porkpie_blue Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Only three people know what happened on that night in May 2011. What is clear is that Ched was an idiot to get himself involved. He is paying the price for his foolish behaviour. I believe he has the right to clear his name if he is truly innocent of the crime he was convicted of though this will be a tortuous path. I don't believe that our club is doing the right thing if they sign him as a player. Ched Evans with a clear criminal record would not be on our radar as he would be courted by bigger clubs and this can only mean that our club is targeting a cheap investment with a view to a bigger return on that investment. In other words its a cheap trick to profit from the situation and that doesn't sit well from a moralistic perspective even if it works from a business perspective. That being said it is the media that has made this such a controversial and emotive subject, I can't recall any club officials claiming that they are in the process of actually signing the player. Let's hope for their sakes that they see sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 It is interesting how many people have so little faith in the justice system as to deem the Evans conviction unsafe (without hearing the evidence) yet can't wait for a potential appeal which declares him innocent - why is one more trustworthy than the other?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 One thing that really puzzles me is that I had always thought that to get parole a convict had to display remorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 One thing that really puzzles me is that I had always thought that to get parole a convict had to display remorse. Getting released on licence (as Ched is) is different to parole - essentially Ched is still serving his sentence but the remainder being done in the community - parole is for when you've served your minimum (ie for murder) and demonstrate you are no longer a risk and so can be released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJazzer Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 FTFY. Point still stands though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbrown23 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 One thing that really puzzles me is that I had always thought that to get parole a convict had to display remorse. I read an article earlier that talked about ex convicts and their rehabilitation into society. It mentioned that, for someone to be rehabilitated they had to show an understanding and acceptance of how their actions had led them to their conviction and how their actions were deemed wrong. It didn't specifically say that the convicted had to apologise for what they had done but by showing they understood what it was they had done wrong, they could learn from it and, hopefully, not fall into the same pitfalls that led to their arrest. So for Ched Evans to not even acknowledge that his actions led a jury to believe he had raped someone, even though he doesn't think he has, shows to me he's not learnt anything from the whole episode at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Thats a pretty :censored:ty attitude to have. If he was acquitted and declared innocent there would be no moral objection to him playing. There wouldn't be a stigma. Publicity, of course, but nothing as negative and tarnishing as this torrid :censored: we've had over the past couple of days. Like I said in the post. Opinions. You have yours and I respect them. I have mine, which ... The stigma would be that we were perceived as having wanted to sign a (at the time) convicted rapist. Edited January 5, 2015 by Bristolatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgaz Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Like I said in the post. Opinions. You have yours and I respect them. I have mine, which ... I lost all respect for yours when you used the word chav.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJazzer Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 1. I'd have stuck her in a taxi, paid for it and rang her and/or the driver to make sure she got home okay. 2. When I fight, I fight hard but clean. Also smart. If I were trying to convince the CCRC or a court of my innocence, I'd avoid going after the victim. I also wouldn't get sucked in by lawyers who would encourage such a course of action. Alas, Ched and I are worlds apart. Worlds apart? You speak as though you know the bloke personally and know his every indiscretion. It's getting tetchy on here and I don't want or mean it to but my two penneth....... He has made (or someone has made for him) a website to put his side of the story across and try to protest his innocence. Now I apologise wholeheartedly if I missed it, but I don't see anywhere where he is encouraging anybody to 'go after' the victim, her family or her friends. If anybody does as a result of reading his site, that's not really his fault? And as for the taxi thing. If she was in such a pitiful drunken state, then I too would put her in a taxi. However, video evidence points to the fact that she wasn't, and she was the one that approached CM and said she was going home with him. So while we are saying Evans is a despicable character for not putting her in a taxi, let's remember that he want even there at the time. Also on this point, the men and the woman had been drinking, and as this whole sordid affair proves, drinking can impair your judgement and encourage you to do things that you would normally do when sober. Like sleep with a drunken girl who threw herself at you (Clayton) or cheekily ask if you could have a go (Evans) or agree to a spit roasting from two famous footballers (victim). Now if the whole case is built on her not being able to remember any of the whole affair, then how can she have consented to one but not the other? It's two or none surely? And a point that Tracey made earlier, that she felt safe back in her day and wasn't worried about violence or having her drink spiked. There is nothing to suggest there was any of that inn this case is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Like I said in the post. Opinions. You have yours and I respect them. I have mine, which ... If you were falsely convicted of a crime would you be happy being stigmatised by it for the rest of your life? If you'd been acquitted and cleared of the charge? I don't respect that opinion, I respect your right to have your opinion, but it's a ridiculous opinion to hold. If someone is found innocent they should be given a clean slate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I lost all respect for yours when you used the word chav.... Maybe you'd like to read it again. The word "chav" does not appear anywhere in my post. If you were falsely convicted of a crime would you be happy being stigmatised by it for the rest of your life? If you'd been acquitted and cleared of the charge? I don't respect that opinion, I respect your right to have your opinion, but it's a ridiculous opinion to hold. If someone is found innocent they should be given a clean slate. I think you've missed the point. I'm saying that the club, not Evans, would (OK, could) be stigmatised by once wanting (apparently) to sign a convicted rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbrown23 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 And as for the taxi thing. If she was in such a pitiful drunken state, then I too would put her in a taxi. However, video evidence