Friday 9 January 2015

Ched Evans: Mobocracy

The Footballer story that here we were all trying to avoid.

Ok. the story so far. A young footballer named Ched Evans was found guilty of raping a young girl.
The rape involved him, and another man having sex with a woman while she was drunk.
It was not a man pulling a knife on a woman in a dark alley. Or Jimmy Saville climbing onto a hospital trolley with a youngster, or any of the usual images of rape that spring to mind. This was 'new rape'. Whereby if express consent is not given, or even if it is, but may have been given whilst under the influence of substances, then that sexual act is a rape.

The actual case is problematic. Evans claims the act was consensual. The other male in the threesome was found not guilty. The woman did not make a rape claim to the police. She reported a missing handbag. The police urged her to make a prosecution. So Ched feels aggrieved that he was found guilty. This is important as it is why he won't make a genuine apology. He thinks he is innocent. He thinks he has been wrongly convicted.

But it isn't straightforward at all. The hotel reception was very concerned for the girl's well being at the time. The first guy, Clayton McDonald, that was having sex, texted Evans to come and join him. That may be the implied consent, but she may never have given it.  The woman was very, very drunk.
You can read about both prosecution and defence here and here Or hunt out your own links. There are many , many websites.

To my mind the two most important points are.

For the prosecution : ” His Honour Judge Merfyn Hughes QC was quoted as saying. “As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel you must have realised that.” [this is disputed by Ched supporters}

But, he must have, surely have realised she was out of it?

And for the defence. - McDonald and Evans were charged with an identical offence committed on the same woman at the same time and Evans was found guilty of rape, whilst McDonald was not.
That is pretty unexplainable. It was a jury decision, but how they came to it is unclear. Either both were guilty, or neither, surely? {Although this too is disputed by Ched detractors}

Anyway.. none of that really matters.

Mr Evans was found guilty of rape. He went to prison. He served half his sentence of 5 years, which is the usual practice in the British legal system, and was then released. 
That is the important bit.

crime -guilt- punishment -  rehabilitation.

Since then he has been trying to return to his former soccer career but has found it impossible, through public pressure for him not to do so.

This is the bit that has been concerning C@W readers. And why I haven't really wanted to comment. Because I am unsure on whether he should or should not be permitted to go back to his job.
Most of me thinks he should.

The arguments against him returning are 

1} He is a Rapist. what? So are other people and they don't have to serve their time and then an extra amount of public mob time on top of that too. He was found guilty and served his time as given by the law. We do not have a 'second law' of mob justice in this country. But, in this case, we do.

2} He is a role model for young people and would be a bad example if allowed to return to his work.

Jay-Z, American rapper is one of the most successful hip-hop artists ever, with some 100 million records sold. He stabbed a record exec in the stomach. He got a 3 year probation. A light sentence as many people swore he was not involved. But years later he admitted it was him. 
 No one cares. Jay-Z is far more of a 'role-model' than Ched Evans, who most have never heard of. 

Boxing promoter, and weirdo haired guy Don King, has been tried for murder twice. Second time he was found guilty and served a four year sentence. He went on to have a very successful boxing, film and TV and general celeb career.

Cheryl Cole was found guilty of aggravated assault against a bathroom attendant. The original charge was racial assault. She was convicted and sentenced to 120 hours CS. No one even remembers. 

3} Its just the sexual act..a threesome? How disgusting..
Actor Rob Lowe, of West Wing fame, has had 2 sex tapes released of him and a friend having sex One a threesome with the other bloke.Another with him and two women. One just 16. It was a scandal for a while. But he was forgiven. 
Angus Deyton wasn't..Is it because Rob Lowe looks like..well Rob Lowe. While Angus Deyton looks like Angus Deyton? Could we be that shallow? 

4} He can get another job. A lower profile one. A doctor would be struck off {possibly}. A teacher would be barred from teaching.{probably}.

What are we going to do about Oscar Pistorius?  He can't run again? Ever? Robert Downey jr has multiple drug convictions. He has been jailed. He is still a respected actor. And he is only one of many with drug convictions. Many have drink driving. Should a role model cleb be allowed to continue in their job if they have DUI? What kind of role is that? Justin Beiber We are looking at you.

