Be Excellent To Each Other

The mob part of it is the unsavoury part - it gives the thing a life of its own, way beyond sensible debate and a sense of proportion. The idea that footballers really are role models is highly debatable. And by way of contrast, Boycott suddenly (it felt to me) appeared back on screens and radio despite being a convicted girlfriend-beater (and he tried and failed to have the conviction overturned), and I was mightily confused. No one even seems to mention it. Not that his rehabilitation means everyone should be, it's just when the level of chatter reaches such a level over one thing but doesn't leave the ground for another, it suggests it's more about a bandwagon has taken shape more than something really merits this much attention.

To us, yes. To young and impressionable boys and girls it's not. Football is the country's most popular sport - footballers are paid millions of pounds for kicking a ball around - what young child interested in football would not look up to them?

Again like Hughes, just because there wasn't an outcry about Boycott in the pre-social media era, you seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an outcry now? That doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, I always kind of hoped that the 2 minute hate would be a communal activity.

Do children really look up to footballers as much more than footballers, though? Certainly the culture of questioning refs etc. goes down the ages, but I'm not sure about the general lifestyle side. And only idiots are going to think 'ah, rape is okay now' (as opposed to 'ah, rape is okay', and they'd think that anyway, because idiots). I'm not sure it's more than a circular argument - footballers are role-models because we say they are role-models. It isn't just a case of social media in Boycott's case, more that it seems weird that no one comments or commented, particularly as he must divide opinion (that is to say, I at least think he is a twat, picking fights over nothing, and can't be alone). I agree on the increased popularity of social media being crucial, but we can agree that such has carried/created much of the comment without it changing my point that the amount of comment is disproportionate and creating a bandwagon.

If they weren't, how would you account for this:

well, while I don't dispute the role model aspect, this could be explained as being in the same vein as those idiots who attack that woman games journalist; ie straightforward sexism and stupidity.

I don't think it really matters - the net result is the same.

Lol, net result. Football.

I always found it quite odd to have a role model that you don't personally know. It's an image that you have no means of questioning or knowing on much beyond a surface level.

That's not to say that people don't.

Well the question was, is it due to footballers being role models? Not necessarily, it could be down to people being dicks.

Also... What kind of a name is Ched?

Welsh. Short for chedwyn.

Welsh, innit? They just stick a hand into a scrabble bag and throw what they grab on the floor.

And now he isn't. Apparently

A rapist name.

Wow, the whole of Wales has denounced him?

Nando's ending their sponsorship with Oldham may have been the last straw for the rest of the team.

It amazes me that this football team would even entertain the idea of signing him. Clearly they have an idea of the media backlash they'd face?

Clearly, something else about football that I don't understand.

Is he good?

("No, he's quite naughty actually" - everyone)

He's cheaper than he otherwise would be on account of the fact that he's a rapist, they were after a bargain.

This is pretty much it. Oldham have a choice to make: money or morals.

I think I would prefer to live in a society where when someone has committed a crime, paid the penalty and is back on society, it affords him the chance to work again. Sometimes, this is unpalatable and this is perhaps one of those times, but this is extra judiciary punishment which sits uncomfortably l. The argument about his being out on licence disappears soon.

He is perfectly entitled to work again. This argument doesn't hold up.

Not in his profession, according to many. The state should say, and does, "not that job with that xonviction" for good reason. The public should not.

Possibly not, no, especially at the same level he left the game at, while he's unrepentant and seen as a role model (for good or ill). We've covered this.

If he were a convicted paedophile would you feel the same way?

But what Mali's saying is that this is an extra punishment that a builder (say) wouldn't get.

The public are perfectly entitled to lobby for him not to be employed in the public eye. It is ultimately Oldham's decision though - if they want the negative publicity and flak they'll get, that's up to them.

A builder isn't in the public eye, or seen as a role model for young children, or paid an astronomical amount for kicking a ball around. All of these things matter.

Rolf Harris won't get any further TV work when he comes out, will he? Chris Langham hasn't been on TV either. They are perfectly entitled to attempt to rebuild their lives in private, but staying as a public figure is unpalatable to most.

I don't think that's true at all. If the case had attracted widespread publicity then a convicted rapist would find difficulty returning to work in all kinds of jobs.

Anyway, Oldham have said they have bowed to the pressure of their sponsors, not the general public.

I think this is what it boils down to. The want of the people against him returning as a footballer. It is a further act of retribution and further punishment which is a step too far. It is not for the public to punish, it is for the state. I daresay that unless he gets a job as a binman on the Isle of Wight nobody will be happy. It seems that he must suffer and suffer more until the crowd are satisfied. This is wrong.

Is it always wrong to have to deal with the foreseeable consequences of a crime which extend beyond whatever prison time you get?

Legally you are correct. Morally? Not so much. Again, too much looking at something in a vacuum rather than the bigger picture. I for one do not want to live in a society who re-employs unrepentant convicted rapists who haven't served their time at the same level they played at before their conviction a mere three years after the offence. Nor do a lot of people. I see your point, but you are looking at it from a purely dispassionate law standpoint. The real world doesn't operate like this.

Again, I ask, would you be ok if he were an unrepentant convicted child molestor? Where is your line? You haven't answered me about television stars, either.

No, it is wrong for the public to punish an offender after the state has finished.

The public haven't punished him, though, so this argument falls down.

I don't think that is a remotely realistic scenario. People will always treat those convicted of certain crimes with a certain amount of contempt. The fact that this has happened so publicly doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen on some level to anyone else. Suppose you had a friend who raped somebody, would you still call them a friend or would you shun them, thereby punishing them after the state had finished?

People who know football said he had one decent season then three years in jail. He's hardly $SOME_GOOD_FOOTBALLER, for sure.

This piece is an interesting counter-argument to Twitter handwringing: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blo ... arina-hyde

Where's your line? What if he was in jail for drunk and disorderly?

I think it's an interesting question. It doesn't even need to be something as trivial as that. If his crime had been to get drunk and beat some poor bastard who looked at him wrong half to death outside a nightclub then there would probably be little outcry, even though his victim could suffer the same kinds of long term damage.

Yes, it's because the victim was a woman, I have little doubt.

However, I'd like to see the conviction rates for GBH before I make a judgement on that.

-edit- also, he probably wouldn't protest his innocence had he done that, so probably not a great comparison in the end, having thought about it further. It wasn't necessarily the crime he's committed, it's everything else surrounding it (the unrepentance, the sensitivity of violence against women in this current climate, etc).

There's a BBC tweet that says he's issued a non-apology apology but it doesn't mention it on the linked story:

BBC Breaking News
Convicted rapist Ched Evans issues statement in which he apologises "for the effects that night" had on many people http://bbc.in/1KoLwRl

Yeah, he can't apologise fully while he is trying to overturn the ruling still.

I wonder how the football world would have reacted if Gerrard's assault charge in 2008 stuck. Bit of a bigger deal than Ched Evans, football-wise.

Probably been ok with it.

What about the whole JT racism thing.

\
What are you on about, some of my best suits are black!

Sorry, turned into a busy afternoon at wor.

The public (at least 60,000 of them) are punishing him in making it difficult, nay impossible, for him to return to work.

As uncomfortable as it would make me feel, I would have to. The state punishes, not the public.

Good question. I think I'd be careful about associating with them, but I wouldn't condone attempts to stop them getting back to work post punishment.

Out of curiosity:

When do you think it would be acceptable to play football professionally again?

If the conviction were to be overturned because of <reasons> then wold he have been right to try to get back to work in your view?

\
What is it good for?