Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football?

I'm not even into football, yet I'm aware of many cases of footballers being accused of beating their wives, footballers being accused of beating random people in public, and one that had a fling with his own brother's wife or something like that. Oh, and more than a few that have turned to alcohol to excess and then got behind the wheel of a car. At least one of them did that and ironically, crashed into the pub.

If this is about whether or not someone who is clearly not the most upstanding member of the community should be allowed to be employed by a company (that's what football teams are), then I think we need to take a long hard look at ourselves if we're going to single out and target one single individual just because the media has told us not to like that one.

 

It was horrid Val, the pictures that were plastered in the papers of what Mike Vick did to his dogs, the horrid things he did to them. The poor dogs, all pit bulls. so heart sad.

 

See, I can't quite get my head round this 'role model' thing. Who says footballers have to be role models? If I were to point at individuals for my kids (now grown up) to look up to, it certainly wouldn't be any footballer. For me, bottom line, all adults should be role models.

 

Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

As my wife and I raise our kids, I try to be the role model. Of course there will come a time when my kids don't listen to me. That seems to be normal. They have to find their own identity. But I hope I will still set a good example ready for when they come out of the other side of adolescence and realise maybe I'm a good man after all. Much like when I was a kid, my dad led by example, and I too went through a phase where I doubted him a bit, but now I realise he was and is a very wise man.

I also thing people confuse 'role model' and 'hero' these days. Nowadays the two terms seem to be interchangeable. When I was a kid, my dad was sometimes a hero, but was always a role model. Bruce Lee was a hero, but never a role model. I would have loved to have been as skilled in kung fu as Bruce Lee, but I never had any interest in living my normal life under his influence in any way. It should be the same with footballers. If you want to be a footballer, then by all means, study a professional footballer at work (which would also include his training regime and diet etc), but his life outside of football should be of no concern.

 

I also think that if we're worried that certain people should be barred from their profession because they are no a good role model, then we should just make Britain a communist nation. Or maybe anarchist. We'll have to bar almost all politicians from their job, because we've seen enough in recent years (and probably not so recent) to tell us that they are not good role models. Same for many bankers, lawyers, anyone with 'agent' in their job title, many CEOs who've been in the spotlight a fair amount for ripping people off, some religious leaders. I could go on and on.

My mam still buys the Saturday Express. I read it when I go round, just to see what wind-ups they are on with at any given time. There was an article about some couple in Kent that have 11 kids and live on benefits to the tune of £38,000 per year. This was creating outrage it seemed. Even though they were getting round the £26k cap by getting working tax credits, because both had part time low paid jobs. That got me to thinking, they are being hassled for claiming just over half an MP's salary. Yet they were both working (one was a professional care worker, the other did something equally commendable but I can't remember what). Both parents were setting the example of going out to actual real work, and of course the kids they raise will soon be out there contributing to society themselves. Ok, there is a valid argument that you should maybe only produce as many kids as you can afford to support, but I thought it was just a bit hypocritical to victimise this family for claiming benefits while the very people who dictate the benefits available having proven themselves time and time again to be leaches.

 

It does not set any precedent.
A husband can indeed be held to account (legally) for raping his wife (if she does not consent) That means wedding night, next night or the next 1000+ nights ad infinitum. The state of marriage is not deemed an automatic "right" to assert sexual intercourse upon an unwilling partner: male or female; intoxicated or sober. Any ideas to the contrary are archaic

Why?
Even in the case outlined and being debated, I feel quite certain that you would educate your sons that merely seeing someone, drunk, or, "in the act of intercourse, in a hotel room" does not, necessarily, equate to "permission"
I'd go further: I'm am quite, quite convinced that you would educate your sons that, in return for such an intimate (and, potentially, disease transmitted) "pass time" - they would wish to know just a tad more about the person they are dipping into than a casual, "hail fellow well met"!

