|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 10, 2015 16:23:34 GMT
Ched Evans. Put his name in Google, and you get an argument.
In a nutshell, he was a good footballer, who was found guilty of rape. He has always denied the charge. He has NEVER apologised. He got a very small sentence of which he served a meagre half of that six year sentence. He is now trying to return to professional football....
Many people object. On the grounds that footballers are set up as peoples hero's, children see them as Role Models Well, it has to be argued, if he was allowed back into football and as he walked on the pitch, and thousands of people shout BOO at him, and other deserved insults, children will ask their parents why, and when the answers are thats what happens when you rape someone, I suppose ythe kids will earn how much hate you can get from the wrong decision.....
Local feeling has run extremely hot around here, as OIldham football club is literally a couple of miles up the road. He has been denied a contract there, his second refusal, Sheffield being the first, because sponsors of the team have walked away from the team for suggesting this rapist should sign up. In truth, Oldham football club got a lot of criticism from the fans for allowing this to even be discussed.... There were alleged death threats involved, although, against who was not disclosed.
My point. If this sex offender was a teacher, would they expect to return to teaching children?
I do not wish for this idiot to remain unemployed for the rest of his life. What I object to is him being put up for certain positions where he may be considered a role model, hero, or celebrity status. In no way do I accept he has any right to be in the public eye.
Reason. Its HIGHLY controversial. It causes arguments. Personal opinion being highly personal, I see him as Toxic, I do not wish to share airspace with him, and would highly object to being within 10 miles of him. Lets kleave it at that. Its not him, its what he did, and has been convicted of, beyond all reasonable doubt I believe in court?...
He is appealing against his conviction.... Maybe thats some discussion that is to be held elsewhere, and please not here, as that is not the point, if he is found not guilty, then so be it, at the moment, he remains a CONVICTED sex offender, and its the position of convicted sex offender that is the topic here.
Should anyone who is a sex offender be allowed into professional sport.
My opinion is a sizeable NO.
Should anyone who is a convicted fraudster be allowed to run any professional team, also no.
There are a number of reasons, quite good ones, why certain offences require you to go away and not be seen on the professional stage. Ask Lance Armstrong about Drug offences.
So why the hell isnt Sex Offences one of the reasons to cancel contracts and immediately put someone on the do-not-hire list?....
BTW, I am aware that the PFA has issued an apology in his name. I highly doubt it was his idea. I believe it was a "Charm offensive" move, with Offensive being the main word there.
The FA have been petitioned to refuse to allow him signing for any team. Unfortunately, as I already know, its not in their rule book to do so. There has been talk that the FA and the FIFA may be looking into what offences should get a lifetime ban. Lois Suares, the Biter, may get some criticism on that, but there currently is no rules at all for Sex Offenders......
WHY NOT?
If anyone has any comments, please feel free. Remember, this is not the person, its the offence, so keep it clean. And no, I do not intend to dissuade the idea of rehabilitated criminals being usefull members of society. Its just putting them up as the role models hero's and celebrities that I object to here. There are many thousands of talented youngsters who are capable of doing that job, to be prevented from doing so because of a criminal, is, in its own way, criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 10, 2015 16:33:13 GMT
Given the subject matter the thread has been locked pending discussion with the mods as to if it should be allowed - CM
*Edit*
Thread unlocked.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 10, 2015 20:58:17 GMT
Locked or not, there's not really much to discuss, is there? I agree completely with SD on this. Professional athletes are role models to many and especially the young. He's already proven that he's not worthy of that, so no, he shouldn't be allowed to play. Not professionally anyway.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 11, 2015 0:41:26 GMT
As I have explained, this is a sensitive topic, but, its one that maybe we are forcing our Kids to discuss at an earlier age than they should, by allowing certain convicts the "rights" to be able to appear in front of them. This is why I am bringing it up.
Should we allow convicted rapists to be in any sport at all, where young families are confronted with the subject. It IS controversial.
The question I am asking, in my kind of unique way, is should we have rules that prevent us having to face this at sports grounds.
Thanks for unlocking the thread, and again, please everyone, address the subject not the person, and remember there may be a young audience reading.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 11, 2015 2:17:51 GMT
Maybe the solution is that our society shouldn't be putting scumbags up on a pedestal as a role model just because they can kick a ball or throw a basket.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jan 11, 2015 4:08:59 GMT
I agree with Dragon & GTCGreg on this one. If you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers over a serious offence (be it rape, robbery or B&E) you should NOT be allowed to be in a position where children or young people can look up to you as a roll model.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2015 4:35:06 GMT
in short: if you are to be placed in position to be a role model, you should be capable of being a role model.
does that mean a convicted rapist is automatically excluded? not necessarily - if the rapist displays a role model attitude towards his crime: I.E. "I did a very bad thing, and I paid a hefty price for my misdeeds, and people are being very gracious in accepting that payment." and accepts that there will be certain limits imposed as part of the ongoing price; then it could be considered.
note I am not restricting this opinion to rape - it applies to other character flaws as well. all in legitimate proportion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 11, 2015 9:02:48 GMT
It can be argued his reluctance to issue a full apology and not accept guilt is due to the fact he is appealing against his conviction, he cannot do that and at the same time accept he is guilty in the press.
