to post a link to an Oldham sponsor that will continue to support them even with Ched Evans?

[mrleebob]

If it would be, please ignore this.

If not, here it is. www.cmsolicitors.co.uk

Plenty of contact details too. :-)

The thing is, it's not just one individual when it comes to ched evans - it's the victim naming entourage he trails in his wake.

Equally every time somebody like rod liddle or the woman on question time makes some witless comment, people respond.

People will shut up about ched evans when the stupidity stops. A good start might be for him to take down the website. It isn't doing him any favours.

Just because they've made poor decisions and allowed people back to play with major convictions previously does not mean they cannot make changes in policy now. I cannot understand why they are not rushing to make these changes, to be hoenst, as surely it would bring more respect for the game and the players.

I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of candidates to take those players' places that play well and don't have a criminal conviction in their past. Maybe it would make the players think twice about being stupid, knowing if they get caught they could lose it all.

*honest, sorry, typo

Auntie Stella, there is a petition asking the FA to review their rules so in future people like Ched Evans will be barred from playing professional football, I've signed it.

But as the rules stand there is nothing to prevent him returning to football and we shouldn't seek to circumvent those rules with mob rule and trial by social media. It's up to the courts to punish offenders not the twitter sphere to apply a second tier of punishment to one individual and not others just because it happens to be a hot topic at the moment.

Completely concur,Alice.

If Julia Hartley Brewer had said that the woman was a drunken slag who got what was coming to her and CE was just doing what lads do she couldn't have made herself any clearer.

And her comment about stacking shelves in Poundland was fucking offensive as well.

I do think that to them a lot of it is class. The victim is discarded as rubbish in their eyes. She does not have the same "value" to them as, for example, his fiance. His fiance is from a wealthy family. If this same situation happened to her, the story IMO would be vastly different. Her father would be baying for the blood of the offending male, and she would be the poor delicate victim. Because in their eyes, his fiance is worth so much "more" than the trashy actual victim in this case.

sooty yes, re stacking shelves. So let's see, she's just had a massive dig at manual labourers as well as saying that the convicted rapist Ched Evans can ONLY do football.. that he cannot do any other job. Absolutely ridiculous. If he'd have had a serious injury that meant he could no longer play football, he'd have had to find another career. Retrain. Develop a new skill. FFS millions of people do it.

Class?????!!! You think that Evans/Massey and co think they are a better class than the victim, because they are wealthy?

Why do so many people confuse money with class?

Agree about the Poundland comment.

They have no respect for any women. If they had, Natasha Massey wouldn't have such low self worth.

Shame the BBC gave so much airtime to a few audience members who could barely string a sentence together not to mention one or two of the panel at times.

It's totally legal to decline to employ someone because of a criminal record, or because they will bring your organisation into disrepute.

That is not a punishment. Otherwise by extension, anyone who is interviewed for a job and doesn't get it is being "punished", which is obvious bollocks. It matters not that being a footballer is all he's ever done, that doesn't give him the right to employment by a club, and he's not being punished if no one signs him.

What is the difference between 'public opinion' and a 'mob', other than an attempt to discredit those whose opinions have not changed just because he's made a few attempts now and a few months have passed?

And I second what that other panellist said, words to the effect of it being a shame CE was finding it hard to find employment but, hey, that's the trouble with a rape conviction. People don't like it.

Auntie Stella, four clubs have been linked to Evans, each time their has been the same protests until clubs were forced to back down. There will be further protests at the next club and the next. That's the mob or public opinion, whatever you prefer to call it, trying to apply pressure and a second tier of punishment.

clam class, money, whatever... I think that THEY think they're better than the victim - that she is essentially a "nobody" and therefore must be a slag. I didn't say they had more class. They certainly have more money, but that doesn't make them better or more "important" than others. But they do IMO give the impression that they feel they are "better" or above the law or simply the type of people that live by the "rules don't apply to us" thing.

It's obvious that white coat woman (yes yes, I don't know her name) from QT thinks that stacking shelves in Poundland is beneath him. But hey, if football is all he knows, and he's not willing to retrain, I guess he'll need to think about keeping those options open and look a bit more closely at those Poundland applications.

No, it's market forces and people expressing their opinions. It is my right as a consumer to patronise whichever company I choose, for whatever reasons I want. So, if I disapprove of, say, Sports Direct sponsoring a club that thinks it's OK to parade a convicted rapist (conviction spent or not) on a football pitch, then I don't mind letting it be known that I won't buy their products in future. If it turns out that lots of other people feel similarly, then Sports Direct (or whoever) can do the maths and work out if it is worth their while to pursue the idea.

No "forcing" anyone. And "mob rule" and "public opinion" are not interchangeable terms stella.

Although, as that woman in the audience pointed out, why should Poundland (or Sainsbury's) employees be saddled with him either?

Clam that would have been Jimmy Wales, really good comment, witty and succinct.

The Poundland comment was vile.

Alice, you are making some pretty wild assumptions! The QT panel think the victim is a 'slag' really?

lurker I did not say that. I said the woman in the white jacket implied that very clearly. And I am not the only one on here that got that impression as well.

Your saying Julia Hartley-brewer implied the victim is a slag? Are you sure? Your getting on very shaky ground legally.

Oh, and I said that I got the impression that CE, his fiance, and her father seem to think that as well. But again, as I said, it's just the impression I've gotten over their public treatment of her. I also said that quite clearly too.

lurker oh please. give it up. I'm not the only one that got that impression from the things she said on here. Don't be all "your (it's YOU'RE by the way) getting on very shaky ground legally" with me. I am in no way on shaky legal ground by saying that.

No, I don't think they are interchangeable. But there seems to be a concerted effort to twist the one into the very words the rapist published on Thursday.

And if public opinion is against rapists in high profile roles, it will remain the case no matter how many clubs are linked.

That doesn't turn it into a 'mob'. It simply reflects consistency.

Potential employers will weigh a number of factors: reputation being but one, sponsors another.

Sponsors, especially the larger ones, will evaluate their reputation and the demographics of their customers/potential customers carefully too. And are free to decide they value the possible employers of rapists somewhat less than the wider public.

Yeah, I got that impression from what JHB said. I felt she was victim blaming too, and that what she said was despicable and uninformed.

I don't think that'll get me in trouble legally