Ched Evans (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
Astute
Well-Known Member
He was convicted. Then he got an even better lawyer to get him off on appeal.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Answer me one thing. If he didn't do anything wrong why did he leave the hotel via a fire escape?
Yorkshire SB
Well-Known Member
Agreed, which is why it's important to note the difference, as there was a large public response which blamed the potential victim for 'lying', which may not have been the case. He was not proven to be guilty, and therefore you must assume innocence, and he absolutely deserves his life and profession back. However he was not proven to be innocent, and whilst this is nuanced, there is a difference.
Personal opinion is that what he did was, at best, morally reprehensible, and I'd rather we didn't sign him based on that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He was proven to be guilty
Yorkshire SB
Well-Known Member
He was retried, with new evidence and found not guilty. My personal stance is the same as yours, and I don't like it, however it is a fact.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s also a fact that Jeremy Thorpe was found innocent but now is very much assumed guilty
Yorkshire SB
Well-Known Member
Yeah I understand the point you're making, and like Thorpe, Evans' career and life will always be tainted and shrouded in doubt because of this.
This is the justice system though, and he was acquitted of earlier convictions, and found not guilty.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You're conflating public opinion with a court's ruling though. As YSB states, he doesn't like the guy and would rather we didn't sign him, that's fine. Carrying out vigilante justice because you think the court's are wrong isn't IMO, it goes against every legal tradition we have in this country.
And if he was guilty and served his time (like King) then my position would be the same: you reintegrate people to society because that's the best for all involved.
The purpose of the justice system isn't to satisfy your blood lust.
Nick
Administrator
He got bullied against us.
I had this pre-conception he would have a bit about him. He just got pushed off the ball against us and had nothing.
Even if he had no history at all, on a football alone basis I wouldn't want him.
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Like others its a no from me but what a load of shit spouted on here by the high and mighty self righteous.
If Robins wanted him I would have no objection to him being our player, if it was felt he could add something then I would want him. Why? because despite what the hanging judges on here say he was acquitted and is free to ply his trade, is a father with the woman who stood by him and he is entitled to earn a wage.
If it was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" then Evans who would come out unscathed.
If Robins wanted him I would have no objection to him being our player, if it was felt he could add something then I would want him. Why? because despite what the hanging judges on here say he was acquitted and is free to ply his trade, is a father with the woman who stood by him and he is entitled to earn a wage.
If it was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" then Evans who would come out unscathed.
Last edited:
mark82
Super Moderator
There are enough footballing reasons to not want him but the risk of disrupting the relative harmony we currently have also needs to be factored in.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Reluctantly, I have to agree.
This is far easier to agree with!
It all leaves a bad taste in the mouth really, but it's done with. As an aside, I don't understand how he managed to get out early on parole while maintaining his innocence. I thought to get parole, you had to accept your guilt? Or am I long past that way of thinking?
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
If the manager felt he would benefit the team that would be enough for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yorkshire SB
Well-Known Member
What an apt reference given your name
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
He was found not guilty after the original prosecution was quashed on appeal and a retrial. He is certainly not the beast Marlon King was.
If he comes here it is a risk to the club because of the trial, he is a controversial figure and there are still people trying to punish him even though he served 2 1/2 years in prison, I think that's enough.
He has scored 34 goals in 67 league one games. Therefore he is a proven league one striker.
On balance I'd rather the club steered clear of him but for footballing reasons he would be a suitable replacement for McNulty.
If he comes here it is a risk to the club because of the trial, he is a controversial figure and there are still people trying to punish him even though he served 2 1/2 years in prison, I think that's enough.
He has scored 34 goals in 67 league one games. Therefore he is a proven league one striker.
On balance I'd rather the club steered clear of him but for footballing reasons he would be a suitable replacement for McNulty.
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
The reference is from the bible rather than the Quran but I take your point.
Nick
Administrator
Have you ever seen either of them play to compare?
You don't mention that 29 of his goals were in the 2011 season before he had his "holiday".
fatso
Well-Known Member
Tbf most of us have fucked the odd pig in our time!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Here is a compilation of his goals, you may not agree but his style isn't altogether dissimilar to McNulty is it?
As for 2011 being significant, that is not surprising, he had personal issues for some years that begin around that time ..
Nick
Administrator
He isnt as quick as McNulty and doesn't have his movement. He isn't very good in the air either.
Yes, it's now after 2011 and his personal issues. He hasn't done anything of note since he has been back in football and nothing of note before that one season apart from 10 years ago when he got 10 in a season.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
On the football side of things I'm not that bothered if we sign him or not. He was obviously very good a while ago but has struggled to get going again since his time on the love train. We do desperately need a replacement for McNulty. It could be Evans, but I am a little doubtful he can still do it.
