Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 7th January 2015, 5:08 PM GMT

Something has to be done - they clearly want a world totally dominated by Islam and we are handling it with kid gloves.

View original

To be fair, they've shot em.

Not my definition of "kid gloves".

In other disgusting, despicable, ill-informed news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Steve Bruce has clearly read a transcript from the trial. I mean, how could he possibly comment on the evidence otherwise?

Maybe he could furnish me with a copy, I would be quite interested in reading it.

I don't think Evans is ever going to play again.

Thing with Ched is.....he's an idiot.

If he said sorry, or apologised for the suffering whatever.

Turned up on Loose Women and cried, did Big Brother and cried some more.

Then he'd be forgiven, in our goldfish memory age he'd go from Mr Rape to Mr Sorry.

As it is I'm amazed he hasn't been recalled to prison, over his support of people harassing his victim.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

He is an idiot. He should have said NOTHING AT ALL.

I actually agree that the McDonald verdict is odd. However, juries do what juries do. (If you read the above, which is the Court of Appeal judgment, that is what they say too).

He had a fair trial. All the evidence was put out there. He wasn't believed. There are hundreds of defendants all over the country who will say the same thing.

But, that is our justice system. It is the best way and the fairest way. You will never get that overturned.

If he just SHUT UP, he could play again. But he won't. He has to keep protesting his innocence and scraping experts out of the barrel to try and prove his case.

The other aspect of course is that he put himself in that situation at all.

Women are told time and time again - don't wear short skirts, walk alone at night, blah blah blah - i.e. don't put yourself in a position of being raped.

Well it works two ways - don't have sex with a heavily intoxicated woman lying in a hotel room that you have only just met with your friends filming the encounter at the door - i.e. don't put yourself in the position of being accused of rape.

Incidentally, why have we never seen any of the footage filmed that night by the mates? Surely that would exonerate him and prove just how lucid she was?

Quote: Jennie @ 9th January 2015, 8:19 PM GMT

To be fair, they've shot em.

Not my definition of "kid gloves".

In other disgusting, despicable, ill-informed news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Steve Bruce has clearly read a transcript from the trial. I mean, how could he possibly comment on the evidence otherwise?

Maybe he could furnish me with a copy, I would be quite interested in reading it.

View original

I'm sorry - this will sound really childish but the Bruce man looks (and sounds) like a bloody moron.

I would say to Jennie that there is an issue in any sort of criminal conviction on whether it is right for that to be doubled and more by unnecessary restrictions on employment. It seems to me that Labour took it all much too far in the 2000s and this Government hasn't exactly honoured its promise to reverse it. Obviously children need to study in places that aren't staffed by child botherers but beyond that a lot of it seems over-zealous. If you are not going to provide the scope for rehabilitation, then a lot of people will just turn increasingly to crime. That is likely to involve an element of aggression, even if it is simply theft. I believe I am right in saying that one of the councillors in my borough was involved in planting a bomb in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I wouldn't vote for her but many must see her now as a normal middle aged woman.

With these points in mind, I have tried to fathom why I feel Ched Evans should not play professional football again. Is it that it was rape? Is it that he is likely to contest it? Is it that he has no remorse? Is it that as a working class male he may be exhibiting via the crime and in the aftermath the sort of arrogance that is often associated most closely with the elites? Is it that he stands to make a huge amount of money? Is it that he will be confused by the dim-witted in the "lower orders" as, quote, an "exemplar"? I'm not sure that it is any of those things per se. I think the key is in the word "supporters". That is what football depends on. It depends not on adulation or simple interest but on support. Any club should comprehend that taking him on places supporters in a totally impossible position. Basically it compromises its support base. He needs to seek work without huge legal barriers in an area of employment that doesn't require anyone to support him.

And also, as the saying goes, Barlinnie is full if innocent men.

Last night, on Question Time, somebody pointed out that, as a footballer, there would be children who'd have posters of him on their bedroom walls. Is that desirable when he's a convicted rapist?.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th January 2015, 9:18 PM GMT

I would say to Jennie that there is an issue in any sort of criminal conviction on whether it is right for that to be doubled and more by unnecessary restrictions on employment.

View original

What restrictions are you talking about? There are Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (don't work in schools etc) and Serious Crime Prevention Orders, which prevent armed robbers having two mobile phones.

I don't think I can think of many more examples than that.

There is no legal restriction of Cheddy playing football.

Quote: Jennie @ 9th January 2015, 9:15 PM GMT

Well it works two ways - don't have sex with a heavily intoxicated woman lying in a hotel room that you have only just met with your friends filming the encounter at the door - i.e. don't put yourself in the position of being accused of rape.

View original

and people say romance is dead......

Quote: keewik @ 9th January 2015, 9:23 PM GMT

And also, as the saying goes, Barlinnie is full if innocent men.

Last night, on Question Time, somebody pointed out that, as a footballer, there would be children who'd have posters of him on their bedroom walls. Is that desirable when he's a convicted rapist?.

View original

If he had accepted the verdict of the jury and shut up, the libertarian in me can't think of a reason why not. He's done his time.

Quote: Jennie @ 9th January 2015, 9:23 PM GMT

There is no legal restriction of Cheddy playing football.

View original

Yup all the football teams need players to be ambassadors and attract popular support.

Where ever he shows his gormless face, sponsors do a runner as swiftly as humanly possible.

He's not banned, he's just economically unviable.

Quote: Jennie @ 9th January 2015, 9:23 PM GMT

What restrictions are you talking about? There are Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (don't work in schools etc) and Serious Crime Prevention Orders, which prevent armed robbers having two mobile phones.

I don't think I can think of many more examples than that.

There is no legal restriction of Cheddy playing football.

View original

I am thinking of whatever the latest version is of CRB. I don't know the extent of it but believe it goes way beyond crimes involving children and other serious crime. That idea of - I dunno - someone who stole a dress in Woolworths aged 17 finding access to jobs in the City of London more restricted because of it. Is it the jobseeker or employer there who is most likely to have recent criminal behaviour? Probably the latter.

So, when will we have the smartarse brigade telling us it's unfair for convicted paedophile teachers being banned from teaching again?

Quote: keewik @ 9th January 2015, 9:31 PM GMT

So, when will we have the smartarse brigade telling us it's unfair for convicted paedophile teachers being banned from teaching again?

View original

I don't think that's unfair. It's basic common sense that they shouldn't teach.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th January 2015, 9:30 PM GMT

I am thinking of whatever the latest version is of CRB. I don't know the extent of it but believe it goes way beyond crimes involving children and other serious crime. That idea of - I dunno - someone who stole a dress in Woolworths aged 17 finding access to jobs in the City of London more restricted because of it. Is it the jobseeker or employer there who is most likely to have recent criminal behaviour? Probably the latter.

View original

It is pretty similar to the original CRB check - difference being that the "standard" check shows spent convictions.

https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview

I do think though that an employer has the right to know about an employees criminal convictions. I would simply impose a "reasonableness" criteria - i.e. you can only dismiss/not hire someone on the basis of the DBS check if it is objectively reasonable.

Quote: keewik @ 9th January 2015, 9:31 PM GMT

So, when will we have the smartarse brigade telling us it's unfair for convicted paedophile teachers being banned from teaching again?

View original

I'm not sure there would be much support for that argument!