- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Your views please
I'm just putting this out to see how the cycling world view the approach.
So, with all the media exposure and people resigning their posts left right and centre what are peoples views on the Ched Evans story. Should he be allowed to play football again and if so are Sheffield United the right club for him or should he be banned from them but allowed to play elsewhere ?
He is currently appealing the court result as "alleged new evidence" has come to light not previously disclosed by the Criminal Protection Service.
This is not a witch hunt against him and my own view is that he's served his sentence and has been released back into society so he should be allowed to play football again and its down to the individual club to decide if he's right for them.
Thoughts ????/
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 52 min 45 sec ago
fwiw for the roads this year, Im not sure they will, they completely skipped the Euros after all, plus the Dutch and Danish have already announced...
- Slartibartfast 3 hours 18 min ago
I've just taken to shouting (as has my 6 year old cycling next to me) that people need to turn their lights down. The worst is the strobes on dark...
- Slartibartfast 3 hours 21 min ago
Disappointed with the guardian, tbqh. ...
- Pub bike 3 hours 29 min ago
The problem is a political one rather than technical. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Transport for London, and the Department...
- Dr Watson 5 hours 31 min ago
Hard to know who is up for the TDU and who is putting some miles in their legs... other than sprinters.
- ktache 5 hours 41 min ago
Visited Oxford late last year, better half had a week off, I took a day off and suggested a day in Oxford, she was very happy and excited. (Rode...
- Jaijai 5 hours 53 min ago
Try kill someone in a car and you get virtually 0 punishment .
- chrisonabike 6 hours 38 min ago
'Useless"? You're not one of those "outdoor cycling" purists by any chance?
- kingleo 8 hours 27 min ago
Every time we have a storm in the UK, many trees are blown down, so a few trees removed for a family cycle lane will not make much difference to...
- MiserableBastard 8 hours 35 min ago
Every mechanic I know hates Muc-Off Wet Lube with a fiery passion because it accumulates gunk like no other....
Add new comment
50 comments
I know who Jess Ennis is, she's still not a footballer is she?
Unless I blacked out during that successful spell she had playing centre midfield for Sheffield United.
Its a tricky one. He's done his time in prison, but does that mean that there should be absolutely no further consequences for the rest of his life? As others have said, if he was in a different profession, he would suffer career consequences on release.
On the other hand - if he has specific skills he can use to earn a living, why should he not be able to? It's this question of being a role model. Whilst I agree you are probably not best advised to follow footballers as role models as an adult, lots of kids do follow their activities as they are in the public eye, and to that extent, they are role models.
I don't agree with this 'you've got to start in a lower division' idea though. Either you can earn a living as a footballer, or you cant. In any other profession, you would get the best job you could in the field that you work in. Are we saying that he should have an earnings cap because he committed a crime? Its a short enough career already in professional sport, so that would have a disproportionate effect. It just seems like an additional punishment, even though he has been inside and theoretically completed that phase of consequences.
Perhaps the PFA should set out some rules about the way that you would be treated after committing offences : define ones that would preclude you from becoming a footballer again, should you be found guilty of them? There's been people killed in car crashes due to dangerous / over the limit driving, GBH, etc... perhaps if there was a list so that everyone knew where they stood it would take some of the heat out of it. You might be able to put in some 'earnings cap' or compulsory contributions to a relevant charity in those rules as well - maybe for the remaining period of time of your sentence whilst you are out on licence?
Factor in the appeals, it just becomes a mess. If only he just hadn't done it...
This subject... wow its a bit more engaging than 'what tyres for a wet day' isn't it?
So many things to think about...
Personally, I think yes, he should be allowed back into football, his job, if his employers are willing to have him back, and as commented above, if he meets all employment requirements... i.e. does he need a CRB check in place.
I am not sure 'role model' is an accurate description for a footballer, however I accept that a footballer is a publicity tool so I fully understand why teams/sponsors would want to distance themselves.
So for me, its up to the club and the club alone.
As for laws stopping him returning to the game, I am not sure that is necessarily fair. His conviction and sentence was based on what was felt appropriate, once he's done his time, he has done his time IMO.
Similarly, he was sentenced on the basis that he was unrepentant and believed his innocence. If he had admitted guilt, his sentence would have been different... so again, he has done his time in relation to his stance.
As for the crime itself... wow what a shit storm. The lesson for all men is surely stay clear of proper pissed women.
And thats maybe where the chap can save some face... I wouldn't say he should admit his guilt, but he should get out there and tell his story for good... he was convicted of a crime he believes he is innocent of because he allowed himself to get into/take advantage of a situation that exposed him to the charge put against him... avoid.
I echo the comment above however, that the current law is rather sexist... whether a women says yes or no, its up to the man to decide if that decision is made with a clear mind... ridiculous really.