In regards to what he was sent down for, I studied this case at university incredibly in depth. For me I would argue his morals were massively questionable but nothing really worse than that. I've argued with people long and hard about it, but I wasn't surprised when the conviction was overturned. The whole thing was a mess and a bit of a witch hunt really. As someone said above, he is most likely a c-unit, but I wouldn't go as far as rapist. What makes me more cross is actions of the woman involved to be honest. I've said it when the case first came to a head, and I'll say it again now. It is women like her who make real rape cases so hard to prosecute and the lives of the victims even more hellish.
In regards to what he was sent down for, I studied this case at university incredibly in depth. For me I would argue his morals were massively questionable but nothing really worse than that. I've argued with people long and hard about it, but I wasn't surprised when the conviction was overturned. The whole thing was a mess and a bit of a witch hunt really. As someone said above, he is most likely a c-unit, but I wouldn't go as far as rapist. What makes me more cross is actions of the woman involved to be honest. I've said it when the case first came to a head, and I'll say it again now. It is women like her who make real rape cases so hard to prosecute and the lives of the victims even more hellish.
oucho
Well-Known Member
In a legalistic sense you are right, however the fact remains he has not been found guilty of committing a crime (or rather, he was and then it was overturned). Unlike Marlon who was convicted of many including attacking a woman. So on the basis that he has been accused and found not guilt,y it hardly alone seems like a basis for not signing him.
As others have said, for purely football reasons it would probably be a "no" as he looks like he's not good enough. But if MR chose to sign him, fair enough. Even if he had been convicted, I would say the same thing as he'd have served his sentence (assuming the sentence had ended by now). It was the same for Marlon; he was punished according to the law and so is free to continue with life.
Not that I have any taste for the bloke. But you see what I mean.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Have you ever watched Marc McNulty play?
I thought you’d have wanted Evans beheaded before the retrial occurred.
Because the hotel was on fire.
Nick
Administrator
Bit of a different charge / crime isn't it?
Sbarcher
Well-Known Member
Ah, so we are only talking about degrees of behaviour now?
Nick
Administrator
Well yes. Course there is different degrees of behaviour.
If my mate went out for a beer tonight and for some reason ended up in a fight and got done for assault I'd judge it differently to if he had been looking at pictures of kids online or spiking women's drinks to take them home etc.
Astute
Well-Known Member
We are not if someone is trying to defend Evans.
Everyone knows the law. You must get clear consent. In the original trial he said he had nowhere to stay. So he got a taxi to the hotel. But it came out that his mother lived just a couple of miles away. So what about the texts the players sent each other? They even said about having a pissed up bird. Everything together was enough to convict him.
So in the retrial his solicitor managed to put enough doubt in minds. He wasn't made innocent.
I suppose someone who robs a loaf of bread so they can eat is the same as someone who robs a bank.
If and when you have daughters that are at the age where they fully join society you will understand that they need protection from people like him.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I think additional evidence was allowed about the accusers behaviour. She was no innocent abroad.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You don't even need children tbh, and I think it's safe to say that over the years we've been on the same 'side' over this.
However...
There's no getting away from the fact his conviction was overturned. If we're to have faith in those convicted, we have to have faith when convictions are corrected - however unpleasant that may be.
Morally, ethically, there's no dubt he's a dubious character, but the danger there is where do you draw the line? Who has passed through our club who we never got to hear were morally dubious?
I do agree with the general principal that people have to be allowed to re-integrate. The sour taste with King was the total lack of remorse, the desperate effort to play the system, the unseemly haste we scrambled to sign him just because he was a striker who could score goals... on the cheap, and the disgraceful way the club and manager sought to ridicule and divide people who had concerns, along with trying to blacken the name of the victim.
To a degree, Evans follows some of that, with key differences that clubs didn't re-sign him until his conviction was quashed (they prepared to!) and, ultimately, his conviction has been quashed.
It can seem highly dubious, it can seem it's as much because he employed some morally dubious tactics to do it, and of course he could afford a good lawyer but, the black & white is he has no conviction for rape. Therefore, we've got to treat him like anybody else in a work setting... while warning our daughters off him in a social one! Now the work setting might draw concerns as to how he'd fit into our group but, in that respect, you'd hope we'd check that out for any player we signed, high profile troubles or not.
Fortunately(?) his form's been awful since his release, so it's a non issue really. Ultimately we're discussing something that won't happen!