cruiser647 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 But as a business owner you have a very difficult path to tread. It's something we've seen in the aftermath of the Paris shootings (clearly an event on an entirely different level). Do you stand by a principle of freedom of speech and action, or do you protect your staff against credible threats of violence and worse? You see, Like Mr Taylor (34 yrs in the job!!! ), you are looking at 2 (completely) different scenarios, but also comparing them in some way. After hearing what Taylor has said, I don't see why he should resign. People are to quick to want a resignation these days. However, 34 yrs in the same (top) job with his boring media non-savvy approach is more than enough reason to resign. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I thought I'd made it clear his career didn't make a jot of difference to me. However, to say it makes no difference at all is somewhat naive in my opinion. An accountant or solicitor, convicted of fraud, is going to have issues. The career makes a difference. In the above - yes. A high paid City accountant/investment bod was sacked for cheating on his train fare to the sum of £42K over many years as he dodged it all the time at his local station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 In the above - yes. A high paid City accountant/investment bod was sacked for cheating on his train fare to the sum of £42K over many years as he dodged it all the time at his local station. This is exactly the point though - you know as an accountant/solicitor that if you get convicted a fraud/theft offence then it has a direct impact (under law) to your professional career. Similarly in my career if I ever go bankrupt or have any sort of conviction for theft/fraud/deception then my business folds - simple as that because the law states I can't continue to operate. It's different in this instance as there is nothing legally preventing him from working. If clubs choose not to employ him on a moral basis that's fine but the coverage this is getting in the press is beyond me. I also find it quite distasteful they way the words, "Convincted Rapist" are squeezed in before his name as every possible opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Legally - can clubs not employ someone on a 'moral' basis? If I was not to take someone on after interviewing them and other candidates, due to this chap having 'moral' issues, could he take us to a tribunal? Especially if he was the best candidate on the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 After hearing what Taylor has said, I don't see why he should resign. He has compared the police investigation of a tragedy in which almost 100 people died with the police investigation into a convicted rapist. The man is an idiot and he should resign. Immediately. He's apologised this morning but that simply isn't good enough. It is the final straw for a man who has lost all credibility in recent years with countless bumbling speeches, opinions and nonsense. I think you'll find he won't survive this once the action groups and a few players have their say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I also find it quite distasteful they way the words, "Convincted Rapist" are squeezed in before his name as every possible opportunity. Why? He's a convicted rapist. Why shouldn't they state the facts? Is it distasteful to say what he is compared to the disgusting crime he committed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdiesel Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 My dyslexia means I keep seeing stuff about this story and I keep wondering why he is still hosting the breakfast show. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Why? He's a convicted rapist. Why shouldn't they state the facts? Is it distasteful to say what he is compared to the disgusting crime he committed? I just find it unnecessary as it doesn't add anything to the debate/story. We all know he has a rape conviction but is that what needs to define him for evermore? Will they still be doing that in five years? "Convincted Rapaist Ched Evans scored an injury time winner today, taking a pass from Causing Death by Dangerous Driving guilty man Lee Hughes who attributed the move to a training ground conversation with Statutory Rapist Graham Rix." Tabloidesque journalist bollocks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 The example you give is never going to happen though. You know that as well as I do. I have no problem with him always being known as a convicted rapist. His victim will always have been raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 "Convincted Rapaist Ched Evans scored an injury time winner today, taking a pass from Causing Death by Dangerous Driving guilty man Lee Hughes who attributed the move to a training ground conversation with Statutory Rapist Graham Rix." Although it might make the commentary more interesting for those of us who don't give a **** about the football 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 The example you give is never going to happen though. You know that as well as I do. I have no problem with him always being known as a convicted rapist. His victim will always have been raped. The example was flippant, I know. And you're absolutely right that a victim of any crime (especially sexual crimes) will always be a victim and will have to live with that. My point is that he will always be known as a convicted rapist regardless of cheap journalism being employed by using the term every time he is mentioned. Back on the victim side I wonder how she feels about all of this. Morons have made her life even more of a misery since it happened and I wonder if she'd rather everything just went back to something resembling normality. Maybe she is comforted in some way by him not be able to play football but I certainly can't see how a media s***storm helps her in any way at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Back on the victim side I wonder how she feels about all of this. Morons have made her life even more of a misery since it happened and I wonder if she'd rather everything just went back to something resembling normality. Maybe she is comforted in some way by him not be able to play football but I certainly can't see how a media s***storm helps her in any way at all. Indeed. She has had to change her name and has been forced to move house on no less than 5 occasions. Her father is quoted as saying she "having to live her life on the run and couldn't spend Christmas with her family and friends". It is too dangerous for her to return to her parents home because people have targeted it. Her father hasn't even seen her in a year because people track their moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I have no problem with him always being known as a convicted rapist. His victim will always have been raped. Maybe not always. Should the review overturn it (who knows in this world!) then the situation is that we'd have a man who's career has been ruined by a woman who regretted her actions. It's really hard to take a position on this especially whilst it's not concluded.Question Time last night was interesting and echo'ed this forum with opposing views. I don't think there is a right answer at the moment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 An interesting development. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I don't think that is a development at all. It is just Steve Bruce opening his mouth and being a complete and utter idiot. Astonishing that he should say what he has. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but for him to say "He has a case..." and question the decision of the jury is absolute madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 If his conviction is overturned, we'll never hear the end of it from him. Most other people who have had convictions overturned just quietly slip away into the darkness and carry on their lives. This chap won't. Especially as he will be on TV all the time (if he gets signed). Eitherway, 1 life is ruined or 2 lives are ruined. As the victim's life is ruined already due to mindless idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I don't think that is a development at all. It is just Steve Bruce opening his mouth and being a complete and utter idiot. Astonishing that he should say what he has. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but for him to say "He has a case..." and question the decision of the jury is absolute madness. He's saying exactly the same thing as you*, he just has a different opinion. *As in he's looked at the evidence, he's then come to a different conclusion, he's no more or less qualified than you to make a judgement on the evidence he's looked at so I can't see why you'd have a problem with him expressing his opinion? You say you've looked at the evidence and concluded that you think he did it, he has looked at the evidence and thinks he might not have. From what little I've read about it, there do seem to be some huge holes, not least of which the victim having absolutely no recollection of the night in question whatsoever, that doesn't mean I think she's crying rape though, as mentioned earlier, we won't know until the outcome of his appeal. However, I don't see what difference it makes to his career whether he did it or not, he's served his time, his punishment is over. Edited January 9, 2015 by Tipex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 There's a very big difference - I'm not a manager involved in the game in a high profile position. Had he said "he deserves a second chance", then I'd think it was silly enough to say it but he's entitled to. But to question the jury decision? You could still say he's entitled, but it is crazy for him to go public like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calm Chris Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 From what little I've he's served his time, his punishment is over. With sex crime there is a stigma, it will follow him around all his life. I'm all for football ground supporters banter, but any game he ever plays with a crowd of note will have a percentage of the other times supporters chanting stuff to remind him (and the crowd) of his history. From a security POV I'd have said it was unattainable for him to return to pro football in any league in the UK without there being some level of crowd disruption. His choices are simply, await appeal / re trail, leave UK football for overseas or learn a new trade and disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 That's an interestingly selective bit of quoting you've done there! But yes, I agree with you, there will always be a stigma, however, that stigma is not something that legally stops him from doing his job, it just makes it more uncomfortable for him, which is something he'll just have to suffer as part of the consequences of his actions, and if any team feels that they don't want to be associated with that stigma, they are free to not employ him. On the other hand, if a team feels they can deal with that stigma, and wishes to employ him, they should not be stopped from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 leave UK football for overseas He can't do that. The conditions imposed on sex offenders by the Ministry of Justice effectively rules out working overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 He can't do that. The conditions imposed on sex offenders by the Ministry of Justice effectively rules out working overseas. Only while he's on licence, once his 5 years are up he can do as he pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes, whilst I license, I just presumed most would know that anyway. Is he going to wait that long? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes, whilst I license, I just presumed most would know that anyway. Is he going to wait that long? Who knows. That isn't necessarily always the case though, some sex offenders are subject to restrictions for the rest of their life, even once the full term has been served and they are no longer on licence. If they have to sign the register for life as part of the punishment, they are bound by certain restrictions on movement etc for ever. Evans is not subject to those conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I see one of the Oldham directors has resigned from the trust, hopefully they can carry on with little other affect from what has gone one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now