It appears that another club is distancing themselves from footballer Ched Evans who is still searching for a club months after his release from prison where he served two and half years of a five year sentence for rape.
As i mentioned previously when i wrote about the nasty, odious piece of work, he has served his time and he does have the right to work again in his professional sphere which just happens to be football.
Doesn't mean i don't love it when he is linked with a team and the fans and sponsors throw up their arms in horror at having a convicted rapist in their side and he finds himself back on the hunt for someone who wants him.
Of course it doesn't begin to make up for what he did to that poor girl back in 2011 but it gives me a lovely warm glow that he is quite rightly being treated as an outcast.
4 comments:
I agree with Q. He's served his time and it's now up to individual employers to decide whether they want him or not.
You could say that the FA could step in here... and it's true that they might write a rule saying that people convicted of serious crimes need to be prohibted from continuing their football careers once released from prison... but that's from now on... i.e. They shouldn't be able to legislate retrospectively about these matters, which is the point that their head guy (can't remember his name) was trying to make. To have any credibility, laws and regulations need to be prospective, not retrospective.
As an aside, it's interesting that you refer to 'that poor girl'. Are you aware that she can't remember the night in question (apart from a short period of time in a takeaway), suffered no physical injury, and never made a complaint of rape?
I don't disagree at all but it is heartening to see teams are not queuing up to take him.
I have read up on the case and it comes down to what all rape cases should be about, did the woman give her consent. If not, it's sex against her will and therefore rape and anything else is just an attempt to muddy the waters.
Watch this space though. I'll be very surprised if the verdict isn't overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The key fact the jury didn't appear to understand is that just as you can still form the requisite mens rea for a crime while intoxicated, consent given while drunk can still constitute consent.
Well that panned out much as I expected. Everything that's in the public domain pointed towards an obvious miscarriage.
Post a Comment