Ched could get another job.  No idea what. What would pay as much as football? {ahh..that's his problem} What is the point of rehabilitation if we won't rehabilitate? 

5} Its because its a horrific crime . Rape.

In 2009, 100 Hollywood celebrities, and most of the liberal media campaigned for Roman Polanski, convicted unrepentant rapist and film maker,  NOT to be sent to America after his arrest in Switzerland.
There is still a warrant for his arrest from 1978 outstanding. Eventually the Swiss let him go.
Are there calls on twitter for suspected rapist { and this is rape in the Ched sense..IE possibly non consensual} Julian Assange to be immediately sent for trial in Sweden? No. There are mainly tweets about his innocence and campaigns to get him freed from his self imposed exile, without facing any trial. Assange is accused of rape by two separate women. 

Mike Tyson fought again after his rape conviction. The first fight grossing $93 million. A record for pay for view TV. His Holyfield fight was even bigger  {Tyson lost - and that's what finished his career. Not the rape. Which was an indisputable rape.}

6}. He has not aplogised. .. 

Well, he can't really. He has an appeal. To admit guilt now rather kills that. And , he doesn't believe he has committed any rape. Which only makes it worse for him from those that want to see him hounded. Many other people have also not admitted their guilt. Dave Lee Travis hasn't . He was given a 3 month suspended sentence for sexual assault.

7} its the football clubs that won't sign him, not the public. Its corporate pressure.

Which just isn't true. A number of clubs would have signed him, but were dissuaded by the public outcry. Or their sponsors dissuade them for the same reason. Bizarrely, in the last club he tried to sign at, it was threats of rape against a directors daughter that helped that club to decide against him. The 'we hate rapists posse' prepared to commit rape to prove how much they hate rapists..welcome to ISIS world.

8} If public sentiment is he should not play football, then he shouldn't. 

This Mobocracy that we are sort of living in. Social media. Its a very depressing time. I bet Tim Berners-Lee never guessed his invention would used by the angriest and dumbest to hurl abuse at other all day long. Mobocracy is a dangerous threat to society. 
Ill informed people making judgements and demanding actions based on gut feelings, half formed opinions and trending patterns. If you ask people about Michael  Jackson's child molestation trial, most will tell you he was found guilty. 
He wasn't . He was found innocent. But the mob found him guilty anyway. And people just went on saying he was a kiddy fiddler, even though he was completely acquitted in two separate trials.

Ask people about Tony Blair and many will tell you he is a war criminal. He isn't. He could not possibly be tried as a war criminal under any former or current definition of what a war criminal is. Yet people say it and really mean it. When what they mean is he was dishonest. That's not the same thing at all.
 That's Mobocracy. Today, Ched Evans - Tomorrow, Shami Chakribati. Because she says terrorists must have the same rights as their victims...the evil cow.

However ..  

Much as I feel that Evans should be allowed to carry on playing soccer, as that was his job, there is a big problem. My belief that if it is OK for a rapist plumber to go back to plumbing, a footballer should go back to football...Would I like it if  a paedo teacher could go back to teaching?

And what if it was someone else. A real role model. Not someone called a role model to justify the mob stance. But a real one.

Would we like Rolf Harris after release from prison to go back on Animal Hospital?
Do we want Stuart Hall back on 5 live?



I don't know.

* Disclaimers
No..I don't believe Assange is guilty of rape
No i don't think its a CIA/mossad/MI5/ wet ops plot to get him to the USA to stand trial for treason. He's just an arrogant C**k.
Did Evans commit rape? real rape? or was he just unlucky that the woman can't now remember?
It doesn't matter . He was found guilty and the judges summing up is pretty clear why. On that legal basis, she could not properly have given her consent, so he is guilty.
He can, and is making an appeal.
Should the football clubs be free to sign him? Yes, of course they should.
Would BQ Utd sign him?
Absolutely not.. Why get involved with all that grief? Get another player without all the bad publicity and hassle. 
No. I do not want Stuart Hall back on radio 5. I didn't want him even before he was imprisoned.
I have never knowingly watched Animal hospital.


Anonymous said...

In terms of the jury, I can see why there were different verdicts for each.

One went back to the hotel with her, the other let himself to join in. Two drunk people going back for some fun, she regrets it... Third one joins in maybe ought to have known a lot better.

As for going back to football, this reads as someone's arrogance destroying their own chances.

He's pretty much intimated (and his supporters explicitly said) he could "get any girl", which should cheer his girlfriend up some (assuming she's into open relationships, if not she may wish to consider getting enough self esteem to find someone who doesn't feel random hotel shags are de rigeur), which isn't going to get you many plus points.

Upon being released, rather than simply giving the apology he did after his latest attempt to get back into footy collapsed, he made the assumption to just go back to work.

Had he come out with a simple apology straight away, re-iterating he didn't feel he was guilty but still apologising for the effects, and asking the public for forgiveness (the public love a bit of that) and allowing him to train whilst he considered his future and actions, and 12 months down the line he'd be able to resume his career and endure some colourful chants.

But no. Girlfriends daddy does a website, his supporters go on the attack, and he rolls up expecting to train with a new contract in the offing someday soon.

Bad move.

Even if his appeal succeeds his careers over, no one is going to touch him now.

It comes across as the kind of thoughtless and reality-detached arrogance shared by both footballers and politicians.

And it's a pity - he's done his time, and I think he should be allowed back to play. Arguments that football players are role models are bollocks. Many of those playing, and who've played in recent memory, are rarely the kind of people anyone should be keen on emulating outside their footballing skills.

It's not a job like being a doctor or a teacher, it's getting paid to lump a ball about a field and retire in your 30's to either manage, coach or run a pub. Now seeing him barred from managing or coaching I can understand, but not for playing.

I've no sympathy for his position - brought it all on himself, and his actions will now set a precedent - but do see it's a little unjust that those who've served their sentence can't go back to the kind of career where they're not exactly a danger to the public.

Timbo614 said...

Bill, You are obviously confused. Your moral standards have been affected by everyone PC thinking that everyone has leeway and they are not ever really wrong ...

It is simple to decide:

What would I(you) have done in the same circumstances?

If the lady in question was that drunk I would have wrapped her in a blanket and put her to bed to sleep it off. Then smacked the other guy on chin, or if he was too big for that, distracted him with another drink or gambling or whatever.

Simple "taking advantage" it is(was?) called. If he had sex with her in that state it was wrong, the other guy should have gone down too.

There are very few gentlemen left today but I consider myself one of them.

Diogenes said...

Poor choice of subject matter. You might want to pull it or close it.

Unless its a race to the bottom with the Daily Star

john miller said...

People like Henry Winter of the DT, although campaigning for mob rule, doesn't really want it.

HW goes to Croatia to cover an England match, where they hate every Englishman's guts.

HW gets carved up with a Stanley knife.

Croatian football fans shout "Hey, he's English, he had it coming." No case to answer. HW's assailant has been found not guilty in the court of public opinion.

Do we think HW is ok with that?

Nick Drew said...

for a chilling account of something similar to mobocracy, but in the more refined circumstances of our undergraduate populations, see this from the Spectator last year

there, it's free speech that's at stake, not some individual's fate - and we're all pretty keen on free speech this week, no ?

there is an interesting look-across from this issue to our earlier debates as to whether politicians should give people what they want

(on which I sided with Budgie, when he said The reason we have politicians is that people do not think the same way about anything. Some people (politicians) have to pull this all together. I can't believe I'm supporting politicians, but I am. The alternative is robber barons (eg IS) or a Sun King (eg North Korea) - here)

Bill Quango MP said...

Anonymous : I think you've pretty much nailed my own opinion. Which is a shame for first comment as we can close the debate now!

I agree that the correct approach would have been full apology {whether he meant it or not} Some rehabilitation period coaching reserve team..or working with some football group.. contrition on all the phone ins and TV interviews..more apologies and a general and slow working his way back.

Mike Tyson is now in comedy programs, film cameos and is a regular on US chat shows. Its taken him 20 years.. but he is back.

I guess Ched didn't want to wait that long. But by choosing the path he chose he will probably have to wait either longer.

Really, he should campaign on his work permit and go and play abroad.

Timbo - A good test - what would everyman have done? I wouldn't have gone over to the hotel in the first place. But then I'm not in that footballer's lives world.
Still .. its a good test. The situation would never arise for me.. so the fault must be his.

Bill Quango MP said...

Steven_L : That may be true. I don't care about Mr Evans anymore than I care about Mr Mitchell-Pleb.

But both were removed from their jobs effectively by social media.

So is this a good thing? Is this real free speech democracy in action? The will of the people, Forum style?
Sod the rich lawyers and conniving establishment..Justice served by text!
As Hattie Harman once said "The court of public opinion"?

{Which she herself was a lot less keen to listen too when that court turned on her for her PIE involvement. .. and on that she was involved in a very minor way, but could have been hung by the mob just the same.}

And yes, there are two footy fans here And an egg ball lover too....But the issue isn't really about football. Its about whether a high profile person should be given the same rights as everyone else, or have special punishment.

My issue with it all is that even the mobocracy don't treat celebs the same.
And that's the danger with Roman Justice.

Bill Quango MP said...

John Miller - That is the link to the Telegraph piece. It condemns Evans and is actually quite fair. Except the bit that says "he hasn't dodne his time and the judicial process must be served."
No. He has done his time and it has been served.
Winter is really saying he should have had a longer sentence.

But that is a separate debate that requires judicial and parliamentary involvement.
We cannot go on twitter and demand the death penalty for Soldier Rigby's killers and expect it to happen.

Diogenes: Not really - Its a should the rule of public opinion overrule the laws of the land.
It shouldn't, but we know it does. The firearms and dangerous dogs acts are testament.

Ironically, it was previous posters who decided me to write something ... MOB RULE!!

Bill Quango MP said...

ND: I had seen that before and was shocked by it.

The founding principle of freedom of speech shouted down by the anti-free speech, in the name of freedom.

roym said...

Bill. Really have to call you out on a couple of points.
1) he has not done his time. He's out on license.
2) you must not be following the right people on Twitter. There are plenty insisting that Assange should eff off. In fact I see it the other way. Only a minority of loonies denying that he hasn't had every legal recourse available
3) 'new rape' ? Seriously? Rape is rape full stop

Timbo614 said...

@BQ for the purpose of discussion, the exact circumstances of the hotel visit can be ignored. (no I would not have gone either).

The new "incapable of giving consent" law is in my opinion a good one, it shouldn't be needed but it is.

By definition [I think, well it applies to me anyway :) and is I would say a very common assumption] that if a man is sober enough to actually perform the sex act then he is sober enough to make a moral decision.

As for his future employment, well, bad decisions have consequences. If he wasn't famous-ish as a footballer we would not have heard anything about it. An unknown normal person would probably lose their job over it because they had to spend 2.5 years in prison alone, ignoring what they had done. They would be known locally for what they had done, they would have a criminal record which has to be declared. The consequences for a normal working man would be equally enormous.

Anonymous said...

@BQ - I live to close down debate! :D

And yes, abroad would e best for him - the MoJ would've been better coming to some accommodation so he could bugger off to Malta. And least the mob would get some vitamin D there. Not sure about him campaigning though, maybe some quiet words between the FA, UEFA and the MoJ, as the press would dive anything too open with gusto.

@roym - Sweden quite sensibly applies levels to rape.

There is a definite spectrum, all of them quite in the wrong, but with differing levels of provability.

Punch someone, drag them in the alley and violently rape them isn't going to boil down to "he said/she said"

Drug someone, and if they go to the police quickly enough they may be able to find evidence.

Take someone home drunk and they're too drunk to consent, well, now you're in a quandary - how drunk was the perpetrator? If stone cold sober, well, now we have a good idea it was rape. If legless, not so much as that's not even "he said/she said", it's what "he said in foggy memory/she said in foggy memory".

By having different levels we can get a better idea of *where* we're failing to prosecute. If violent rapes are going unpunished, then the justice system very much has a case to answer, if it's where the two parties are drunk, then we're in a situation where we can admit the difficulty inherent in such prosecutions.

dearieme said...

Pity about Rolf. Did he really do it?

Bill Quango MP said...


Thank for that. Politely put.

The licence is a bit of a red herring. We know that its really a way to free up prison spaces, but it does allow people to go to work and reintegrate back into society after prison. Its actually quite a good system. If you look at the terms they are all about not mixing with your old criminal buddies and seeing the probation officer. Its release from prison.

The issue that effects Evans is he can't leave the country under licence. Other wise he could have gone overseas.

Anon on comment 1 is correct to point out that this is his own fault. And CU was wrong to say the gov should let him leave. The law is the law. Evans should have been quiet until he could slink off to Italy or Turkey to play football.

On Assange , i must have been on CiF. There he is innocent. And he nicely takes us to point 3 .
New Rape ..not a good term, I accept.

But is Assange guilty as Tyson is?
If Assange was convicted it would be because he had sex with consent, but latwer that same night, in same bed, with same woman, she didn't expressly give consent.
Tyson lured a young miss world to his hotel room, gave her drinks, said there was going to be a party, which there wasn't . Then he forced himself upon her despite her protestations. Her condition was assessed by medical profs as rape.

Rape is not Rape. That illogical, forgive me, is what is causing the problem.

Its like saying murder is murder and all must face same prosecution without exception.

The woman who kills her long term abusive partner is the same and as guilty and deserving of punishment as the man who kills a random child. The person who runs down someone in their car is as guilty as the Hebdo killers.
Its a nonsense.

There are degrees. That was my point.

And i should make clear, if I haven't already, that I do think Evans is guilty of rape. I can see he may not think he is, but he is.

Timbo's test is a good one. What would a normal person have assumed from the situation?

Electro-Kevin said...

The details of the case do not matter one jot.

Ched Evans is a (here the important words) *convicted rapist* under the law of the land as it stands at this moment.

To return to football Ched Evans might need to have his conviction quashed by appeal - due legal process. He cannot have his status as *convicted rapist* downgraded (perhaps I meant UPgraded !) by mere bar room lawyering as to "Yeah, but... he ain't reeelly a rapist in the true sense of the word."

The forum to decide that is in a court before a judge and jury. Nowhere else.


If I was suspected of doing exactly the same thing I'd be suspended from my job too - and if convicted I'd be sacked.

I'm not even famous. My role is not even customer facing - let alone is my face the image of my company (luckily for my passengers !)

There is no legal reason why Ched Evans can't be employed as a footballer - so the 'mob' as you say, must have some control over the market.

This IS economics at work. Marketing managers graft day and night trying to capture market approval for their product. Those who tarnish their product in any way are given the bullet for the sake of the product itself.

Well for poor old Ched the market has been turned against him. By campaign, so what ?

He shouldn't have got involved in his sordid spit-roasting antics - and in the old days, being exposed for doing that would have been reason enough for resignation - and that's without a court conviction being a component of the affair.

The mums of young male football fans don't this sort of role model for their kids, and for once I'm with them on this.

I'd feel the same if the bloke hadn't been convicted of rape. (Why one hetrosexual chap would want another hetrosexual chap's willy and fluids anywhere near him is beyond me - and if that makes you squirm then perhaps you're finally getting what this is about.)

Frankly I'm sick of sports and rock stars being exempted from otherwise unacceptable behaviour because they're good at scoring goals and such as being forgiven for looking at kiddie porn because they can knock out a blinding guitar solo.

Electro-Kevin said...

For the purpose of this topic we must remove all claims to Ched's innocence.

He is a rapist in every sense.

To be convicted of rape legal professionals have argued before a judge in a court in one of the most just nations on Earth whether or not Ched's actions fit the legal definition of rape.

It does.

Only an appeal court can decide otherwise now.

So this case is purely and simply about whether or not a rapist should be allowed to play high level professional football.

Let's not cloud the issue by trying to argue his innocence or the ass-iness of the law.

The *mob* is entitled to be outraged if it wants to be.

If that's enough to shame managers into dropping Ched then not only is it the market at work - it is democracy too.

Steven_L said...

The consequences for a normal working man would be equally enormous

I've known of normal folk who have been completely ostracized by their communities and lived in genuine fear of their safety for years on end because of rape accusations that the police have not even acted on.

Timbo614 said...

Steven_L's observation is good one.
"The Mob" in this instance is simple public opinion. This opinion would be formed whether we are talking about discussions in a village pub or in this case on twitter.

Public opinion on everyone's actions *is* what actually guides our societal rules, it's that notion of what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't.

Public opinion is stating that "being a famous-ish footballer and raping a girl/woman is unacceptable". Following this other famous footballers will think twice about doing something stupid/morally unacceptable thing.

I say good - public opinion is right. It is upholding our morals/societal rules.

It's is the same thing that is happening in France tomorrow where an estimated 1 million people are going to attend a protest/memorial rally. The French people and people worldwide are saying to the (normal) Muslim population "this behaviour is not acceptable - you need to do something about it". I really hope that the Muslim population of France is strongly represented or it will be read by the "court of public opinion" as condoning the actions of the extreme supporters of their faith.

Lilith said...

I am so sick of the BBC's witch hunt.
I read (Breitbart) that the "victim" asked Mr evans for oral sex when he came into the room. He obliged. Some evil kind of rapist that is.

Electro-Kevin said...

The BBC are hypocrites.

They employed Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer.

One wonders if he'd have got their job if his victim were a woman or black man. As the victim was a white man that was OK.

They say Grantham was a nice guy but he was employed to play a bad guy and did it rather well.

The crucial point is that the BBC sacked him for a non criminal offence of consensual internet sex and disrepute.

Jay Z

Rap artists are a terrible influence on kids. Mums don't have to buy the tickets and the fans (x rated CDs) SHOULD be adult.

Will football mums can't avoid bad influences so easily so they (among others) are going at Ched through the sponsors.

Jay Z doesn't have sponsors so it's a bit of a non argument.

Football is already weird enough.

Eric Cantona can karate kick a customer and carry on his career for ten years.

Imagine you go to B&Q and you call an assistant an incompetent so and so. He then karate kicks you.

What do you think would happen ?

Ched Evans

He's stuffed whatever happens and he thoroughly deserves it. The outcry is now too overwhelming to to overcome.

This thicko might have kept a low profile for a while. Instead he goes around trying to get a job knowing that it is causing his industry incalculable problems.

What sort of selfish bastard does that ? Has he no shame ?

He thinks he's innocent and feels hard done by.

Well that's typical footballer arrogance for you. He thinks he's above judge, jury and law.

If he's innocent then it's for him to appeal and go through the process again. If not then why not ?

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Well, if I went up to an already visibly upset manager in B&Q and called him a fucking cunt and spat at him, and he then karate kicked me, I might feel compelled to say to the Plods afterwards "I only said 'it's an early bath for you, Mr Cantona' and he kicked me!" Which pretty much sums up the famous Karate kick altercation.

As for Ched Evans - oops, I was forgetting his full name - "Convicted Rapist Ched Evans", I can't see why the thick charmless bastard shouldn't be allowed to play wendyball so other thick charmless bastards can shout disobliging things at him. Generally we should be pleased if an ex-con gets a job. If he was teaching sixth form girls or working as a social worker in sheltered accommodation for indigent ladies of the night I wouldn't hesitate to say no. Otherwise I see no reason to indulge the amusingly named misandrist Jean Hatchet. (It amused me yesterday that "Convicted Perjurer Vicky Pryce" wasn't given her full name on the Daily Politics, btw, just like "Convicted Murderer Leslie Grantham" on East Enders.)

Perhaps I am a fastidious prude, but I wrinkle my nose with some distate at the accepted facts of the case. After his mate had sex with the drunken girl she asked Evans to go down on her, which he did, before giving her the pork sword. Ewww - sloppy seconds! On your gob! I bet his even his mum wouldn't kiss him on the lips now. Even so I can see why Evans thinks it unfair that his mate got off and he was convicted.

CityUnslicker said...

The best part of this debate is teh clear pointer to different types of rape. That is a problem for the country as 'rape is rape' also informs the 'mob.'

Evans is guilty but I always worry when people are attacked for denying they are guilty. You remember the Guildford 4 did this yes?

Evans is guilty, he won't play, the mob has won. There are wider issues raised though by the case.

Suffragent said...