But to me it seems he is unable to see what he did as rape, the girl in question was so drunk as to be incapable of giving informed consent, so in the minds of most right think people it was rape, but to a small group of people, unless,someone is held down with threats made against them, it is not, however wrong they may be.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 11, 2015 10:08:54 GMT
Thanks for the replies so far.
But shouldnt it be that certain professions are reserved for those who can behave.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2015 16:27:51 GMT
Thanks for the replies so far. But shouldnt it be that certain professions are reserved for those who can behave. it should definitely be that certain professions are reserved for people who can be counted on to behave. my reservation is whether having misbehaved in the past and gone through the proper penalty for their misbehavior and learned from it and are both behaving properly and pointing out that what they did before was misbehavior and it is not acceptable counts as being able to behave. you don't hire a marriage counselor who is going through a divorce (unless you are my brother's first wife) but do you hire a marriage counselor who was divorced 20 years ago and has now been married for 15 years with no trouble? edit: to clarify, I am not saying Ched Evans fits that description, because I cannot speak to his guilt or innocence. if he was led to believe the girl was willing and interested at the time and the girl only decided it would be profitable for her to have been unwilling after the fact then I cannot fault him for maintaining his innocence. but if he was aware she could not give informed consent and took advantage of that then I can fault him for maintaining his innocence. - either way, if I hired him to a position to be a role model I would expect his attitude to be that of "I made a mistake, and look what trouble that mistake has caused" and then to not make the same mistake next time he has the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2015 16:48:50 GMT
It can be argued his reluctance to issue a full apology and not accept guilt is due to the fact he is appealing against his conviction, he cannot do that and at the same time accept he is guilty in the press. But to me it seems he is unable to see what he did as rape, the girl in question was so drunk as to be incapable of giving informed consent, so in the minds of most right think people it was rape, but to a small group of people, unless,someone is held down with threats made against them, it is not, however wrong they may be. it is a good rule of thumb to not have sex with drunk people unless you had clear consent before they got drunk. - but the legal questions in the case are (I am assuming the allegations are that he had sex with her while she was drunk and she would not have consented if she was not drunk) whether he took advantage of her drunkenness in order to have sex with her. the distinction I am trying to make without it turning into a blame-the-victim scenario is that in a case of drunk rape the key question is whether it was the man taking advantage of the drunkenness or if he was just stupidly not realizing that she was going to regret her decision in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 12, 2015 7:29:49 GMT
It can be argued his reluctance to issue a full apology and not accept guilt is due to the fact he is appealing against his conviction, he cannot do that and at the same time accept he is guilty in the press. But to me it seems he is unable to see what he did as rape, the girl in question was so drunk as to be incapable of giving informed consent, so in the minds of most right think people it was rape, but to a small group of people, unless,someone is held down with threats made against them, it is not, however wrong they may be. it is a good rule of thumb to not have sex with drunk people unless you had clear consent before they got drunk. - but the legal questions in the case are (I am assuming the allegations are that he had sex with her while she was drunk and she would not have consented if she was not drunk) whether he took advantage of her drunkenness in order to have sex with her. the distinction I am trying to make without it turning into a blame-the-victim scenario is that in a case of drunk rape the key question is whether it was the man taking advantage of the drunkenness or if he was just stupidly not realizing that she was going to regret her decision in the morning. In Ched Evans case he cannot even claim he got the victims consent before she was drunk, he was invited to his friends hotel room as and to,join in, she was drunk before she was aware Mr Evans was involved. He was not in a state where he had got equally drunk along with her and so could be said to be incapable himself.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 12, 2015 7:49:50 GMT
I have to side with TLW on two counts here.
1: Forget the case at hand for a second and assume some random celebrity did something not so bad as rape, but still bad enough that the public could question their integrity as a viable role model. It could be drunk driving, getting into a fight with someone (possibly a spouse) or something completely different. They get caught, they're convicted, they pay the price and after that, they show complete grace under fire. They openly admit that mistakes were made, that it was in no way okay and that they're getting help to ensure that it never happens again. They've never done anything like it before and it doesn't seem like a repeat's in any near future.
Should they be given a second chance, or should they, just because they're celebrities, be completely shunned and humiliated by the public for mistakes that might as well have been made by any one of us? On a case by case basis, I think they deserve a second chance, if they can show that they're worthy of it.
