act and implement a code of conduct regarding rape.

I agree that a code of conduct should be implemented but surely it would be unfair to punish Evans with it retrospectively.

She's being punished (changing her identity twice) for being the victim.

Portillo:

Says Evans should be allowed to play football again and opposes any attempt to "ban" him (be it through a formal ban or "intimidation" by lobby groups). Portillo believes you shouldn't be punished more than once for a crime. Evans is a role model to show that you have to behave within the confines of the law. Prison sentences need to be longer, if anything.

Can't disagree with that especially re. Prison sentences.

​Stopping Evans from playing football is a punishment. He maintains his innocence - like the Birmingham Six - so he can't show remorse because it will undermine his defence.

The Birmingham 6 were eventually found innocent so that's a bit of a bizarre comparison

Alan Johnson:

Get raped and your rapist spends a couple of years in prison then continues on as if nothing has happened?

That's the law! Why should Evans be punished more harshly than any other convicted rapist?

[vikingTON]

​Stopping Evans from playing football is a punishment. He maintains his innocence - like the Birmingham Six - so he can't show remorse because it will undermine his defence.

The Birmingham 6 were eventually found innocent so that's a bit of a bizarre comparison

Erm yes: Evans maintains that he is innocent too. That's not to say that Evans is automatically innocent, but her (and the wider media circus') tear-stained plea that he must show remorse for a crime he believes he didn't commit is utterly laughable.

Portillo completely dismantled her argument, she's still free to exercise her right to stop going to games, but I'm not sure why anyone else should care about that.

[Cliche Guevara]

Why do people think that someone being convicted of a crime is only impacted by any imposed prison sentence?

There are also consequences such as personal, social and career. Let's not go all 'Rangers' on this and state that when someone is convicted of rape the prison sentence should be the only detrimental impact on their life.

People lose careers in teaching, law, the police, the financial industry, medicine, etc etc all the time as a result of crimes they commit. Why should football be above that? Again, in theory, as opposed to specifically Evans.

[vikingTON]

A: Because most of the above occupations are actually a public service profession; football, despite the whinging about wage levels and being a 'role model', is not.

I suspect that many footballers do indeed lose their careers as a result of criminal offences anyway - any private employer can set their own standards as to what is acceptable.

[JamboMikey]

Sure that boy Alan Johnson was saying doctors, teachers etc wouldn't be able to return to work. I'm sure this is because they have a duty of care for people though so not really a valid argument.

I don't agree with Michael Portillo's politics but at least his views on this came from a logical perspective rather than a load of hand wringing nonsense like his compadre.

Interesting that Johnson is so worried about a certain issue not being taken seriously and the wrong messages being sent out but feels it is perfectly acceptable to describe a person who has been a recovering drug addict for over a decade a 'celebrity druggy' later on in the same show.

[Cliche Guevara]

A: Because most of the above occupations are actually a public service profession; football, despite the whinging about wage levels and being a 'role model', is not.

I suspect that many footballers do indeed lose their careers as a result of criminal offences anyway - any private employer can set their own standards as to what is acceptable.

Not necessarily, in the law or finance industry people can commit crimes that then prevent their continued participation in that sector, even for a private firm.

The point remains, however, it's being overlooked that people outwith football often suffer further impacts on their careers over and above any prison sentence.

[vikingTON]

Not necessarily, in the law or finance industry people can commit crimes that then prevent their continued participation in that sector, even for a private firm.

The point remains, however, it's being overlooked that people outwith football often suffer further impacts on their careers over and above any prison sentence.

And there are also many serious crimes that a private employer could disregard. Ched Evans' career has also been impacted - he's hardly going to walk into any English league club at the moment.

[MarkoRaj]

Why do people think that someone being convicted of a crime is only impacted by any imposed prison sentence?

There are also consequences such as personal, social and career. Let's not go all 'Rangers' on this and state that when someone is convicted of rape the prison sentence should be the only detrimental impact on their life.

People lose careers in teaching, law, the police, the financial industry, medicine, etc etc all the time as a result of crimes they commit. Why should football be above that? Again, in theory, as opposed to specifically Evans.

All those professions apart from financial services have very good reason for holding employees to a higher standard in terms of criminal convictions than in other careers. I think that is fairly straightforward to understand why.

