Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

836 replies

corkysgran · 08/01/2015 06:33

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

OP posts:
TheCowThatLaughs · 08/01/2015 07:10

The idea is not that CE should not be allowed to work ever again, but that he shouldn't be allowed to work as a footballer. How could you have a rapist as a role model and a hero to worship for adolescent boys? It doesn't make any sense Confused

SoupDragon · 08/01/2015 07:12

As for him being unrepentant if you didn't do it why would you be remorseful?

This. He isn't unrepentant as such, he is protesting his innocence.

I have no idea whether he did it or not. He was convicted which would imply that he was but miscarriages of justice do happen (rarely I hope). I wonder how many of the thousands who signed the petition actually know the details of the case and how may are simply jumping onto the witch hunt bandwagon?

Either way, he served the sentence handed out by the court.

SoupDragon · 08/01/2015 07:12

However, the only opinion allowed on Mn is that he should be strung up and hounded for ever more so it is pointless to say otherwise.

AllThePrettySeahorses · 08/01/2015 07:13

Mmm, must have missed all the other businesses falling over themselves to hire convicted rapists out on licence i.e. not actually completed their sentence yet Hmm. If he showed remorse ... But he doesn't. He encourages further horrendous abuse of an innocent woman. He is scum.

Mind you, he didn't exactly set the world on fire a few years ago and I doubt he'll be anywhere near even that standard now so Oldham are probably buying a pig in a poke. Serves them right.

JohnFarleysRuskin · 08/01/2015 07:13

Course maddy knows better than the jury and the judge- she's read about it. She also failed to mention he's had two appeals rejected.

The situation as it stands 'in all fairness' is this is a rapist out on license. If you want your kids to cheer him on fine, but don't try and demonise those of us who don't.

Ethelswith · 08/01/2015 07:16

The 'Sports Direct' example in the OP was on a thread as a hypothetical 'what would happen if' question. This was repeatedly and unmissably pointed out on that thread.

Many MMers have said they will boycott any company who chooses to sponsor a rapist-employing club. That's normal consumer choice.

Chipsahoythere · 08/01/2015 07:16

He's not 'protesting his innocence'! He admits doing it, he just doesn't think what he did constitutes rape. The law says otherwise.
He is a rapist and he did not serve his time, he has left prison and is not repentant (therefore no rehabilitation surely). That's not someone who should go easily into the life he had before.

Original poster
corkysgran · 08/01/2015 07:17

I am not defending him in any way, nor have I expressed an opinion on whether he should be allowed to play. I am simply pointing out that I find the content of the threads worrying. I imagine others do as well but maybe they don't want a biscuit.

OP posts:
maddy68 · 08/01/2015 07:18

But lee Hughes a convicted murderer plays profesional football. Why is he allowed to and not a rapist?

They did their time, they should be allowed to return to work. They will get enough abuse on the terraces believe me, I've heard it.

This is indeed a witch hunt

teawamutu · 08/01/2015 07:20

FFS we really do need a sticky with the actual facts. The conviction is not being appealed - in fact he's already been refused leave to appeal at least once. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has the case, and at some point will investigate and decide whether the Court of Appeal ought to look at it again. The odds of a successful appeal at this stage are approx 1 in 1,000 IIRC.

Not least since he was convicted not on the basis of the victim's allegation, but on HIS OWN WORDS.

EveDallasRetd · 08/01/2015 07:21

Maddy, the conviction has gone to the CCRC, it isn't being appealed.

False rape claims resulting in conviction are rarer than hens teeth:

1 in 4 women will be raped

1 in 33 men will be raped

1 in 2.7 MILLION men will be convicted on a false rape accusation.

He isn't innocent, he just doesn't beleive that what he did was rape. Thankfully the law did.

Chipsahoythere · 08/01/2015 07:22

He hasn't done his time!!

JohnFarleysRuskin · 08/01/2015 07:23

How do you define witch hunt?

Is that all legal petitions, protests and boycotts? Or just ones you disagree with?

JohnFarleysRuskin · 08/01/2015 07:25

In what way do you find the threads worrying op?

1FluffyJumper · 08/01/2015 07:25

He was told he had committed rape based on his own evidence. He disagrees what he said he did was rape. Everyone agrees that he did what he did, even him. His problem is that he doesn't agree with the law. He's not unrepentant as he can't say sorry for something he didn't do....as he said he did it. He just didn't want the law to say he was in the wrong. Him not saying sorry or else it makes him guilty is a red herring. He is guilty. If he doesn't want to be guilty he'd need the laws on rape to change in order to vindicate him. Would he get his job back being a teacher or a policeman if that was his career? No. He can't be trusted in roles such as these as he sees himself as above the law. The poster who spoke about sports direct was making a hypothetical point too. Glad you took the time to read the previous thread properly OP.

Ethelswith · 08/01/2015 07:25

The conviction isn't 'being appealed'.

He has twice been refused leave to appeal.

The CCRB is reviewing those decisions.

Anyon's case can be reviewed if requested. Fewer than 3% are returned for appeal. It's a long shot on technical legal grounds. There is no sign of new evidence.

As the victim maintained throughout she had no recollection of events (indeed, did not even make a complaint of rape), CE was convicted entirely on the basis of his own testimony and that of those who saw and remembered his actions that night.

SomebodysRealName · 08/01/2015 07:25

Lee Hughes is not a convicted murderer. Causing death by dangerous driving and murder are not the same thing at all.

SomebodysRealName · 08/01/2015 07:27

Is this the make up any old bollocks you like about it thread?

PetulaGordino · 08/01/2015 07:27

To be clear he is not appealing

He had requested leave to appeal and this is bein reviewed to see whether he has grounds

Twice he has requested this before and there have been no grounds found for appeal

Maddy68 you are not conveying e correct information here

TheCowThatLaughs · 08/01/2015 07:29

Lee Hughes was also signed by Oldham athletic on his release from prison Hmm

VikingVolva · 08/01/2015 07:29

Apology/remorse would show a first step on rehabilitation.

But he did not have to apologise in order to get those hounding the victim to desist - or at least dissociate himself from them. Along the lines of this:

'As many will know, I am still pursuing legal avenues in respect of this case. I am however deeply concerned for the plight of the complainant, and would urge everyone to respect her privacy and cease unnecessary and in many cases inaccurate public comment about her'

We'll never know if people would see him differently had he had a different character and had stood up to say that.

AuntieStella · 08/01/2015 07:30

This case has highlighted that there are other signings that (perhaps) should never have happened.

I deplore those too.

PetulaGordino · 08/01/2015 07:31

Corkygran the poster who wrote that about sportsdirect was not saying that was the case. If you had read the threads in full you would know that she said that as a hypothetical and corrected all the posters who didn't realise that that was the context

MaryWestmacott · 08/01/2015 07:35

Op, it's not a witch hunt to say you'd boycott the companies sponsoring Oldham if they do sign him. Companies sponsor teams in a hope it'll influence the decision whether or not to use their products by consumers. In this case, it will influence consumers decision whether or not to use them, just not in a way the sponsors want.

JohnFarleysRuskin · 08/01/2015 07:35

I find it worrying that someone would call football morally corrupt and sexist yet criticise people who would like to see that change.
That's a very odd mindset you've got there op.

Swipe left for the next trending thread