Where punishment ends

[TheHuckster]

Look at it again. What he's really saying is, "I'm not going to say he shouldn't get a job, but I'm going to say that other people should say he shouldn't get a job."

Where did Hyena say they should say he shouldn't get a job? He he said they can decide whatever they want, and that if they disapprove, it's fine to express that. It's basically what you say below agreeing they can't be censored and are entitled to their opinions.

The problem with letting public opinion settle the matter is the voices of a few can drown out the voices of the rest. Those voices don't necessarily reflect the views of the majority.

If they vote with their wallets, then the voices of the rest will win. It bears pointing out that he still has his job, so what you're talking about is hypothetical.

After he's paid the price, it's time for society to shut the fuck up and let the man earn a living.

So I stand by what I said: if you think it's OK to continue to harass or allow a man to be harassed out of a job after he's served his time, while claiming he should be allowed to work, then you're being inconsistent and contradictory.

What's contradictory to me is you say you don't think people should be censored and are entitled to their opinion, yet simultaneously say they should "shut the fuck up."

He's in a job where public opinion matters a helluvalot. This isn't a low-profile job like most; he's in a celebrity position. The entire reason the job exists is due to public opinion. If he were taking a low-profile job where it depended on something other than public opinion, I'd agree, but this isn't that at all.

[Gravekeeper]

i wonder if the guy convicted was the one that purchased/ provided the intoxicants? after all, picking up a girl isn't a crime. but getting her blasted drunk so you can bang her is.
*shrug* only thing i can think of

Thats the thing. She was already heavily intoxicated and was trying to make it to a cab ( and so drunk she was falling over, slurring her speech, etc ). The guy that was *acquitted* is the one that ran over to her, chatted her up, got in the cab with her and convinced her to come to his hotel room instead of going home. He then texted the other guy that he had "got a girl". The second guy, the one that was convicted, came over after being texted ( as did two of his friends apparently ). The second guy then watched the first guy have sex with her. Then basically asked if he could join in the fun or was invited to join in. The other two guys watched through the window.

Afterwards, the guy that was acquitted told the hotel staff to keep an eye on the girl because she was "sick". IE he knew she was so heavily intoxicated her health might be in jeopardy.

The victim for her part says she has no memory of anything from the moment she left the shop ( where he found her outside of ) until the next morning. So she has no testimony one way or another that could suggest she was otherwise not so impaired she could not consent. So there's nothing muddying the waters.

To confound matters, the judge found that there was no premeditation nor predatory intentions on behalf of the guy that picked her off the street and was acquitted. BUT lectured the guy that was convicted about how he should have known she was too drunk to consent.

Like....what the fark?

[Hyena Dandy]

Look at it again. What he's really saying is, "I'm not going to say he shouldn't get a job, but I'm going to say that other people should say he shouldn't get a job."

Please do not tell me what I said or did not say. I get to say what I said or did not say. That's how it works.

I said that they CAN. Not that they SHOULD. I also think that people should be ABLE to say that Hitler was a pretty good guy who was right on, but I don't think they should.

if you think it's OK to continue to harass or allow a man to be harassed out of a job after he's served his time, while claiming he should be allowed to work, then you're being inconsistent and contradictory.

If this is getting to harassment, then that would be a point where things should step back. If he's being assaulted, or repeatedly personally threatened, then I want that to stop. But I do not want to ban people from saying "They shouldn't have hired that guy, he's a rapist." The foundation of free speech is that people should be able to say things that I find abhorrent. It's not freedom if they can only say stuff I agree with.

They can vote with their wallets.

But they can't explain that vote? They're free to not go to the games, but not to say why they would stop? You can disagree, as long as you keep it to yourself? That IS censoring.

Harassing someone has a legal definition. If you break the law, you have to stop talking, yes. If you aren't breaking the law, just expressing your opinion, then, even if I disagree, I don't want to shut you up.

The problem with letting public opinion settle the matter is the voices of a few can drown out the voices of the rest. Those voices don't necessarily reflect the views of the majority.

So you should only be allowed to voice your opinion if it's the view of the majority? At the moment, 64% of the US thinks that prostitution shouldn't be legal. I disagree, and think that the only way to protect people who are vulnerable IS by legalizing it, and tracking it. But I still think it's fine to give my ideas.

I do not want someone to lose their job once a jail term is served and they've been rehired. If someone else does, I disagree. If they were to take illegal actions in expressing that, physically attacking the player, for instance, stalking him, threatening him, etc... That would be something I think they should not be able to do. But as long as they are legally expressing a view they have, I think that they should have every right to express it.

And maybe the team would cut him, which I do not think they should do, because public outcry lead them to misjudge what would be most beneficial. That would be a shame. But they have a right to do that.

I don't think that "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is hypocritical and contradictory.

Edit: And Hyena Dandy. Not Daddy. There's an N in it. I'm well dressed, not parental.

[s_stabeler]

Thats the thing. She was already heavily intoxicated and was trying to make it to a cab ( and so drunk she was falling over, slurring her speech, etc ). The guy that was *acquitted* is the one that ran over to her, chatted her up, got in the cab with her and convinced her to come to his hotel room instead of going home. He then texted the other guy that he had "got a girl". The second guy, the one that was convicted, came over after being texted ( as did two of his friends apparently ). The second guy then watched the first guy have sex with her. Then basically asked if he could join in the fun or was invited to join in. The other two guys watched through the window.

Afterwards, the guy that was acquitted told the hotel staff to keep an eye on the girl because she was "sick". IE he knew she was so heavily intoxicated her health might be in jeopardy.