Ah! Now, there lies a conceptual choice of words: "win the favours of the young ladies". What does that mean: exactly?
Do you mean " out right sex", as in a knee trembler/quick bunk up? Or, do you mean "favours", as in a bit of a feel/grope which may (or may not) result in sexual intercourse? Or, maybe, it simply means the right of passage to see her again for a date!?
Is this a post, or pre, '60' "favours" definition? Because, if you wish your sons to avoid any potential of ending up in the dock, it won't be sparkling wine, 2 pens, written consent, breathalyzers or MENSA tests they require ... it will be plain speaking without any ambiguity, pre teen straight talking, open dialogue and an open door approach!

But: you know that already

 

Yes.

I think people are allowed to have jobs after they've been to prison? If not keep him in prison forever?!

Barmy

 

But that's the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread.

IF (and its a big if) we are to believe what is reported in the media, the accused insists that he had consent. He has no proof of that consent, and so he has been found to be a rapist.

I'm not going to take his word, or anyone else's. I wasn't there, and I'm not in the awful situation of having to judge. My point is, and the thing that worries me is, that whereas once upon a time, there was never any need for proof of consent because it was just taken as given that if you had consent, you had consent. Both consenting parties would admit later, even if they regretted it, that they'd consented. It was up to the two individuals to decide if they'd consented or not, and if consent was not there, then the victim would report such if he or she (and lets not forget it can go both ways) chose to.

Whereas this case is breaks away from that. In this case, from what I gather (again with the disclaimer that I was not there and can only go with info that's in the public domain), one party insists consent was given, the other party claims not to be able to remember giving consent, and a third party (the court) has decided for her that consent was not given when no member of the jury and none of the legal representatives were present at the time of the alleged offence.

So where as rape used to be 'I did not give consent'. It is now 'I can't remember'. This is worrying because it shifts from the ancient English (and later British) rule of innocent until PROVEN guilty, towards something more like 'probably guilty because we all know what men are like'. Again based on what I've seen reported, there seems to be plenty of grounds for 'reasonable doubt'. That used to mean that no conviction could be made. For a court to find you guilty of a crime, it is supposed to be that the judge and jury are certain beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Not that it is probably possibly likely. It is this shift in attitude within the legal system that is worrying, because as you are astute enough to know, once you start relax the framework of the law (or anything) in one way, it changes what is widely accepted to be normal and paves the way for further relaxations of such frameworks. Like the old saying, which I'm sure didn't become prominent for no reason, 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile'.

So to be as clear as I can be, I'm not saying that what the lad did was commendable or anything. Morally, any decent lad would refuse even if consent was given, if it was clear that she was not in a position to think clearly due to inebriation or any other reason. As I've said earlier in this thread, I've refused more than once because my potential partner has been too drunk to be of sound mind in my judgement. And right at the start of my relation with Mrs CL1, I made it clear to her that no matter how horny I am, I will never try to push her into doing anything she doesn't want to. But this isn't about the morals of having sex. This is about the law. Whether or not in law, a criminal offence was committed. In my interpretation of the reported information, there are a lot of grounds for reasonable doubt, and a claim of consent and innocence from the accused, and it has come down to the judgement of a third party to decide if consent was given or not. That just doesn't seem right to me.

And lets not forget the girl in all this. How insulting it must be for her to have it in mainstream media that she had to have someone else decide for her. A public admission that she can't think for herself. Or at least that's one of the many implications of how it has been reported.

 

The girl seems to have been forgotten almost full stop in this whole sad affair imo

 

As a slight aside, I wonder whatever happened to the offence of "drunk and disorderly". Again without intending to assign any blame to the girl in this case, a big part of the prosecution's case seems to be that she was absolutely hammered, and had been seen on CCTV barely able to stand or coordinate herself. If the coppers had picked her up and put her in the drunk tank for the night, this thread wouldn't be happening because this case would not exist.

If you go out on the town nowadays, you see so many people bouncing off the walls, puking on the pavement, and generally being very embarrassing, and you see the coppers out on patrol just watching it all and doing nothing. Men and women alike. Its the main reason my wife and I no longer go out to the main drinking areas. After about 10PM you can barely move for drunken idiots. Actually the main reason I put my foot down and said no more is because I got sick of having my guard up when I'm supposed to be relaxing. The last few times I've been out, I've had at least one drunken idiot trying to goad me into a fight for no reason.