oafc0000 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 As divided as us lot I see That is typical Question Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meat pie sausage roll Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Oh yeh, I know what can do. Write a book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Oh yeh, I know what can do. Write a book Send the script to Hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just in the searching for easy sex kinda way Then I see no problem. It isn't everyone's idea of fun, but each to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Disappointed with the club for giving into the mob but also disappointed with some people on here. There's the odd character you expect it from but there's a lot of we'll respected, reasonable and smart people on this forum who have suddenly decided they can't think for them selves or use any sort of reason. They have discriminated against him and are in the same league as the social media mob that have partly brought round this whole change of heart. We look absolutely ridiculous now. At least if we saw it through we would have stuck to our convictions and backed what we started and claimed to believe in. I feel we would have saved a lot of face with a lot of people by following it through Maybe, but following it through could ultimately have bankrupted the club. I think the council's threat could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. A simple meeting with all the sponsors a couple of weeks ago could have prevented this fiasco from ever getting off the ground. The ignorance shown by the board is simply staggering! Edited January 9, 2015 by oafc1955 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grylls Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Maybe, but following it through could ultimately have bankrupted the club. I think the council's threat could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. A simple meeting with all the sponsors a couple of weeks ago could have prevented this fiasco from ever getting off the ground. The ignorance shown by the board is simply staggering! Likewise, the ignorance that nobody would have leaked details to the press shows a lack of understanding. I wanted Ched here. Give the board some credit, they were in negotiations for a month without anyone letting the cat out of the bag. That's a strong, unified board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsrblue Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Disappointed with the club for giving into the mob but also disappointed with some people on here. There's the odd character you expect it from but there's a lot of we'll respected, reasonable and smart people on this forum who have suddenly decided they can't think for them selves or use any sort of reason. They have discriminated against him and are in the same league as the social media mob that have partly brought round this whole change of heart. We look absolutely ridiculous now. At least if we saw it through we would have stuck to our convictions and backed what we started and claimed to believe in. I feel we would have saved a lot of face with a lot of people by following it through Sir, I feel highly offended by your attempt to belittle those Latics supporters who came to the conclusion that Evans should not become a player for our team. Just because we have come to the same conclusion as the majority why have we been brain washed by them. Could it not be because it was the correct conclusion? I haven't been influenced by any mod, I've no idea what has been said on social media as I don't use it, I have watched the BBC news items though, do they count as a mob leader? I have followed the Evans case and acquainted myself with all the possible facts since his attempt to sign for Sheffield Utd. I then came to the conclusion that he should not return professional football. And yes I have discriminated against him, he is a person of the lowest moral standards and a convicted rapist. I also agree that we look ridiculous, this is because the board should have stuck to their original decision not to attempt to sign him. Changing that decision is when they lost face. The whole country is divided on this subject and despite despite what some may think the other players at the club will be divided as well. Those against his signing would probably have kept it to themselves for the good of "the team", but It would still have been a an unhappy dressing room. How would a divided team have dealt with the constant hostile baying of opposing fans every other week? TBH if Evans had signed for Latics any game that he played in would have made me feel sick to the stomach, imagine him scoring, while he was sliding along the pitch on his knees with his arms in the air "Woohoo look at me I scored" I would feel nothing but nausea. Every victory with him in the side would have been a hollow one. If we won promotion it would be totally undeserved. Edited January 9, 2015 by laticsrblue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Sir, I feel highly offended by your attempt to belittle those Latics supporters who came to the conclusion that Evans should not become a player for our team. Just because we have come to the same conclusion as the majority why have we been brain washed by them. Could it not be because it was the correct conclusion? I haven't been influenced by any mod, I've no idea what has been said on social media as I don't use it, I have watched the BBC news items though, do they count as a mob leader? I have followed the Evans case and acquainted myself with all the possible facts since his attempt to sign for Sheffield Utd. I then came to the conclusion that he should not return professional football. And yes I have discriminated against him, he is a person of the lowest moral standards and a convicted rapist. I also agree that we look ridiculous, this is because the board should have stuck to their original decision not to attempt to sign him. Changing that decision is when they lost face. The whole country is divided on this subject and despite despite what some may think the other players at the club will be divided as well. Those against his signing would probably have kept it to themselves for the good of "the team", but It would still have been a an unhappy dressing room. How would a divided team have dealt with the constant hostile baying of opposing fans every other week? TBH if Evans had signed for Latics any game that he played in would have made me feel sick to the stomach, imagine him scoring, while he was sliding along the pitch on his knees with his arms in the air "Woohoo look at me I scored" I would feel nothing but nausea. Every victory with him in the side would have been a hollow one. If we won promotion it would be totally undeserved. Reasonable and smart people suddenly deciding they can't