So you've got yourself absolutely mortal and some guy fucks you up the arse. What would you be saying at that point? I imagine you'd have a pretty good idea about who was responsible.
Agree bikebikebike, it seems some people think slurring ' i feel sick' or ' i'm going to puke' amounts to consent because they did not say no...yes is consent, anything else is not. At the trial the judge reminded the jury before they went to deliberate that drunken consent was still consent, thus they had to have been pretty settled in their own minds that this was not a sexist case of expecting theguy to look after the woman...it was simply a case of recognising when a person ignores the right of another person.
I can't imagine I'd be massively happy about that.
Sorry I may have gone off on a slight tangent...regarding a previous comment. If a women says no or any derivative that is implied as no, if a woman is unable to say anything at all, basically if its anything other than a yes, its a no.
Where I question my understanding of consent if a woman says yes, or clearly acts in a favourable way, but is pissed out of her head, a man can still be culpable if she changes her mind in the cold hard light of a hangover.
The above is not in direct relation to the specific case, as I have not read the details of the case, but more a general statement in relation to comments about consent.
No that is not true... Consent has to be clear, and the alleged offender must have had a reasonable belief that there was consent...an absence of no does not mean yes. However if there had been consent, there is no changing the mind the next day.there is plenty of scope for changing the mind during however...
This is also what I was trying to say as regards the discussion re consent. Of course anything other than YES is a no.
Definitely not allowed back. He is not being treated differently , any criminal throws away their career. And so far he has been tried, found guilty and refused leave to appeal. He is now awaiting a review, but in the meantime is a convicted rapist ,on license, and signed up to the sex offenders register for life. Kids look up to footballers, they are heroes, and given his supporters respond to anyone on twitter criticising him,with abuse and rape threats, its not a good mix.
Sheffield made a big mistake thinking this was not important enough to distance themselves from him.
Btw, at no time did the victim make a complaint , she was left alone in the hotel, when she woke up she did not know what had happened or where she was. Her belongings were missing and that is why she called the police. It was their subsequent investigation that established what had happened.
Ok, this bit I wasn't aware of. Leaving aside the issue of her belongings, was it the case then that the victim simply didn't remember what had happened? I wonder how she felt at the time about charges being pressed?
This is where the gap between perspectives becomes apparent - if I understand correctly, Ched Evans is basically arguing that the definition of rape as amended recently regarding rational consent is wrong.
For his career though, I still think he would have been better off pleading guilty (since whether he agrees with the law or not, by the definition of the very vague area of rational consent, he does appear to be guilty - I make no comment as to whether this was violent/forced), apologising and allowing himself to be rehabilitated. He would then be free to state his position on the law, why he was "guilty but in not the way that people think of when the r-word is mentioned" or whatever and, if necessary, campaign for some sort of change.
Thanks folks, some really good points brought up so far. It will be interesting to see how it pans out and IF the appeal is successful where it leads.
Gkam - there is only one professional league below where Shef Utd currently sit so he's not going to be on big bucks if he signs for them again but i get your point mate.
It's a deeply unpleasant case because on the one hand I don't want to belittle rape and on the other I don't want the club to feel it has to to give in to mob justice.
I'm not going to comment on the guilt/lack of as I haven't followed the case in detail. In terms of rehabilitation I'd think a compromise may be good.
I assume he was sentenced to x years and served n (where n is less than x).
In the absence of an acquittal, I think he should be allowed to seek work after x years has passed, rather than n.
Anyone who uses a professional footballer as a role model needs their head examined...
Interesting thread Stumps, there's a number of facets to this for me:
I do agree that the concept of rehabilitation is that offenders should then be able to resume a constructive role in society, but I know that I would struggle. I'm an freelance IT consultant - I'm not a role model, I don't work with kids (or even customers - I tend to work with other IT staff within big companies), and the type of stuff I work on is quite removed from the actual 'business' that my clients are in (for example, my current client is a bank, but I couldn't derive any fraudulent/personal gain from malicious access to financial stuff). Yet, ALL my contracts include declarations of criminal record or CRB checks. Were I convicted of such an offence as Ched Evans has, I would be ruined in terms of finding new contracts. So, while some are saying "others WOULD be allowed to resume work in their chosen field, why should he be treated differently?", I would ask "I would NOT be able to resume work in my chosen field, why should Ched Evans be treated differently?
Another aspect of course is the arguments of guilt. Many are saying, quite reasonably, that he has been found guilty in criminal court, and that's that. He at least needs to be remorseful. He, however, maintains that what he did was not a crime and that she consented to an act with both defendants. Reading between the lines, he appears to be suggesting that they all got drunk and she was happy to participate in a threesome, which she then regretted and subsequently made an accusation. What he doesn't acknowledge is that the current law is that the lady concerned needs to be 'able' to give consent, and that without this, he and the other lad are still culpable.
