ForumGarden

hi just time for another AA grumpy column before the big fat fella gets here and i dont mean you mr editor. ( glad to hear it pass the mince pies ED)

and just to put a dampener on your christmas cheer especially if you live in hartlepool is the news that the football club are looking to sign convicted rapist ched evans.

[text deleted by moderator]

AAG

if ched evans is signed i would urge all supporters of hartlepool united to protest loudly at the thought of a convicted rapist being signed

and would also urge fans to boycott the clubs matches and hit them where it hurts at the turnstiles so they cannot pay a criminal rapist his obscene wages.

evans is still on tag and has only served half his sentence so he is still effectively in prison serving time for a crime.

and what kind of message does this send out to women and children that you can rape someone and go back to your job just because he,s a professional footballer.

it smacks of one law for them one law for us.

DELETE THIS POST !!!!!!! IT'S TANTAMOUNT TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT WHICH COULD CAUSE FORUM GARDEN A FINANCIAL KICK IN THE TEETH IF IT WAS TAKEN TO COURT BY THE OFFENDED ORIGINAL AUTHOR. ALL SUCH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED BY ADMIN. AND A MESSAGE REPLACING THE OFFENDING POST, TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS INFRINGING COPYRIGHT. That is my opinion. AAG and others tempted to flout the law like this should be treated the same - delete the offending post immediately. Forum Garden, by allowing this post to remain visible to the general public could be, in fact, seen as being an accessory to such an infringement.

Did you notice the word ' banned ' under his name before you pointed out to the mods how they should be doing their jobs ?

Oscar Namechange;1469793 wrote: Did you notice the word ' banned ' under his name before you pointed out to the mods how they should be doing their jobs ?


Oh do be quiet Julie. My eyesight is not that good really, and the wording 'banned' is not very big ! It doesn't really matter about the 'banned' because what I said refers to anybody who infringes copyright laws ! By the way, if you can't say anything without being sarcastic, please don't say anything at all - well not to me anyway.

G#Gill;1469795 wrote: Oh do be quiet Julie. My eyesight is not that good really, and the wording 'banned' is not very big ! It doesn't really matter about the 'banned' because what I said refers to anybody who infringes copyright laws ! By the way, if you can't say anything without being sarcastic, please don't say anything at all - well not to me anyway.


So It's fair to assume that If the moderators had banned Andy for not Including the link, then they would have seen his post and made their decision when they banned him to leave the post Intact or not.... always Interfering arn't you ? The post has been there long enough for the mods to make their decision and you don't run the site do you ? If you think that's sarcasm then fine, but you are just throwing your weight around as usual and I'm certainly not pandering to you further. You have an awesome day now.

I shall pop along to the reports thread and say the same Gill but I do actually think yours is a good idea for every future offence we spot, might be another way to remind people to use links and not steal others words.

Oscar Namechange;1469797 wrote: So It's fair to assume that If the moderators had banned Andy for not Including the link, then they would have seen his post and made their decision when they banned him to leave the post Intact or not.... always Interfering arn't you ? The post has been there long enough for the mods to make their decision and you don't run the site do you ? If you think that's sarcasm then fine, but you are just throwing your weight around as usual and I'm certainly not pandering to you further. You have an awesome day now.


Thank you, and you have a good day as well.

I was passing an opinion and I think I'm entitled to do that aren't I ? If you think about it, leaving that post in it's entirety for all to see just suggests that Forum Garden seems to be condoning the mistake, and that worries me ! It may seem to you that I am 'throwing my weight around' but it is not my intention to be like that, I was only passing an opinion and trying to make it noticed ! I think it is quite important really. You make it sound as if I'm for ever 'throwing my weight around' and 'interfering'. Still I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

Have a good Christmas !

G#Gill;1469802 wrote: Thank you, and you have a good day as well.

I was passing an opinion and I think I'm entitled to do that aren't I ? If you think about it, leaving that post in it's entirety for all to see just suggests that Forum Garden seems to be condoning the mistake, and that worries me ! It may seem to you that I am 'throwing my weight around' but it is not my intention to be like that, I was only passing an opinion and trying to make it noticed ! I think it is quite important really. You make it sound as if I'm for ever 'throwing my weight around' and 'interfering'. Still I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

You don't throw your weight around do you ? You don't interfere ? Neither do you pick fights with people. I have noticed all that. Now that is sarcasm.

Have a good Christmas !

Oscar Namechange;1469797 wrote: So It's fair to assume that If the moderators had banned Andy for not Including the link, then they would have seen his post and made their decision when they banned him to leave the post Intact or not.... always Interfering arn't you ? The post has been there long enough for the mods to make their decision and you don't run the site do you ? If you think that's sarcasm then fine, but you are just throwing your weight around as usual and I'm certainly not pandering to you further. You have an awesome day now.


Not so. I acted to give him a temporary ban (as I had previously told him I would) without having time to consider the disposition of the content of the post itself. Gill's suggestion was the correct course of action and I thank her for it.

As you say, Gill does not run the site but as an ex-mod she does know how it runs. I'll bat the observation back at you - you definitely do not run the site and I'll thank you not to tell other members what they can and cannot post.

Bryn Mawr;1469813 wrote: Not so. I acted to give him a temporary ban (as I had previously told him I would) without having time to consider the disposition of the content of the post itself. Gill's suggestion was the correct course of action and I thank her for it.