think for themselves and deciding that you don't think evans should play for us is two completely different things. You could open your eyes and actually think for yourself and still be of the opinion he shouldn't play for us. It would wholly hypocritical for me to say people should think for themselves and decide he should play for us. You may not have been influenced by the mob that doesn't mean to say your not on the same level as the mob also doesn't mean to say you are. Many on here I would say are though. If your truly offended with my post then I would suggest either you misread the post and jumped the gun or that infancy it's quite accurate and touched a nerve. Your (and the rest of the anti evans brigades) stance that the majority were against him signing for us is bewildering also. What evidence do you have to suggest that your with the majority? A vote on owtb's? The same vote that 200 or so people voted in out of well over 2000 members? That's not a majority. The anti evans brigade were louder, more forceful and used majorly under hand tactics . . . This does not make them a majority. You agree you have discriminated against him and then try to justify it??? Like there is any reason that breaking the law and lacking morals is acceptable because you feel strongly about something. You back the criminal justice system blindly in your stance that he is guilty yet in the next breath totally disagree with the criminal justice system who say he can go back to work just because it doesn't suit yours and many others views (sound like mob justice yet ....probably still won't see that though) All this the board have embarrassed us and lost face is also a load of rubbish. Has it been handled perfectly? No . Outside of the latics fan base though how much criticism have we had for it? If you take your emotion out of it and look at the facts. We were thrown into a situation by the pfa ( Sundays announcement) despite a lot of media attention and pressure for updates we refused to rush into anything (positive) we took time to negotiate and come to a decision using the resources available ( Pfa , sponsors, the gaffer and presumably the squad he would be integrated into) ... I do agree sponsors should have been spoken to before it became public but if the PFA shafted us on Sunday how was that possible? Changing our mind after the origanal statement in no way makes us look stupid. It simply makes us look like we changed our mind. That happens everyday in football and in the wider world. I'm sure if you think about it at some stage this week/ month you personally have changed your mind about something ... Does that make you an embarrassment and mean you have lost face??? I would say not You do make a very good point about his integration into the squad and that is something that surprisingly hasn't been talked about massively other than a few comments about if he starts scoring all will be fine. If I'm honest it's not something I have given much thought to until you have pointed it out. I would imagine your right and some players may have been against it. That could have a massive affect on the squad wether it be consciously or sub consciously. I also agree with your point about cheer sing him to some extent. I've given this a lot of thought. I could happily have clapped him onto the pitch , when he did something good/skilful even scoring goals but I don't think I could sing his name although in the heat of the moment you never know. As others have said with time these apprehensions tend to leave us. I had no issue singing Hughes' name so maybe I would have been able to had we signed him or maybe back with Hughes I was young and immature and didn't appreciate the matter fully. To your last point that every victory would have been undeserved. That quite frankly is aload of rubbish to put it nicely( which is a shame as we were starting to see eye to eye on a few things) How would 11 beating 11 be undeserved in anyway. Playing him wouldn't have been cheating Edited January 9, 2015 by davebuckley06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I don't think there's any law that says you can't discriminate against a rapist who applies for a job. In fact there are some laws that make it mandatory to do so. Your point about the majority is interesting. I'd feel pretty comfortable saying the majority of Latics fans were against the signing. My straw poll at work was probably the other way - most agreed he should be able to play football. When I put the scenario of "five job application forms, one from a rapist, which two get an interview?" in front of them their views shifted against the rapist. Henry winter in the Telegraph has written this: Oldham have been spectacularly stupid. The League One club ignored the moral issues of considering employing Evans. They also overlooked the practical problems hurtling their way, namely the public storm in its measured form (the majority) and also its menacing form (from the malevolent minority). http://fw.to/CxcbdRV You can call his malevolent minority a "mob". But I'm not part of it, even though I think the decision to progress things this far was just about the most stupid thing our football club could have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I don't think there's any law that says you can't discriminate against a rapist who applies for a job. In fact there are some laws that make it mandatory to do so. Your point about the majority is interesting. I'd feel pretty comfortable saying the majority of Latics fans were against the signing. My straw poll at work was probably the other way - most agreed he should be able to play football. When I put the scenario of "five job application forms, one from a rapist, which two get an interview?" in front of them their views shifted against the rapist. Henry winter in the Telegraph has written this: Oldham have been spectacularly stupid. The League One club ignored the moral issues of considering employing Evans. They also overlooked the practical problems hurtling their way, namely the public storm in its measured form (the majority) and also its menacing form (from the malevolent minority). http://fw.to/CxcbdRV You can call his malevolent minority a "mob". But I'm not part of it, even though I think the decision to progress things this far was just about the most stupid thing our football club could have done. You can discriminate against a rapist who applies for a teaching job or certain healthcare jobs because these jobs are protected by law. Other than the jobs that are protected by law any other discrimination regardless of who or what they are against is quite simply discrimination In your scenarios if they were real life cases your colleagues would be open to tribunal for discrimination I'm not sure you can say they ignored the moral aspect of it. Afterall they have discussed the matter for at least a week that