• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by turbowoowoo View Post
    Only because of the mob hype and public demanding blood (for whatever fancy reason is popular at the time)
    I personally find the thought of someone having sex with someone that is so drunk it is debatable if they consent or not, morally reprehensible and would not associate myself with anyone that did this. This so called "mob hype" is actually people expressing the same opinion.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by vwdan View Post
      The Act exists in order to assist ex offenders in reintegration by, after set periods, allowing certain convictions to be spent. With some exceptions, spent convictions don't need to be disclosed to employers. Unspent coconvictions do have to be disclosed and employers can make a decision as they wish.

      Not only is his conviction unspent, the clock hasn't even started yet.
      But he is not hiding the conviction. His prospect employers are very well aware who he is and what he was convicted for. The problem is that they can't hire him because the mob is stopping them from doing so.

      Comment


        #23
        Edit: Broke it

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by AtW View Post
          But he is not hiding the conviction. His prospect employes are very well aware who he is and what he was convicted for. The problem is that they can't hire him because the mob is stopping them from doing so.
          There's no mob. They could absolutely hire him and would do if they really wanted - those who made threats should be dealt with, but the VAST majority are voicing an opinion and are forcing a commercial decision.

          Football and footballers live by the media and public exposure - unfortunately they die by it, too.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Acme Thunderer View Post
            I personally find the thought of someone having sex with someone that is so drunk it is debatable if they consent or not, morally reprehensible and would not associate myself with anyone that did this. This so called "mob hype" is actually people expressing the same opinion.
            Wow, so for the past 10000 Friday nights when lads and lasses gets so rat arsed and have sex you find reprehensible?

            Both the girl involved and Evans were pissed.

            I hate rapists, I detest them, but justice by the mob is a downward slope...

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by vwdan View Post
              the VAST majority are voicing an opinion
              What vast majority???

              Since when "vast majority" got the right to stop somebody from getting a legit job?

              The "opinion" moved over to death threats and apparently even rape threats.

              He's got the right to work legitimately and it's between him and his employers, in fact it's best for the justice system if he gets work to stop reoffending.

              What these people would be saying IF his conviction gets quashed on allowed appeal???

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by AtW View Post
                What vast majority???

                Since when "vast majority" got the right to stop somebody from getting a legit job?

                The "opinion" moved over to death threats and apparently even rape threats.

                He's got the right to work legitimately and it's between him and his employers, in fact it's best for the justice system if he gets work to stop reoffending.
                The public have a right to canvass and protest and any commercial organisation with any sense will listen to their customers and potential customers.

                Some may have taken it to a wrong level, and I condemn those people. I don't buy they were instrumental in this decision though. I reckon Oldham thought they could stand a bit of heat and get a bargain of a deal - but it turned out people don't like rapists.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Posted in the other thread, but you can read the facts of the case here

                  https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-...-chedwyn-evans


                  It explains why the other footballer was acquitted - she had chosen to get in a taxi, go to his hotel and up to his room, therefore reasonable to assume, as she has no memory of the night, that she consented to sex with him.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
                    The public have a right to canvass and protest and any commercial organisation with any sense will listen to their customers and potential customers.
                    That's the thing - most of the mob got nothing to do with smallish football clubs that were considering giving him the only job he can do - the only people who got stake and say in it are the supporters of the club, it's employees and sponsors, but we don't hear their voices, other than sponsors who are tulip scared at national level of publicity.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                      It explains why the other footballer was acquitted - she had chosen to get in a taxi, go to his hotel and up to his room, therefore reasonable to assume, as she has no memory of the night, that she consented to sex with him.
                      How did "reasonable to assume" became BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT???

                      I've read that she was estimated to be 2.5 over driving limit. DRIVING LIMIT, but we are not talking about driving and don't tell me that tonight nobody will shag a girl who is 2.5 times over driving limit, which by the same isn't the same as being unconscious.

                      Most important none of this really matters since he SERVED HIS TIME IN JAIL - he did not escape and was let out at the time that justice system (not mob) decided he should, his conviction is not SPENT, but he certainly did his time as the law required. Now he wants to get the only job he can do - 10 more years from now he will be too old to do it.

                      The are lots of drink drivers out there who were drunk and killed people - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT! And many of them don't even do jail time at all, and I am sure plenty of them later get back to driving. Where is the mob demanding justice?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X