With regards to financial services, you wouldn't necessarily automatically lose your job unless it was a fraud related conviction. Most employers have their own specific policy on this, just like anywhere else.

The key point in all of this is that the rules for each industry or place of work are set out in advance. No doctor ever came out of prison expecting to get their old job back.

[Cliche Guevara]

Depends what the doctor did, and the financial services industry has regulations that can prevent people with certain convictions continuing within the sector.

The point for me, at the moment, is anyone asking why he should be punished over and above his criminal sentence should consider that in other careers people are regularly impacted over and above their criminal sentence. It's not necessarily simply the case that he has served his sentence and that's the end of it.

[vikingTON]

That's twice you've mentioned these certain convictions... which convictions?

And that point's hardly a point at all, given that Evans, like every other person convicted for a criminal offence (or even accused, in serious criminal cases like this) has already had his career substantially affected by the case. That doesn't relate to setting up a 'code of conduct' or preventing someone from seeking employment again though.

[Cliche Guevara]

It doesn't matter which convictions. I'm sure you'll be aware of some or can imagine. People seem to think that once he has served his sentence that his career should not continue to be impacted, but it regularly happens to people outwith football so he would by no means be a unique case as is being suggested.

I have no comment on any Code of Conduct or preventing someone seeking employment again.

[vikingTON]

Well, actually, I think it does: and your piss-poor evasion efforts only confirm this sentiment. I'll ask again: wWhich convictions breach the regulations of employment in the financial services industry?

Be specific.

[Toby]

Well, that was condescending.

Not entirely wide of the mark though.

[Cliche Guevara]

Well, actually, I think it does: and your piss-poor evasion efforts only confirm this sentiment. I'll ask again: wWhich convictions breach the regulations of employment in the financial services industry?

Be specific.

A crime of dishonesty, for example.

I'm not evading anything and I'm not really sure what point you're making or trying to argue. The fact is that it's not necessarily the case that once someone satisfies a punishment imposed by law, that they are able to resume their previous career. A footballer would not be in a unique position would this happen to them.

It's no great revelation, just something I think certain posters have overlooked in some of their arguments.

[vikingTON]

A crime of dishonesty, for example.

Related to what, exactly?

You've deliberately tried to evade following up on your claim, because it is turning out to be clearly bollocks. So far you've produced examples of public sector employees, the basis of which has already been explained, and your sole example from the private sector isn't standing up to any scrutiny.

And, yet again, any footballer is already hampered in their efforts to resume their career, by being convicted of a criminal offence. pressure groups at the moment wish to turn this into a binding restriction. So your point is moot.

[Cliche Guevara]

Related to what, exactly?

You've deliberately tried to evade following up on your claim, because it is turning out to be clearly bollocks. So far you've produced examples of public sector employees, the basis of which has already been explained, and your sole example from the private sector isn't standing up to any scrutiny.

And, yet again, any footballer is already hampered in their efforts to resume their career, by being convicted of a criminal offence. pressure groups at the moment wish to turn this into a binding restriction. So your point is moot.

What's bollocks? That people are precluded from operating in certain roles of employment subsequent to a criminal conviction? It's clearly not bollocks. I think you're trying to argue against some point I'm not trying to make, however, and you're really labouring this non-argument.

I have no comment on what pressure groups are trying to do.

[Sergeant Wilson]

A crime of dishonesty, for example.

I'm not evading anything and I'm not really sure what point you're making or trying to argue. The fact is that it's not necessarily the case that once someone satisfies a punishment imposed by law, that they are able to resume their previous career. A footballer would not be in a unique position would this happen to them.

It's no great revelation, just something I think certain posters have overlooked in some of their arguments.

Some convictions will have an impact on some professions or jobs, but rape and football are not covered by any of the existing law.

Even though crimes will show up on a disclosure check it doesn't mean an employer will definitely refuse you a job. Checks are there to allow employers to make an informed choicechoice.

[vikingTON]

What's bollocks? That people are precluded from operating in certain roles of employment subsequent to a criminal conviction? It's clearly not bollocks. I think you're trying to argue against some point I'm not trying to make, however, and you're really labouring this non-argument.

I have no comment on what pressure groups are trying to do.

Answer the question, which you have now evaded for the fifth time. Which specific "crimes of dishonesty" preclude people from taking up their careers in this sector?