points to the fact that she wasn't, and she was the one that approached CM and said she was going home with him. So while we are saying Evans is a despicable character for not putting her in a taxi, let's remember that he want even there at the time. Now if the whole case is built on her not being able to remember any of the whole affair, then how can she have consented to one but not the other? It's two or none surely? Ok so first point, is it possible she wanted to go back with Clayton, just Clayton. He was on his own when they got talking and only Clayton and the girl were in the taxi. She was complicit in what happened with him because she was complicit in going to the hotel with him and ONLY HIM. That's probably why Clayton was found not guilty of rape (I say probably, this is how it all looks to me, not accusing) Secondly, as you say, Evans wasn't in the taxi. So he's gone out of his way to go to his mates hotel room and then get involved. He's turned up after without her, and I don't even think, Claytons permission. So he's arrived unannounced and then asked to have sex with someone his mate is already having sex with. That's a bit messed up in my mind. So no, it's not really "two or none," is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Rather it wasn't my club and I want lose any sleep if we pull out but I quite hope we sign him now given all the :censored: we've put up with today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Rather it wasn't my club and I want lose any sleep if we pull out but I quite hope we sign him now given all the :censored: we've put up with today. That is quite a change considering when we signed Hughes you was going basaltic threatening to send back your season ticket :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Maybe you'd like to read it again. The word "chav" does not appear anywhere in my post. I think you've missed the point. I'm saying that the club, not Evans, would (OK, could) be stigmatised by once wanting (apparently) to sign a convicted rapist. Okay, but I'm not sure that argument holds up either. I don't think we'd be perceived in a negative light if he was found innocent. It'd probably be spun the other way, that we were the club that believed in him enough to give him a chance, when everyone was convinced of his guilt and calling on him to be banned from football, we believed him in enough to back him under heavy criticism, etc. It'd be mostly positive, how could it not be, if it turned out hewas innocent? This could be the game of poker the board are actually playing. If they're signing him they have to feel that he's in with a chance of being cleared at his next hearing or offered a re-trial. Why sign someone whose name is not only going to drag the club's name through the mud once, but again if his appeal is dismissed and he hits headlines new again? But I feel you are wrong that you would still feel comfortable that an innocent man is told he isn't welcome playing for your club because he was wrongly convicted and has unfair baggage. It's not a way you would want yourself or any of your loved ones treated had they been wrongly convicted of something. Edited January 5, 2015 by PlayItLivo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 maybe it is messed up him asking to have sex whilst shes already at it... but in todays age it is far from uncommon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbrown23 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 maybe it is messed up him asking to have sex whilst shes already at it... but in todays age it is far from uncommon I agree with that but I think that's were the separate verdicts has been formulated from. She went back with Clayton, Evans rocked up later uninvited. Just putting across why I don't buy this "two or none" argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 That is quite a change considering when we signed Hughes you was going basaltic threatening to send back your season ticket :P I have much more experience now about prison life and how someone who's served jail time needs help, needs someone to give them a chance and believe in them before they are forced back into their previous life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 That's how I read it too - she went back to the hotel with Clayton so the jury seen that as her consent. I just find it hard to believe she can't remember what happened in the room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 maybe it is messed up him asking to have sex whilst shes already at it... but in todays age it is far from uncommon that makes it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnrow latics Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If Evans signed Questions If you were playing for another club and Latics were after signing you would you sign? (think about the reaction from your family and friends) If you were currently a player at Latics would you want to be seen out socially with him (again think about the reaction) When he scores then as a player how would you celebrate? Run and mob him etc.etc? Bottom line is would signing Evans make it more difficult to retain our present squad and sign new players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 It doesn't make it right, nor do I think it makes it wrong. Its how the world is today - many of the older posters will see things differently, but I think a lot of the younger generation have either been there and done it or had a mate who has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I have much more experience now about prison life and how someone who's served jail time needs help, needs someone to give them a chance and believe in them before they are forced back into their previous life. Fair play I can respect that... I agree... But for me remorse has to come from said person.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 For all we know she could've just said she couldn't remember due to being embarrassed for allowing 2 guys to... Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Okay, but I'm not sure that argument holds up either. I don't think we'd be perceived in a negative light if he was found innocent. It'd probably be spun the other way, that we were the club that believed in him enough to give him a chance, when everyone was convinced of his guilt and calling on him to be banned from football, we believed him in enough to back him under heavy criticism, etc. It'd be mostly positive, how could it not be, if it turned out hewas innocent? This could be the game of poker the board are actually playing. If they're signing him they have to feel that he's in with a chance of being cleared at his next hearing or offered a re-trial. Why sign someone whose name is not only going to drag the club's name through the mud once, but again if his appeal is dismissed and he hits headlines new again? But I feel you are wrong that you would still feel comfortable that an innocent man is told he isn't welcome playing for your club because he was wrongly convicted and has unfair baggage. It's not a way you would want yourself or any of your loved ones treated had they been wrongly convicted of something. OK, I understand your point of view. I just feel that we would still be judged unfavourably. Different points of view; it's what message boards are about. It's purely hypothetical at the moment, so we'll see how it pans out. I still don't believe that I have :censored:ty attitude, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts