Ched Evans to sign for oldham

[The Red Baron]

Going off at a tangent a bit, but what is Gordon Taylor on? You'd think Evans was the only player he represented.

Taylor would do better if he suggested to Evans that he took that website down. Or at least disassociated himself from its contents.

[graingrover]

Very rare but very welcome . Finally someone at the top in football takes the lead in calling for a code of conduct in the game .

http://www.thefa.com/news/2015/jan/statement-ched-evans-090115

[acko]

the trouble there graingrover bit like securing the stable wants the horse as bolted,i agree new rules should be in place for various crimes that footballers do,bit like teachers,police and people like that but you cant just change the rules because of one man now,that would give a good case of discrimination.as for gordon taylor hes doing his job irrespective of his own views his job is to do the best for evans

[Lipsy]

I disagree. You can, of course, change the rules because of one person - does the FA have to wait for more footballers to commit heinous crimes before it acts? Of course it doesn't. I mentioned earlier that this "mob rule" might be having at least some kind of positive effect. This is it. The FA has been backed into a corner by public opinion (and it was obvious that it would be), so now it's acting.

Of course, I am pretty certain that any decision made by the FA won't impact on CE retroactively but, then again, "mob rule" appears to be doing what the FA should have done years ago...

[acko]

what i was saying lipsey the rules could have been changed prior to all the fuss regarding ce,and if its mob rule that changes the law we are in serious trouble not only in football but as a nation

[IDM]

but you cant just change the rules because of one man now

Er, yes you can.

Bosman?

If you take away the extreme of the opposition to Evans (ie the threats) then the majority of the opposition has been democratic.  Whether that has been via a petition or by folks like me expressing their own opinions, public opinion is still very strong.

And don't forget there is an anomaly in football, in that a convicted rapist would not be allowed to own or be a director of a football club, yet can be a player?

what i was saying lipsey the rules could have been changed prior to all the fuss regarding ce,and if its mob rule that changes the law we are in serious trouble not only in football but as a nation

Sorry but to have a reason to change something, you need some form of trigger.  I disagree it is mob rule - it is a groundswell of public opinion - threats aside.

[TommyC]

BST, you'll see I'm an extremely infrequent poster on this site. I chip in every now and again when there's a tasty debate or something interesting but I haven't been a regular poster (particularly on football matters) for at least 10 years. Having said that, I have continued to follow the site on a daily basis and in that time I naturally have built up a picture of the views, opinions and politics of certain posters. I hope you wont take offence at my assumption that politically you are perhaps a little left of centre? Apologies if I'm wildly off-beam there. With that in mind though, I must confess to being a little bit mischievous in posting that article. I did anticipate such a response, particularly from yourself. My intention was merely to stimulate the debate although I'll freely admit I don't disagree with all the points he makes.

I'm not in any way a particular fan of Rod Liddle nor do I read The Spectator and I daresay much of what you say about him is correct. Having said that however, how is him ridiculing those he disagrees with any different to your response to that article? You disagree with him and you dislike him, fair enough but why the abuse and belittling of those who may happen to agree with him? Of course he's a rabble rouser, of that I have no doubt. But you ignore the fact that there are many people in this country who feel let down and disengaged by the liberal London elite that seems dictate life in this country. The outcry in respect of Ched Evans is, in my opinion, motivated by those same liberal values and on that, I agree with Liddle. In reacting in that way to an article you disagree with, I'd compare it to Cameron calling UKIP supporters closet lefties and loonies. It's incredibly insulting and it ignores the fact that whether you believe it or not, very intelligent and successful people may vote UKIP or buy Liddle's books.  Whilst you may not agree with Liddle, it doesn't actually make the people who agree with him, idiots or the "easily stirred up". That's the same lazy argument we see each and every day. If you don't agree with the wolly liberal middle ground, you are either an idiot or a racist/homophobe/sexist extremist. It simply isn't the case!

That's the problem with liberal politics. It encourages free speech and democracy until someone says something or feels something that is not warm and fluffy. Once that happens those liberal values seem to be abandoned in favour of name calling, manipulation of the media and smear campaigns. And that brings us neatly back to Ched Evans.

[IDM]

Sorry Jonathon the Evans case is much simpler and straightforward.  Many thousands of folks don't believe a convicted rapist should be a professional footballer, amongst the other professions that are barred. 

Nothing to do with rehabilitation, rights, or what may have happened with ex-con footballers in the past where the widespread knowledge would be much less.   All these arguments over the case, the blogs, newspaper articles may well fan the flames but the basic issue behind all this remains the same.

[acko]

sorry IDM but the bosman ruling was on a point of law,and if you remember recent high profile cases in this country,sentence could only be what was laid down by law at the time of offence not at the time of trial,i dont disagree with what you say should happen but until its law we cant do a thing about it,and if we could change the law because people dont like evans i am sure myra hindley and ian brady would have hung but it wasnt law at that time

[IDM]

You said you can't change rules because of one man?  So what if the Bosman thing was a point of law, or a football regulation etc.  The transfer process has been revolutionised because of one man, that's the point.

Evans is a landmark case.  The new debate is on football reviewing its rules on ex-cons, not the law of the land.

[Filo]

Acko, you posted this yesterday

i agree with you donneywolf and i will make this my last post on the matter,what i do think its brought to the fore the role of sponsers,patrons,and the power of mob rule in decision making by football clubs which cannot be good for the game,on line petitions can cause nothing but trouble on a topic of this and like issues

Since then you've made seven further posts on the matter, one of them a new thread!

Do us all a favour and be a man of your word!

[acko]

sorry filo didnt realise you cotrol this chat line,thought you had gone to an anger management course after admitting on here you batter your son

[Filo]

sorry filo didnt realise you cotrol this chat line,thought you had gone to an anger management course after admitting on here you batter your son

You are nothing but a WUM!

I was just pointing out what you stated, onviously you were lying!

[acko]

tut tut filo anger management not working,   the posts have related to context of the law which i thought deserved a response,altho evans name was mentioned it was not directly about him,i get the feeling on here that if any oppinion is different to yours or the vsc board then i am open for abuse,just say the word and i will stop posting altogether.

[Filo]

tut tut filo anger management not working,   the posts have related to context of the law which i thought deserved a response,altho evans name was mentioned it was not directly about him,i get the feeling on here that if any oppinion is different to yours or the vsc board then i am open for abuse,just say the word and i will stop posting altogether.

Would you like to point us to where the abuse of you is and we'll investigate?

You appear to be the aggressor when anyone questions you!

[acko]

calling me a wum for starters

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

Thanks for the post and I agree with a fair bit of what you say. My reaction to Liddle is, self-consciously written in a Liddle style. And I agree that there IS a problem with some of the more radical attitudes on race and sexual politics. (That's one reason why I actually think of myself as being only a little left of centre.)

My grouse with Liddle is that he focusses on those aspects to the exclusion of anything else. In setting up the radicals as his target, he (very effectively) paints out anyone with a more nuanced attitude who disagrees with him. It's an approach that scares me to be honest, because it polarises debates. What he did in that particular article was to very cleverly push a line that the opposition to Evans is from people from the loony radical fringe. Therefore opposition to Evans is wrong. Therefore Evans should be supported. He pushed the line that there was opposition to Evans because and only because his crime was one that fitted into the trendy radical set of crimes that are unacceptable. He specifically commented on the fact that there was no equivalent outcry against Lee Hughes and he drew the conclusion from that that the opponents of Evans didn't consider Hughes's crimes to be as serious or as deserving of opprobrium.

Look at what he wrote.

One of the ironies is that the people who have signed these various petitions are more usually lenient on the issue of criminal justice — unless it is a crime to which they particularly object. Burglary, armed robbery, manslaughter, drug dealing etc. — they’re OK. Crimes against women and any racist stuff — nope, no rehabilitation, you’re scum and that’s that. Oh, and homophobia.

That comment alone debars him from any pretnetions of being a serious commentator. With no evidence whatsoever, he opines about what "these people" belief. There are undoubtedly SOME people who believe that, and they are contemptible. But what Liddle is doing (and it's his standard MO) is to use those particular idiots as examplars of anyone who disagrees with him. It is a very, very dangerous way of arguing, because it reinforces opinions that want to be reinforced and polarises debate.

Oldham employed another striker, Lee Hughes, when he had been released from prison for killing someone as a consequence of dangerous driving — there was, of course, no petition designed to prevent them.

He ignores the fact that when Hughes came out of prison, Twitter and Facebook were in their infancy and it was much harder to organise campaigns. He decides that Hughes wasn't campaigned against because he hadn't committed a crime against a trendy victim. There's no excuse for his conclusion there, because he frequents football forums and he'll know damn well how much discussion went on about the merits of the Hughes situation. That those discussions didn't become anything more organised was more down to the immaturity of the on-line world. Many people on this very board (myself included) stated that we would never watch the Rovers again if we signed Hughes. He knows that but he ignores it. Because he's not interested in an informed discussion. He's interested in reinforcing stereotypes.

As I say, he COULD, in his position of some influence, attempt to engage in a more rational debate. He used to be a journalist who did that. But he failed in that role. So he's reverted to this approach, peddling sterotypes, using particular examples as reasons for general condemnation. When he's not saying that his opinion about feminists revolves around whether he personally would like to f*** them (I assume he has no mirrors in his house...)

You were (rightly) offended at my use of the same tactic of accusing people who lapped up what he said of being idiots, without drawing distinctions, or discussing that there could be fair and reasonable points on the other side of the debate. Do you see the point?

[Filo]

calling me a wum for starters

Thats an opinion

If you think that is abuse you must be a very sensitive person

[acko]

ok filo you win the end

[RJHeader]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

[Filo]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Really? Where?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Your very first post to me called me a Kitson. I'm not sure you are eligible to join in a discussion about what constitutes abuse.

[RJHeader]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Really? Where?

You started something by quoting his previous post.

[Filo]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Really? Where?

You started something by quoting his previous post.

So that previous post did n't start it then?

[RJHeader]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Your very first post to me called me a Kitson. I'm not sure you are eligible to join in a discussion about what constitutes abuse.

I never directly called you that did i BST? I said 'my guess is that you were acting like one'.

Dont be too upset though, it was nearly a year ago now pal. Let it go

[BillyStubbsTears]

RJ.

Fair point. Maybe I was being too sensitive. Which brings us back onto point.

[NickDRFC]

Filo you're the one calling him out and starting something there. Grow up man

Your very first post to me called me a Kitson. I'm not sure you are eligible to join in a discussion about what constitutes abuse.

I never directly called you that did i BST? I said 'my guess is that you were acting like one'.

Dont be too upset though, it was nearly a year ago now pal. Let it go

Well know they knooooow

LET IT GO! LET IT GOOOOOOOO!

[bobbymax]

The degeneration of this thread is exactly why we need a new policy on moderation.

Shall we call it a playground clause which bins personal insults and keeps a track of their instigators?

[Scooter]

I can't be arsed to read all this thread as I don't really care. However I was drawn into a discussion on ched today and I disagree that he should be allowed to play professional again.
My argument is - if I was found guilty of the same offence I would not be allowed to return to the job that I do. Just out of interest - who on here would?

[StocktonRover]

Not me