we know of this will have come up and is most likely one of the main talking points that came up. I think we can say they were naive in under estimating the reaction but you can't account for absolute morons sending death threats and threats of rape. I'm sure most on here wouldn't have expected that. There was always going to be up roar but day by day that decreased, this I think they would have expected Edited January 9, 2015 by davebuckley06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Maybe, but following it through could ultimately have bankrupted the club. I think the council's threat could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. A simple meeting with all the sponsors a couple of weeks ago could have prevented this fiasco from ever getting off the ground. The ignorance shown by the board is simply staggering! It does look like the councils threat was key but is that morally right from the council? Of course I agree that if the only two options we had were to take evans and go out of business or don't take evans and stay afloat then we have made the right choice. However that should never have been the only options People who have put us in this situation using whatever means necessary really need to have a real long look at themselves before they start to question anyone else's morals. Pot kettle black springs to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ched can now go and work as a window cleaner for instance, lurking around people propertys looking in people home while housewives are home on there own and doesnt have to tell anybody about his past to do so. he cant become a footbaler...funny old world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You can discriminate against a rapist who applies for a teaching job or certain healthcare jobs because these jobs are protected by law. Other than the jobs that are protected by law any other discrimination regardless of who or what they are against is quite simply discrimination In your scenarios if they were real life cases your colleagues would be open to tribunal for discrimination They really wouldn't be. Show me that law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 DAve If you was right companies wouldn't be able to CRB check potential employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 They really wouldn't be. Show me that law. A very quick search shows me this: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/discrimination-at-work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ched can now go and work as a window cleaner for instance, lurking around people propertys looking in people home while housewives are home on there own and doesnt have to tell anybody about his past to do so. he cant become a footbaler...funny old world. He can be a footballer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 DAve If you was right companies wouldn't be able to CRB check potential employees. That's only for certain jobs tho is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 DAve If you was right companies wouldn't be able to CRB check potential employees. They can only DBS (keep up) check them for certain roles. Pretty sure footballer isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) After looking further discrimination in the work place can is only against the law if you are discriminated against for any of the protected characteristics. Convictions isn't (as yet) a protected characteristic. Doesn't mean discrimination of any sort for any reason is morally acceptable though Nb not many people come on here and shoot down there own arguement Edited January 9, 2015 by davebuckley06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age being or becoming a transsexual person being married or in a civil partnership being pregnant or having a child disability race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin religion, belief or lack of religion/belief sex sexual orientation https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Nobody is right OR wrong in this situation as there are no clear laws on what jobs he can and can't get. It's solely down to opinion. I wanted the signing to go through but am willing to accept that a fair amount of people didn't. We haven't signed him and now we move on. A few days ago I thought that if he didn't sign for us I wouldn't want him back in the game with anyone else (as I wanted him purely on a football basis), but after seeing what's happened I really want him to find a club and stick it to all those who created this online witch hunt which resulted in the collapse of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 After looking further discrimination in the work place can is only against the law if you are discriminated against for any of the protected characteristics. Convictions isn't (as yet) a protected characteristic. Doesn't mean discrimination of any sort for any reason is morally acceptable though Nb not many people come on here and shoot down there own arguement https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/Pages/criminalrecord.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 He can be a footballer.... Really. The last few days have shown that is going be very difficult. Or are all those thousands signing petitions pisssed off because it was Oldham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 But he can be a footballer... Just like that window cleaner he needs to just find enough people who don't know what he has done... If that windower cleaners customers finds out what he has done what do you think happens? Good luck Mr Rapist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Sport discriminates against people all the time Here Michael Vaughan in his autobiography says Ed Joyce didn't come in as have he "didn't have the right character" https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yvXc7sOtgGIC&pg=PT133&lpg=PT133&dq=football+"not+the+right+character"&source=bl&ots=KYT65Mx08j&sig=5nvqWquJNfAglM3jEwF3SaDZT3s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pH-vVJCqDcavaZ2vgagJ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBQ Putting aside the moral implications of signing Evans' for a second: The board's parimary job should be to safeguard the future of the club and to look after it's best interests. On Monday morning, when we were on the front page of the paper and there were a sheadload of TV crews outside BP, it wasn't in the best interests of the club. They should have pulled the plug there and then. For dragging us through the following 4 days, I feel badly let down by the board. Ironically we had an apology from Ched Evans "I apologise to the clubs supporters, sponsors and all those effected by the last 72 hours" That's not his to apologise for. That should cone from the board. Edited January 9, 2015 by pukka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts