Reply With QuoteShe didn't go back for a threesome, Evans arrived later having received the 'I've got a girl' textOriginally Posted by Barryboy
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans
Well I am against his being employed as a footballer - he is a convicted rapist who is still seeking to appeal his sentence so believes he has done nothing wrong but the court (currently) disagree with him, despite his probably money no object defence.
My main reason is that like it or not, footballers are in the entertainment industry, hence the large potential salaries, and as such they end up setting an example to all the other young footballers. The club that was looking to employ him (allegedly they have denied it) already had another footballer who had caused death by dangerous or drink driving on their books.
It is time for the Football league to take some responsibility for the image it projects, and as well as fining people for misguided twitter comments they should let players know they won't get employment after a serious criminal offence - otherwise they allow the game to look tacky and greedy which is a great disservice to the majority of hard working, hard training, clean living professionals and youth teams.
I realise this may seem at odds as I would say an account manager could be employed after a spent criminal conviction, but the entertainment industry has to my mind a greater duty of care to the public and it is allowed special pension arrangements, tax free benefits etc. and so should start to live up to the other side of the bargain rather than thinking winning for 90 minutes is all that matters.
She didn't go back for a threesome, Evans arrived later having received the 'I've got a girl' text
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans
I find it really hard to decide whether he should be signed by a club or not. That's mainly because I support Notts County and enjoyed watching Lee Hughes play for us. So far the biggest difference between the two cases is Lee Hughes showed genuine remorse for his crimes. From the Notts point of view it helped that we weren't the first club to sign him after his release.
Pop/rock stars?
There is something a bit odd when a witness says she can't remember anything but Is considered reliable enough to convict.
If he was a plumber or carpenter would people even be discussing him
Ouch! Absolutely no moral indignation here. (I'm not sure how you read that into my post?)
I was merely pointing out (as others have) that whatever he says, he has been convicted of a serious crime and it doesn't particularly surprise me that football clubs that rely on sponsorship (and therefore public opinion) are somewhat reticent to employ him as a footballer. As others have said, if his conviction is overturned it would (or at least should) change the situation completely.
The thing that bothers me more than anything else about his behaviour, even more so than the lack of apologies to the victim in this case, is that he hasn't said anything about the twitter campaign run by his 'supporters'. They've hounded the poor girl, given her dogs abuse and revealed her court-protected new identities 4 times. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...hanges-4883888
If he was any sort of a man, he would say publically that this is a despicable act of cowardice and ask people to stop doing it. By not doing so, he is condoning it.
IMO the aftermath doesn't disappear for the victim so I don't see why it should for this particular perpetrator just because he can kick a ball.
As was said earlier, there are a host of professions that would be scuppered with a conviction.
Really, if your concerned about the impact of rape on your career - don't rape.
There's lot of condoning going on anyway.
The woman is a tart, slapper, drunk etc etc which implies that it was deserved and consensual.
Alarming mindsets on display tbh.
How can he express remorse when he believes his conviction is flawed and has an appeal pending? If he were to express remorse then that's as good as an admission of guilt and would doubtless be used as grounds for dismissing his appeal.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I don't think the four children of the father that was killed would agree with that.
He fled the scene of the crime and didn't report it either.
Also convicted of putting his hand up a girls skirt.
He's an absolute $hithouse of a bloke.
This. Spot on Eddie.
I think that is a bit simpler as the public can easily choose not to buy their albums/go to their concerts and certainly there have been plenty who have been dropped by their record companies - I can't see a Lost Prophets come back tour ever working now or anyone renewing an album deal with them.
Again some sort of code of practice would be welcome in all industries that expose their talent to the risk that they can probably break the law and still be employed, especially when it involves plenty of young people on both sides.
Obviously it is ultimately for the public to decide and they could boycott any matches he played in if they felt strongly enough but I do think the FA should be sending a clearer message as the 0.01% of "bad" footballers is bringing the industry's image down and making the clubs look very greedy especially as I am sure they won't have to pay the going rate for Ched's contract now.
^^^^^^^^This.
I don't think many fans would boycott their club. The real problem for the clubs is sponsors pulling out on the back of these campaigns/petitions by people who have no interest in the club.
I've been to football matches and couldn't believe some of the stuff being chanted or shouted out (especially when there's a minute's silence) by fans of either side. I imagine any club thinking of signing him will have to consider what their own and what the opposition fans will be chanting. Whether he did it or not, whether he's cleared or not, this isn't going away.
I think the point here is that Evans does not believe he committed a rape and that what he did was consensual at the time. It was after the event that the woman then reported him to the police and ultimately a jury found him guilty. Lets be honest about she would not be first woman who had sex with "consensual sex" with a bloke and then reported him to the police for rape - but to be honest I do not know exactly the circumstances here.