Yes, I think it's important to show our kids that if you mess up, there are consequenses, but I think it's just as important to show them that no one is perfect and that even their role models can make mistakes - and more importantly that they can be forgiven if they show the right attitude afterwards. After all, what I'm trying to teach my kid is that he will make mistakes in his life and they will have consequenses, but those consequenses will be a lot less severe if he exhibits the responisibility to admit when he's messed up and face the punishment for it than if he tries to hide it and gets caught anyway. What's the world telling him about that basic premise, if every time a celebrity does something stupid, big or small, they're led to the public slaughter no matter what they do and how they act afterwards? Isn't the message basically, "If you're caught, you're going down hard, so you might as well try to hide it"?
2: On the point of celebrities and rape. Because a few misguided twirps who don't as much deserve to be called women as they should be called hysterical, attention-seeking little princesses, women who actually have been raped (be that by celebrities or regular people) often face suspicion. We've all heard the stories.
- Girl has crush on guy, puts out and then he never calls back, because he just doesn't like her that much. Girl feels hurt. Girl cries rape. - Girl gets drunk at a party, gets into bed with a guy she wouldn't be seen with under normal circumstances and regrets the next day. Girl is embarassed. Girl cries rape. - Girl doesn't get enough attention from the people she wants it from, or gets mad at guy for some reason and decides to get back at him. Girl picks out guy/guys, girl cries rape and girl gets attention/revenge. (Happened about a year ago in the next town over from mine. The girl was later caught on video confessing that it was all a lie, but only after the three guys she'd accused had been in jail for a year, costing two of them their educations and apprenticeships.)
For anyone with daughters, nieces or other little girls in their lives, you need to teach them this and teach them early: Rape is a serious crime that more or less destroys the victim inside and out. It's not an accusation that should be thrown around lightly. Doing so will not only ruin the life of whoever you accuse, but if you're caught in your lie, the next girl/woman who actually IS raped will face suspicions and might not get help because of you. Hell, because false accusations are sometimes made, many girls/women will never report the crime because they're afraid they'll be accused of lying, which will only make the experience worse for them.
This is especially true when celebrities are involved, because there might be something to gain from falsely accusing them. It could be money. It could be attention. It could be revenge for an idol not returning a girl's feelings toward them. There are plenty of motives to falsely accuse a celebrity and people know this, so the most important piece of advice to give teenage girls about rape is this:
If it ever happens to you, resist the urge to shower afterwards. Resist the urge to change clothes. Resist the urge to hide what's been done to you. Preserve the evidence and come forward as soon as possible. And if bringing him to justice for what he's done to you isn't enough of an incentive, just remember this: If he's done it once, there's a good chance he's either done it before or will do it again if he has the chance, so do it to make sure that those who potentially came before you are avenged and to ensure that no one will ever come after!
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 12, 2015 8:28:40 GMT
Lets take a major crime on a non celebrity here.
I dont know any Rapists. I would not associate with any rapists. I think it may also be a family custom.
Would you be happy leaving your wife/girlfriend alone with a convicted rapist?.
No?.. So why are we letting anyone like that be a role model?
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 12, 2015 9:04:29 GMT
"I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." --Charles Barkley
I've never understood the sports hero thing. I can admire one's talent and ability without thinking they must be an ideal person. I've known quite a few detestable people who happened to be talented artists or athletes.
There used to be a thing called a "Morals Clause" put into performer's contracts. Get out of line, bring shame to yourself or your organization, and you get fired. You don't here much about them anymore. The cynic in me says it's because detestable people can still make a lot of money, if they're talented or famous.
One thing to add to OziRis' advice: If it happens to you, go to the police. Not your school or boss--they may not have your best interests at heart. The police aren't perfect but it's best to start the legal process. Like he said, it's a deadly serious crime, and only the law can throw someone in jail.
Recently, there's been a lot of campus hysteria over sexual assault. Even the White House bought into the "1 in 5 female students have been sexually assaulted" bogus statistic (actual figure is 1 in 500, which is less than the general population rate), and basically demanded campuses throw out due process when it comes to sex crimes, making the accused essentially "guilty until proven innocent".
I'm torn between offering second chances or accepting mea culpas and extending punishment to include publicly shunning someone. Maybe it would be a better influence to say "See that guy? He was rich and famous, but he raped someone. He went to jail. Now he lives as a registered sex offender and has been banned for life from the only thing he did well. Don't be that guy."