The victim for her part says she has no memory of anything from the moment she left the shop ( where he found her outside of ) until the next morning. So she has no testimony one way or another that could suggest she was otherwise not so impaired she could not consent. So there's nothing muddying the waters.

To confound matters, the judge found that there was no premeditation nor predatory intentions on behalf of the guy that picked her off the street and was acquitted. BUT lectured the guy that was convicted about how he should have known she was too drunk to consent.

Like....what the fark?

Personally, from the sound if it, both should have been convicted- and yes, i DO believe that the guy shouldn't get his job back. Why? because, as I said, footballers at his level are often role models. He is insistent he did nothing wrong.THAT, to me, is a problem. Not because he had sex with someone too drunk to consent- he was punished for that. But at (it seems) his insistence that it is acceptable to have sex with someone so drunk they have amnesia of the events. If he was employed in a less high-profile role ( say, coach) where he would not be a role model, then I would again find it acceptable.

granted, I believe it's his team's decision- and agree, he doesn't deserve harassment.

[Andara Bledin]

Personally, from the sound if it, both should have been convicted-

Based on the commentary about the case, she was coherent enough to give consent to his joining in on the session; there was no challenge to the testimony that she consented, only that she wasn't legally capable of giving consent due to intoxication. Since she was already in bed, and already affected by the session with his friend, I really don't understand how he's supposed to have been able to tell she was drunk to the point of legal incapacitation in such a situation.

Particularly when the man who picked her up, who watched her trying to walk, who was able to have any reasonable opportunity to witness her impairment was found to not be guilty of the same offense.

As for the question in the OP:

I really don't like this trend of making celebrities into role models. Whether they're athletes or actors or musicians, or something else. Those aren't role models. Inspirations, maybe. Role models should be about a lot more than happening to have the right genetics to reach the peak of one of a handful of markets.

Personally, I think the people whining need to go find something productive to do, because trying to ensure a guy who was convicted under decidedly odd circumstances never gets to do the job he's good at ever again is a piss-poor way of spending one's time and a terrible case of NIMBYism with a likely side of raging hypocrisy.

[s_stabeler]

Based on the commentary about the case, she was coherent enough to give consent to his joining in on the session; there was no challenge to the testimony that she consented, only that she wasn't legally capable of giving consent due to intoxication. Since she was already in bed, and already affected by the session with his friend, I really don't understand how he's supposed to have been able to tell she was drunk to the point of legal incapacitation in such a situation.

Particularly when the man who picked her up, who watched her trying to walk, who was able to have any reasonable opportunity to witness her impairment was found to not be guilty of the same offense.

As I said, I think they were BOTH guilty- I happen to agree the one found innocent was probably more guilty than the one convicted.

[SongsOfDragons]

In this particular case, it may well not be the voices of the people that make the club let him go. The club's sponsors are now threatening to pull out, and they do have a stinking amount of money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30023525

>.< it's awkward all round.

[Hyena Dandy]

I agree with Andara, at least on the Role Model thing. Kids look up to athletes, but they don't obsess over their personal lives. It seems more like an excuse than a reason. You might want to be like somoene, but only because they're so good at sports. I certainly don't imagine most kids are hearing "Oh, he's a rapist, I wanna be a rapist too!"

As I said, I certainly think people CAN disagree with me, but I do think they're wrong.

[Gravekeeper]

>.< it's awkward all round.

Well, once the public opinion sours the money will follow suit. Putting the legal case itself aside though...

Being a player on a professional sports team is in essence a public position and furthermore the team is typically representing a city or area. Long as the guy isn't being illegally harassed the people who live in said city or area have every right to object to who is representing them. Even if its in something as innocuous as a sports team ( Though were talking about a football club here. That is serious business for fans in Europe. ). This guy was famous prior to this and essentially was a celebrity. If he was an accountant or a mechanic or something we'd have never heard of this and he'd be working quietly somewhere.

He also compounds the matter by being pretty much completely unrepentant. Additionally, the victim was forced to move and change her name after the guy's friends and family leaked her name online and harassed her till they drove her out of Sheffield. So its pretty hard to drum up any sympathy.

[siead_lietrathua]

.....
Like....what the fark?

yeah, that's just fucked up then. makes you wonder how the other guy got off *cough*$$?*cough*

as to him getting a job back as a sports player... while he served his time, his bosses are allowed to not re-hire him if they so choose because of his image. just like if i got arrested for some terrible crime i wouldn't get my job back either, since i doubt a store wants someone who beat a customer to death with their coupon binder as the face of their company (some day, this could happen )

however they could throw him a bone, give him a non-public job on the night security team of the sports facility. at least then he's not completely jobless, even if it's not the shining glory of playing sports that he wants.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...lear-name.html

Ched Evans is attempting to get the rape conviction overturned. Speaking purely hypothetically, if he succeeds in this, will everyone think of him differently? Unlikely. Most people will still believe him guilty even if the conviction is overturned and he is declared to be innocent of rape.

[Ginger Tea]

if he succeeds in this, will everyone think of him differently?

Considering the court of public opinion still sees an allegation let alone acquittal by the courts damning enough, no I don't think anyone will suddenly go "Oh he's not a rapist after all, he's a good guy."

[s_stabeler]

well, I doubt it will be overturned in the first place. But yes, if he is declared innocent of rape, then he should be allowed to return- However, I WOULD watch his behaviour like a hawk if I was his club. ( it's dubious having sex with someone who'se drunk in the first place)

[Gravekeeper]

Even if it was overturned the scenario that produced it was sleazy and dubious. It already speaks to his character regardless.

[s_stabeler]

exactly why his club should keep a sharp eye on him.