Perhaps the morale of the story here is to treat any potential sexual partner as a complete nutter and never shag on the 1st/2nd/3rd date unless you have a written invitation. However I am sure than many people here have not followed that rule in their past.
An interesting one.
I was eating my biscuits and drinking tea after giving blood last night and one of the (female) nurses started a conversation with a few of us about this.
Her view was that he should be allowed to play as he's done his time.
Whatever his crime, if he's served his sentence I think I have to agree any criminal should be encouraged to pursue a law-abiding career afterwards.
It doesn't really seem right that one footballer should be singled out (others have been convicted for fraud, assault and other crimes and returned to professional football) and punished by the papers all over again.
I think, on balance, he deserves a chance, like everyone else. Of course, if he wavers again, throw the book at him.
M
Totally agree with this...
One thing no one seems to have mentioned is skin colour. Clayton McDonald is black, and got off.
At the moment he is a convicted rapist, end of. If he follows the correct process and after an appeal the conviction is overturned then good for him, hes been proved right. But until then he should keep his head down and stop looking for work as a pro footballer, its going to do him no good and it certainly won't keep his name out of the headlines.
The fact hes shown no remorse or not offered an apology is fine with me as he believes he is innocent, but the fact of the matter is that at the moment he is not innocent, hes a convicted rapist, the fact HE believes HE is innocent is neither here nor there, the law says he guilty, so hes gulity. I suspect that if I had a pound for every criminal that believed he was innocent I would have enough money to buy any watch in the world! But it means nothing.
The question of whether he should be allowed to play football whilst being a convicted rapist is somewhat imaterial I think as no club will take him whilst hes guilty AND refuses to show no remorse, one of those factors needs to change in order for his footballing career to continue I'm afraid.
Last edited by Zolawinston; 6th January 2015 at 13:11.
WTF has skin colour got to do with it?!
And he is on the sex offenders register for life which I think you always have to disclose?
Exactly. Completely irrelevant point and one that will just bring out the racists.
I (and my friend who is a lawyer) certainly dont WTF think its irrelevant...
White guy got convicted, black guy didnt. And if you're telling me it's irrelevant, tell that to the folk in Rotherham who were abused and nothing was done to the perpetrators for fear of being labeled 'racist'...
- - - Updated - - -
Wrong, 100% relevant.
To who? Genuine question.
And is he actually on it for life?
You have a friend who is a solicitor and thinks the colour of his clients skin is relevant to his/her conviction?
Does your friends legal firm know he has these views? Do the courts also know?
Ah ok, it obviously doesnt happen...
And no SHE doesnt have predjudice, she knows others DO...
You just said she thinks skin colour is relevant.
So who are these other predjudiced solicitors then? Has she reported these racist solicitors you speak of and if not why not?
Your friend is aware she has a duty to do so right?
Did I once say other solicitors?
I'm not getting into an argument with you on this, especially over the internet whilst you sit there with a cuppa and nothing better to do.
I suggest you read the R v Ched Evans file notes if you have nothing better to do:
"The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am"
with either McDonald OR Evans.
The difference being she CHOSE to go back with McDonald. He then brought Evans into it.
I don't think he or his imaginary female solicitor friend have any comprehension of the law.
It's why he began by saying his female solicitor friend agreed with his opinion that skin colour is relevent to a persons conviction then spent the best part of an hour back peddling.
I suggest he and his female solicitor friend have a look at notifiable occupation and then take a look at his posts. I am sure she (assuming she even exists) and her legal firm will be less than impressed her name is being linked to such I'll conceived comments.
So are you and your solicitor friend now calling into question a crown court judge and jury and saying a sentence was passed based on skin colour?
Just was area of law does your friend work in?
Youd be surprised how many men don't believe theyve raped when they have.
Its not about what he believes.
No means no. It doesn't mean she's playing hard to get or gagging for it but being coy.
The point, whether you excuse him or not is that both the woman concerned AND the law thinks he committed rape and found him guilty as a result.
For me, there was a thoughtful discussion on this on Talksport yesterday which felt about right:
Employment is part of rehabilitation; rehabilitation is a good thing as otherise the individual is state dependent however remorse is also a key part of rehabilitation.
Mr Evans will no doubt be advised to show no remorse whilst an appeal is ongoing as it implies guilt and therefore in the short term re-employment is difficult.
Given Mr Evans still wants to prove his innocence he should concentrate 100% on his appeal in the short term and not try and seek re-employment.
Once the appeal is over he can either seek re-employment having been cleared of any guilt, or show suitable remorse if not cleared and begin the process of rehabilitation / re-employment.
I thought this was quite considered for a sports show!!!!! and neatly side stepped the issue of guilt or otherwise which, whilst we are all entitled to an opinion on, is a well intentioned but ill informed guess at best.
Did they consider the matter of an income to maintain himself and his appeal?
He will have to disclose his conviction to any potential employers who ask the question, a DBS check would flag it up anyway and I'm sure he's on the SO list for life although I could be wrong.
Not employing a convicted rapist would be classed as positive discrimination in most occupations and would therefore be classed as a legitimate reason for not employing someone. It amazes me how many people are saying give him a second chance, let him play etc. Would the same people with their own public facing businesses being saying the same thing if he strolled into their offices?
I think this is where I stand. The guy is an absolute disgrace, so he gets what he deserves.
At my club Southend we have the idiot Michael Timlin who falsified his car documents got banged up for a couple of months. We kept him on... to some supporters dismay but it was hardly rape. Footballers are knuckle scrappers, brains elsewhere from in their heads!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...d-84-days.html
I always find it amusing when those paragons of virtue, our MP's start interfering in matters like this. Given some of their misdemeanours the expression pot and kettle spring to mind.
Plus, how on earth does anyone really still believe footballers are role models. I can understand people aspiring to be footballers but seeing them as role models is something quite different.
I'm finding it really difficult to think of any role model professions nowadays, however footballers are in the public eye, young people do look up to them and most clubs do try to promote a positive image in their respective communities so perhaps we should not simply give up on them just yet and allow all and sundry to be involved with the clubs. I fear this boat may have already sailed though......
Cheers, what I meant is for many occupations would they even ask the question and are you legally bound to tell them? According to the government website the answer is no and you can't refuse them employment with some exceptions such as schools.
https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventi...on/recruitment
The issue here I feel is how can he be prevented from returning to work (football) and the fact that so many clubs have tried to sign him suggests they are less than concerned.
If clubs/FA are going to prevent people from entering football with convictions then they need to be consistent. This looks more like some convictions are worse than others.
I wonder the same thing if a man who drove away from a traffic accident causing someone's death or someone who danced all over some kids head outside a nightclub with his mates or the numerous other offences out there walked into their business. Do you know the history of all the people you work with or work for you?
She didn't say no. She was too pissed to say no. And that means she was also too pissed to say yes. She did not consent because she was unable to. Therefore it was rape.
He's not played professional football since his conviction. He wasn't exactly world-class when he did play.
Why would any club want to pay him several grand a week with that gap on his CV? He's surely not improved as a player (whatever his playa! credentials are) in the intervening 3 years?
You are correct and many organisations would not/could not even ask. The list of employers who could legitimately refuse employment on these grounds IMO is much more extensive than Schools but its a subjective argument I suppose. I also think that from a public perspective rightly or wrongly some crimes are worse than others.
I still maintain that Mr Evans is his own worst enemy in this respect though, why is he making himself available for work when he needs to concentrate on winning his appeal and then moving on with his life, he can't be that desperate for money/publicity can he?
imo that should depend on the 'crime'.
Of course it has - just like if you are ugly you are more likely to be convicted of a crime than if you are good looking, and if you speak well you will more likely be convicted for fraud than if you speak poorly.
HAHAHAHAHA who is backpedalling - if you READ my post I never said any other solicitors that she knows said that.
"And no SHE doesnt have predjudice, she knows others DO... "
Sorry perhaps I should clarify (read - backpedalling) she knows other PEOPLE do...
Take the time to peruse first please - people like you are the sort who would lock him away in the first place ;)
Last edited by teknicolourfox; 6th January 2015 at 16:35. Reason: morons
Nope - but whether you agree with me or not (obviously your narrow minded enough not to look at other points of view) it is a factor and one that one can make comments on.
Again - please take a look at the recent cases in Rotherham if you're still deluded enough to think skin colour doesn't play a part in decision making.
In that case McDonald should be guilty no?
Your exact words, do you even read what you write before you click send?
Your friend (who is a lawyer). Does not think a persons skin colour is Irrelivent. "White guy got convicted, black guy didn't." Your exact words.
Then apparently it's not your solicitor friend who has that view its random other people (who oddly enough you care not to disclose)
Tell you what, who is this mystery legal eagle and what solicitors firm is it?
It has nothing to do with a point of view its the law. Something you and your solicitor friend seem to be struggling to grasp.
You clearly said your lawyer friend agrees with you and does not think a persons skin colour is irrelivent.
So who is this keen legal mind?
Posting Permissions