Mob rules is surely a true democracy at work. As an advocate of free speech I fully agree with it. The problem comes from the a)quality of information the mob receives and b)their initial preconception of what is right and wrong, that drives them into a frenzy.
a)The media and political analysts always use selected twatter comments as a cross section of public opinion, when in fact its only a small percentage of the population (beats knocking on doors only to find people (bigots) who disagree with your viewpoints.
B) ND highlights this in his link (and if you think the latest politicians live in a bubble wait until these lunatics get into power). Freedom of speech is about opening your self up to being upset or offended. Politicians (of all colours) but particularly the last bunch were masters at shutting down debate (Alistair Campbell..spit) and their largest crime was the closing down of social centres AKA the local pubs. These were a place of heated debate between a true cross section of the public, where often drink fuel arguments could get out of hand but at least you received an alternative perspective. Today this is replaced by people going to sites like this to be with like-minded people who only confirm their current beliefs. I’ve only commented for a short time but followed this site for a few years and I like it because people have disagreements but generally respect their opponent’s position. I have seen other sites slowly slide to more extreme positions accusing anybody that puts an alternative view as a troll or worse. As an Engineer I understand the need of feedback loops in a closed loop mechanism. Without corrective inputs the outcomes become extreme. This is understood by the people train suicide bombers and other lunatics.
These PC idiots through their attempts at protecting everybody from being offended are driving the population to more extreme positions.

Suffragent said...

I’m not going to be drawn into the rapist debate but I couldn’t think of a better job for Ched. A game where 22 players compete to cheat 1 referee. Where the fans don’t give a feck how the ball gets in the back of the net, cos only the result is important. When you watch a replay that shows absolutely no contact (and the guy is still rolling on the ground holding his leg) and the supporter says “it was the right decision from where the ref was stood”.
Anybody that holds a footballer as a roll model should have their children taken into care.

BE said...

EK @ 12.38 is spot on.

He is free to get a job wherever he likes, and any employer is free to take him on. But as EK correctly points out, the employer has customers and a commercial reputation to uphold.

Peado teachers are a red herring. This is all about the freedom to contract and, critically, the freedom not to.

andrew said...

EK @12.52

Wish I had said that.
Proud to be part of the EK fan club.

Electro-Kevin said...

The Cantona kick was not 'reasonable' force under the law and he was lucky not to be arrested for it.

As a copper I got called a cunt and spat at more than once.

If I'd karate kicked someone for doing that (and I was in much closer proximity) what do you think would have happened to me Sebastian ?

For 100k a week the bloke could have thrown lumps of his gran's shit at me, called me a cunt thrice and I would have kissed him for it. KISSED HIM I tells yer !

The biggest mob (a real mob) is the football mob.

They gob off and take over whole towns every weekend.Vomit on trains and scare old ladies.

If every referee reacted to fans AND footballers who behaved like that...

(Thanks BE and Andrew)

Thud said...

The last match I was at was at anfield just before Christmas, I had a great time and the going to the match (on foot0 and leaving was trouble free.I didn't notice any trouble vomit or piss plus those around me while disagreeing with some decisions where rather funny in their reactions to decisions going against Liverpool.Not really on point I know but football and its fans is for me quite a big part of my life.....oh and Evans should be toast at least until appeal.

Anonymous said...

"This was 'new rape'. Whereby if express consent is not given, or even if it is, but may have been given whilst under the influence of substances, then that sexual act is a rape"

This isn't accurate. The prosecution has to prove (amoung other things) that the accused did not reasonably believe that the victim consented.

So the jury necessarily felt satisfied (beyond reasonable doubt) either (i) that Evans did not belive the victim had consented; or (ii) he did believe it, but his belief was not reasonable.

They also must necessarily have considered (beyond reasonable doubt) that the victim did not consent - that's another necessary element to the offence.

Bongo said...

Ched Evans only had to serve half his sentence.

Couldn't he have at least waited until the full-term was meant to be up and rejoin the game quietly ?

BTW no-one is saying he shouldn't play football (nor work) - just not professional football.

Malegra said...

Nice post..keep up the good work of posting good stuffs.

Unknown said...

Karate practice provides great benefits to men in the form of improved fitness. It has helped many men in losing excess weight and making themselves slimmer. Karate has also made them mentally tougher and better able to take on the challenges of life karate in Connecticut.