Other Transfer Rumours

[Costanza]

Rightly or wrongly, it's no surprise that threats were the cause behind the decision.

[Batch]

...threats to Oldham staff and their families.....

If that's true that is so out of order. Disagree & protest yes, but threats no.

[Summerof69]

Disagree & protest yes, but threats no.

Fully agree. The PFA have got to realise that he is unemployable, as he's going to be a target wherever he goes, and a big part of that is down to Evans insistance that he is innocent, and trying to get his conviction overturned.

[tans]

The PFA are a joke in itself anyway

[Barry Scott]

If you had been accused of rape, been convicted in court and felt you were innocent, would you come out and admit guilt and say sorry? I wouldn't. I'd want blood.

And also, I've only read a bit, including his entire appeal and I'm left a bit lost, what's so openly known that makes him a rapist? And why was she not raped by McDonald, but was by Evans? (The story behind which is rapey as fuck to be honest.)

I'm playing devil's advocate here, and to be frank I've bought in to what is said and dislike him immensely, but being rational for a second, I've not yet seen anything that makes it so obvious as everyone seems to say. What have I missed?

[TheMajorSTFC]

Evans apologises for "events of 2011" but maintains his innocence...http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727380

Left with no choice but to apologise in order to get a club? 

[Flashheart]

I don't quite understand the argument behind him not being remorseful either. If I were in his shoes and I thought that I did not commit the crime then why should I show remorse?

That being said I'm not trying to defend him and I'm not trying to suggest he is innocent. It's just that one particular part of the argument against him that I just don't get.

[Sippo]

I think, that she agreed to sex with McDonald, but she couldn't remember if she gave Ched Evans the nod.

That's the impression I get.

Everyone is entitled to rehabilitation. Yes he's in the public eye, but that was his profession before hand. That's the issue here- he's in the public eye. But he has done his time.

It's all very confusing.

[Red Frog]

Rightly or wrongly, it's no surprise that threats were the cause behind the decision.

Wrongly. The toxic cocktail of redtop media and social media seem to have turned the UK into the biggest mob-rule society on the planet. Who's left to stand up for the rule of law these days? Certainly not the government.

[suttonred]

I know several people who have signed petitions against him, and openly said, he should be a bricklayer, not withstanding the fact the bloke has probably ever laid a brick in his life, and they also know absolutely nothing about the case, just the fact their opinion is the right one. I'm starting to think China and North Korea have the right idea about Internet access for the hoi polloi, (of which i'm one i'd add)

[Honkytonk]

Also pretty offensive to brickies. Pretty sure most of them wouldn't want to work with a convicted rapist.

[Red Frog]

Also pretty offensive to brickies. Pretty sure most of them wouldn't want to work with a convicted rapist.

Seriously?

[RobertT]

Seriously?

Seriously what?

It's entirely legal to use a conviction as a reason not to employ someone, it's done all the time and one reason why only around 50% regain employment.  If Evans goes back into football he'd actually be a rare case.

On some other questions, McDonald was not found innocent, more sufficient doubt surrounded whether consent was given.  The notes suggest it was reasonable for McDonald to conclude that consent was implied given she got into a taxi with him, knowingly to go to a hotel and then entered the room with him.  Evans tricked his way into the room, so was at no point invited be her and the jury concluded, based on the evidence that both defence legal teams appear to agree on, that she was drunk.  The jury further concluded it was beyond a reasonable doubt that she was incapable of providing consent to Evans (even if she'd said yes, which as contested and not proved) by way of intoxication.  In Evans' appeal they tried to argue that she was so drunk she impacted her short term memory (agreeing that she has no recollection of the events herself) but it was possible to get into that state but still be sober enough to consent.  That was dismissed on the basis the evidence had clearly shown her to be drunk and her memory loss was not involved in the decision making process for the jury.

Think about it, two different verdicts suggest real thought and variation in evidence.

In terms of gaining future employment, he can clearly make every effort and shouldn't have a barrier in some roles, but we are kidding ourselves if we think it is easy for convicted sex offenders still serving their sentence to find work in the jobs they had before, regardless of football being involved.

The sort of apology for the events of that night is at least a start, even if pressured.  He has also denounced people attacking and outing the woman.  No matter what reason, that has to be applauded as an action.  Next he needs to ensure the website in his name is removed and let her get on with her life.  I do believe he thinks he is innocent.  On what I have read he seems guilty - I also think plenty of "blokes" would think the same as him.

[horlock07]

Seriously what?

It's entirely legal to use a conviction as a reason not to employ someone, it's done all the time and one reason why only around 50% regain employment.  If Evans goes back into football he'd actually be a rare case.

But Oldham have not based their reasons on his conviction, they have based it upon people making physical threats against their staff and families.

The guilt or otherwise of Evens is not really the issue here (well it obviously is but not specifically in the point I am trying to make) its more to do with the fact that threatening violence is now apparently an acceptable approach to pursue matters and give weight to your opinions which is an equal concern with regards to society.

[jonny72]

But Oldham have not based their reasons on his conviction, they have based it upon people making physical threats against their staff and families.

The guilt or otherwise of Evens is not really the issue here (well it obviously is but not specifically in the point I am trying to make) its more to do with the fact that threatening violence is now apparently an acceptable approach to pursue matters and give weight to your opinions which is an equal concern with regards to society.

Oldham based the decision on the reaction of the sponsors and threats to staff, the media have decided to play up on the threat angle. There's a good chance it was primarily due to the sponsors as the club hasn't shown any interest in personal sentiment up till now.

Also worth pointing out that the girl has had to suffer a lot of abuse, threats and breaches of court orders giving her anonymity by supporters of Ched Evans. The content of his website will only have encouraged those people to do what they did and he has left it until today to speak out against it.

He could have apologised long before now, without impacting his appeal and claims of innocence. He chose not to and I suspect the only reason he's said something now is because he had to if he wants to play football again, rather than actually meaning any of it.

I'm all in favour of rehabilitation, I had no problem with Hughes or McCormick playing again. Evans needs to accept what he did, show some remorse and then maybe there will be a place for him in football - until then he should kept out of the game.