to think the decision made by Oldham Athletic today is the proof that professional football in this country lacks any moral integrity whatsoever?

[LuluJakey1]

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/ched-evans-to-oldham-athletic-family-will-pay-up-to-pave-the-way-for-deal-with-league-one-club-9961432.html

1. Morally, what they are doing is disgusting. They are completely disrespecting women sexually assaulted and raped by men in giving this man a job where he will be a role- model, hero-worshipped and idolised by thousands of people; young men and boys in particular. The message here is the crime of rape is easily dismissed by a short spell in prison and then you can go back and do whatever you like. In many jobs where a person has committed a sexual assault or rape, they are not ever allowed to work in a position again where they have contact with young or vulnerable people. Why is Ched Evans different?
2. His fiance must feel humiliated. He has not denied his behaviour at all- his denial is that it constituted rape. He has disrespected and humiliated her by tomming around with other women, doing deals with his friends to pick up vulnerable women, share them for sex and video each other doing that. Instead of having some self respect and dumping him, she has humiliated herself further by 'standing by her man' as he disrespects his victim even more by refusing to apologise . Now her own father is humiliating her even further by bankrolling the moron so a football club will take the risk of employing him. Eh? WTF?
3. It is beyond my comprehension that her father has no respect for his daughter and is rewarding the man who has treated her so badly, and also encouraging her in a relationsip with a man who sexually assaults or rapes women. It says a great deal about the kind of family she has grown up in - women are clearly treated like second class citizens and the possessions of men. I think she is stupid but feel very sorry for her.
4. Will he be accepted at other football grounds as a player? I expect so- none of them would have the guts to say he is unacceptable to them and take the consequences of standing up for what is right.
5. Will he be cheered at Oldham? I expect so- few fans will be prepared to make a stand against the club. The culture of football in England is such that moral standards are low in the professional game.

It will all end in tears- I have no doubt.

I do hope Oldham will come to understand how appalling their actions are.

I think today is the day I am fully convinced that professional football has no moral integrity whatsoever.

I think the point being made was 'eligibility' for an offence shouldn't be the criterion - imprisonment is available for most offences theft, common assault, criminal damage, fail to pay fines etc not just the most serious ones.

eligibility for prison, is wot I meant!

I've seen Sian Massey ref at tinpot non league matches, she's by far the best ref at that level.

Back to the rapist Ched Evans: I hope he doesn't get another job in British football unless and until he sees it's wrong to wank into a woman who's incapable of giving consent.

TheOfficialPan Your post of 10:09:27 is what I meant.

As for retrospective: I don't think it would be right e.g. to stop Rix being involved in football (if he still is) - the errors of the past are the errors of the past. The difference with CRB is this: anybody exposed by CRB as unfit had to have concealed his past to be in the job in the first place which is itself highly dubious. (In fact some people who had privately disclosed ancient convictions and been allowed to go on were - rightly or wrongly - allowed to remain in post).

Somebody allowed back into football after a conviction which was all over the media, whatever else may be said, has not been deceitful about it.

House You are of course right. A slow process indeed. As one who loathes sporting events and has never been to one since DS (30 next month) played hockey for his school at about 14 there's not much I can do to help!

"The difference with CRB is this: anybody exposed by CRB as unfit had to have concealed his past to be in the job in the first place"

Not necessarily at first roll out.

And it's not really about how high profile knowledge of the conviction is. It's about whether an unspent conviction is compatible with the role. There is no reason to treat footballers differently to those in different sectors when rule changes for qualifications for a role come into force.

Karl Massey has popped up in the comments on the Spectator Liddle article denying that he ever offered to make up for any shortfall in sponsorship money. Strangely he doesn't feel it necessary to deal with any other issue, such as why he continues to run that website, or why he supports his daughter's continued relationship with the rapist.

I would not want Rix to be excluded. Not now. Too late for that. Fifteen years on.

Teachers and the like have been required to declare all convictions, no matter how minor, no matter how old, throughout living memory; when they happened or when they applied to join the profession - so anyone exposed by CRB had been deceitful. Whether a serving teacher should be kicked out for having years earlier had a conviction for careless driving is another matter.

As for "unspent" - in CRB matters spent or unspent does not count. Rape convictions will not normally ever be spent because the days when a rapist could ever get less than thirty months are, I am glad to say, a distant memory. The FA, by contrast, cannot lawfully ask for details of spent convictions and if here and there someone with a spent conviction in the past gets to stay in football, that's JTB.

House Sports magazines are commercial publications and will print what buyers want to read and advertisers will advertise in, won't they?

House If they carry adverts they still have to please the advertisers!
But I'm not disagreeing with you in principle.

Advertisers want content which interests people with money to spend on what they are selling.

If they sense that the content is becoming less appealing to a mainly male readership - if that is the case - they will say so.

I'm not saying that that is how it should be - only that that is how it is.

Agree entirely with your last para House but you can't make fans take as much interest in the women's game ans they do in the men's - or make sponsors divide their favours equally.

Agree House.

Here's a bit of sense being spoken on Football Focus by two former players earlier apparently:

Mark Lawrenson: "I understand it is too late for the FA to intervene in this case but, there should be something like a fit and proper persons test, absolutely set down indicating whether or not you can go anywhere near someone like Ched Evans until everything has been resolved.

"It has become a circus. Sometimes you are actually almost thinking is he a victim as well? It is just madness.

"It is all reason for the FA to come out with the guidelines. The FA has been conspicuous by their absence."

Martin Keown: "It is a very toxic subject. At the moment, the situation is he has come back a little too soon. It has not been handled in nearly the right way and I think the public have decided they don't want him back.

"There is a court process and he would be better served waiting until the end of that before thinking of coming back into the game."

Why is anyone ever surprised by headlines like these? Turn this male aggression on its head, young women empower yourselves by reading the shocking ebook Spilling Blood by Leah Penn. I was overwhelmed with its realism and get them back attitude. Don't feel victimized, grow stronger from it. I did.