I'll admit to being uncomfortable with this law, since it seems, to me, to be a step backward for equality (if the female gives consent, it's still up to the male to judge if she is capable of doing so, as if he's the responsible adult and she's just the child, incapable of making her own decisions). This one-way, single-gender nature of the law is not something I think is a great leap forward.
Perhaps if he'd taken a middle ground "At the time it appeared to be fully consensual, but I now accept that, having consumed too much alcohol, the victim was not capable of making a rational decision to consent, and I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for making such a mistake and taking advantage. I will now dedicate my energies to helping others understand the consequences of such rash actions" etc etc, or even to apologise but then to campaign against the single-gendered nature of the law around rational consent. Had he done either of these things, he would likely be in rather a different position now.
As for the patrons and sponsors walking away, I admire their courage to stand up and be counted, but if Evans attempts to appeal and have the conviction overturned are sucessful, that's going to create an unholy mess for everyone concerned. What do you do, put Jess Ennis' name back on the stand?
Deliberately ignoring all of the (more important) issues, why on earth does a runner have a stand at a football ground named after them?
It's even more ridiculous than the Arnold Schwarzenegger stadium in Graz.
While he stands firm and denies everything he was found guilty of, there is no place for him anywhere in football.
If he had be humble and accepted what he did, then he needs to start again and rebuild his career, not a Sheffield though, he needs to start again at the lower leagues and work back up. Not straight into a bigger club and huge wages.
If he appeals and is successfully (highly doubt it) then he can be free to do what he wants at the moment, but for me, at this time, he shouldn't even be training with the club that sacked him, just because the PFA wanted that. Look at the shitstorm it has caused, Sheffield have lost patrons, sponsors and will lose more if they take him back on.
He believes he is innocent, just because a jury finds you guilty doesn't mean you are. Miscarriages do happen. What you also have to consider is that no one is denying sex happened, this all hinges on the victims level of consent.
I am not saying he is or is not guilty, but if he was now to say ok I did it I am guilty would anyone actually believe his confession anyway?
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. As Poptart says one of the jobs of prison is to rehabilitate. Evans is unrepentant however and maintains his innocence. There is also the 'role model' issue. I doubt many parents would want their children looking up to a convicted rapist but there wouldn't be a precedent set here as I believe other footballers have been convicted of the same offence and gone back to football after their prison sentence. It's a tough one.
From an employment law perspective, it is an interesting one. It's an exceptionally emotive subject too (and quite understandably so).
Without going into the specifics of this individual case:
People go to jail to be rehabilitated. Once they're released, every effort should be made to integrate the individual into society. It's one of the central pillars of our society.
Could people oppose a bin-person or salesperson returning to their position post-release? If not, why oppose someone going back to their profession - even if that happens to be somewhere high profile?
If we proscribe a list of jobs ex-cons can't do, where does that lead us?
I will start with the disclaimer that I don't live in the UK so probably haven't seen as many details of this case as everyone else.
I think the problem isn't as much that he did a crime and served the punishment but rather his stance on the incident now. If I have understood correctly for the reports I have seen, he is not arguing that the events didn't happen, but that he doesn't consider it rape. That suggests he has the view (though perhaps a more subtle variation) that if the victim doesn't say "no" then it is OK. That shows no understanding of what it means to consent. It is this reason that I don't think he should be re-employed as a footballer.
I have to admit I was quite surprised to realise people who genuinely don't understand what consent is but I have seen enough reports and studies for me to think there really is a group who don't understand and aren't just using it as an excuse. I can think of one case where a man, accused (and later convicted) of sexual assault used a similar argument ("she didn't say 'no'"). When asked what she did say he volunteered the words were "f*** off"...he may have been in the "just an excuse" group.
On the topic of the victim not pressing charges. There are some things considered "crimes against society" and so they are prosecuted (on behalf of) society. I generally think this is a good thing rather than justice coming down to a victim being willing and able to pursue matters.
But in the real world, that simply isn't true. It _isn't_ 'one of the central pillars of our society'. People are disadvantaged in the employment market for all sorts of things, most of them not involving actual wicked or criminal behaviour (whistle-blowing, periods of physical or mental ill-health, political views, being caught up in scandals that they had no responsibility for, having had some ghastly clash of personalities with a previous employer, being close to retirement age, etc). I don't see that it would be exceptionally awful if someone had a problem due to being an (apparently unrepentant) convicted rapist.
Though as I have no interest at all in football I'd be quite happy to see all the undesirables confined to playing football and so kept away from jobs that actually matter.
Pages