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 12, 2015 11:27:47 GMT
"I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." --Charles Barkley I've never understood the sports hero thing. I can admire one's talent and ability without thinking they must be an ideal person. I've known quite a few detestable people who happened to be talented artists or athletes. There used to be a thing called a "Morals Clause" put into performer's contracts. Get out of line, bring shame to yourself or your organization, and you get fired. You don't here much about them anymore. The cynic in me says it's because detestable people can still make a lot of money, if they're talented or famous. I never got why someone is a hero for throwing a ball around or singing a couple of songs or painting a picture either, but there you have it. That's how many people see them. And especially kids. Kids see the world in black and white. If you're cool on a football field, you must be cool everywhere else too. Fast forward to the kid who loves football almost as much as he loves his dog, learning of Michael Vick (NFL quarterback for those who don't know) leading a dog fighting ring. Ideal shattered. But Barkley is still right. Parents have to put stuff into context for their kids and expecting an athlete, singer or movie star to teach your child about values? Well, that's just bad parenting right there. One thing to add to OziRis' advice: If it happens to you, go to the police. Not your school or boss--they may not have your best interests at heart. The police aren't perfect but it's best to start the legal process. Like he said, it's a deadly serious crime, and only the law can throw someone in jail. Agreed. Good catch. Recently, there's been a lot of campus hysteria over sexual assault. Even the White House bought into the "1 in 5 female students have been sexually assaulted" bogus statistic (actual figure is 1 in 500, which is less than the general population rate), and basically demanded campuses throw out due process when it comes to sex crimes, making the accused essentially "guilty until proven innocent". Yeah, I read the article that started the whole thing. Way to help rape victims there! Idiots... I'm torn between offering second chances or accepting mea culpas and extending punishment to include publicly shunning someone. Maybe it would be a better influence to say "See that guy? He was rich and famous, but he raped someone. He went to jail. Now he lives as a registered sex offender and has been banned for life from the only thing he did well. Don't be that guy." Oh, don't get me wrong! I'm all for hanging them out to dry and making examples of them if they deserve it! I'm just saying we should wait to crucify them until they've actually been convicted and, depending on the nature of the crime and how they act afterwards, they might be worth a second chance later on. Believe me, my kid knows that some crimes are unforgivable. Senseless, non-provoked violence (whether sexual in nature or not) falls into that category.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jan 12, 2015 12:24:03 GMT
While I don't think evans should have a succesful career as a public person, i sometimes concider the double-standard in the media world tiring.
While he gets mud slung at him from all directions, a known and admitted child-rapist like polanski is still being praised and can make movies that could be much more influential
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 12, 2015 14:48:28 GMT
My point. If this sex offender was a teacher, would they expect to return to teaching children? Not teaching per se, but a few years ago the guy running the youth program at a local church, who also volunteered for the area church camping program, was busted for molesting little boys. He genuinely expected to serve his sentence and be allowed back in the camping program (as, for the record, a cabin chaperone). I think everyone here can figure out what the people in charge had to say about that, but he was actually threatening a lawsuit to force them to let him back into camp. (I never heard if he filed or not. I hope the local lawyers are too smart to take a case like that, but there's always filing on your own.) If someone does their time and tries to turn their life around, good for them. But I'm not hiring someone convicted of embezzlement for an accounting job unless I'm certain he's reformed, and even then I'll be running regular audits. If that means his accounting degree goes to waste, maybe he should have thought of that sooner.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 12, 2015 15:26:44 GMT
and my points: 1: there is a difference between dumb and malicious. regarding the original accusation, I don't know if Evans was dumb or malicious. therefore I am declining to speculate on his particular case.
2: I am not saying to give a convicted rapist a job as a girls camp counselor. not being in a position to backslide would be a quite reasonable consequence of his actions. however, if, for example, a prominent comic actor develops a drug problem and then overcomes it; I am okay with him continuing to act - especially so if he talks openly about how his drug problem almost resulted in him being homeless and destitute.
3: I don't care if you want to be raising my kids or not. if you are rich and powerful and are abusing that wealth and power then kids WILL see that and ask the world "if he can do it, why can't I?"
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 12, 2015 16:54:25 GMT
1. Yeah, in this case, it's best not to prejudge. Let the courts figure it out--they will hear all the evidence and hopefully decide fairly. 2. In our society, drug addicts usually aren't considered serious criminals anymore, unless they are selling or committing other crimes. Addiction is often seen as its own punishment, in many cases. You hear the term "victimless crime", although you have to think of where the money used to purchase those drugs goes and how much damage it causes, if you want to honestly evaluate the issue. I've got mixed feelings on the issue. Sometimes I think society shaming should be harder on the perpetrator. It seems all someone in Hollywood needs to do is go to rehab, and all their crimes are forgiven. And it's a travesty of justice that not only did Polanski get away with his crimes, there are still those who think he should not be punished by them, simply because he got away with them for so long. 3. Yup. On a lighter note, I always wonder how lottery winners can make their kids do their homework. All the kids could say is "Hey, why should I work hard when all you needed to do was spend a buck on a lotto ticket?" ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|