As you say, Gill does not run the site but as an ex-mod she does know how it runs. I'll bat the observation back at you - you definitely do not run the site and I'll thank you not to tell other members what they can and cannot post.
Fair enough

Might I ask the team's opinion?

At what stage do we think it's socially acceptable for anyone jailed for any offence to resume the career they've spent a lifetime training for? On their release? A year later? Never?

They are not signing him anyway.

Hartlepool confirm they do not intend to sign convicted rapist Ched Evans | Football | The Guardian

FG;1469836 wrote: Might I ask the team's opinion?

At what stage do we think it's socially acceptable for anyone jailed for any offence to resume the career they've spent a lifetime training for? On their release? A year later? Never?


That's a very pertinent question.

We trust our legal system to mete out suitable punishment, appropriate for the offence. Is it right to extend punishment beyond that, to include not being able to earn a living ?

There's not an easy answer. I can understand why people would want never to see Evans play in public again but people must be allowed to get on with their lives and become a member of the society they live in.

Snowfire, when people are in the public eye (including, importantly, children), they are a role model and are expected to set an example. That man committed a very nasty crime. Would you (if somebody raped your daughter) want to see your daughter's assailant enjoying the freedom of being able to return to a job in the public eye that paid him silly money ?

That man has served a sentence, but not the full amount, and he is out basically on licence. Why should he be accepted back into a very well paid and glamourised job as if nothing had happened ? He does not deserve any such considerations. His victim has been given a life sentence, take my word for it, whereas he was given a few years, and even then he is free after only doing about half his sentence ! No he will just have to realise that he has shot it as far as a football career is concerned, unless he tries a different country. That is my opinion, for what it's worth.

What FG said in his post, is a wide generalisation. What this man did is moons away from somebody who is jailed for persistent car theft, for instance. Each case should be judged individually, and particularly when it comes to working in the publlc eye.

G#Gill;1469861 wrote: Snowfire, when people are in the public eye (including, importantly, children), they are a role model and are expected to set an example. That man committed a very nasty crime. Would you (if somebody raped your daughter) want to see your daughter's assailant enjoying the freedom of being able to return to a job in the public eye that paid him silly money ?

That man has served a sentence, but not the full amount, and he is out basically on licence. Why should he be accepted back into a very well paid and glamourised job as if nothing had happened ? He does not deserve any such considerations. His victim has been given a life sentence, take my word for it, whereas he was given a few years, and even then he is free after only doing about half his sentence ! No he will just have to realise that he has shot it as far as a football career is concerned, unless he tries a different country. That is my opinion, for what it's worth.


Generalize, Gill. Does this "never!" apply to everyone released from jail? If not, what's the selection process for getting a "never!"?

G#Gill;1469861 wrote: Snowfire, when people are in the public eye (including, importantly, children), they are a role model and are expected to set an example. That man committed a very nasty crime. Would you (if somebody raped your daughter) want to see your daughter's assailant enjoying the freedom of being able to return to a job in the public eye that paid him silly money ?

That man has served a sentence, but not the full amount, and he is out basically on licence. Why should he be accepted back into a very well paid and glamourised job as if nothing had happened ? He does not deserve any such considerations. His victim has been given a life sentence, take my word for it, whereas he was given a few years, and even then he is free after only doing about half his sentence ! No he will just have to realise that he has shot it as far as a football career is concerned, unless he tries a different country. That is my opinion, for what it's worth.


I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you and please dont make it any more emotive than it is by substituting his victim with a member of my family. I am able to be appalled at an offense without help

Its a dilemma. Our justice system decides the form and length of his sentence, not us. Should the fact that he is a public figure affect our attitude and perceptions on whether his punishment has been sufficient ? Is his attempt to continue his career any different to an offender continuing his career as a banker or bricklayer ?

These are questions rather than statements. I'm not sure what the answer is but surely the most important aspect of any offending is that they never offend again

It should depend on the crime & the position held.

I believe everyone here is in agreement that this is a very serious crime. Accepted.

I believe everyone here is in agreement that he is a role model, especially to young males. Accepted.

The question is as to whether or not he should be allowed to remain a role model with such a history.

Although it is just one type of profession, to compare it with a bricklayer being convicted of such an offence, serving his time & then return to a job as a bricklayer is not exactly comparing like with like, as the bricklayer doesn't have millions of fans seeking to emulate him, whereas the footballer does & for him to be allowed to return to his previous life of glamour simply puts out the message of "Oh, what the hell - it's worth the risk. If he can get away with it, then so can I".

The turnstile will determine where and when he returns to football.

I would just like to see him able to turn his life round in a positive manner so that his life doesnt amount to the product of his offence. That requires a huge amount of effort on his part but society still has a role to play instead of kicking him back into the gutter. The gutter is a place where he is likely to offend again.

I accept his ability to be a role model has been destroyed, probably forever and if he is to gain an ounce of the public's respect he may have had, he maybe has to stop whoring his wares throughout the ever diminishing list of football clubs who seem at least willing to give him the time of day.

Alternatively, The Football Association could revert to the Amateur-only rules which governed the sport for the majority of its history... ah, I see the problem - it's not the chap's wealth that's at issue, it's his public profile. Amateur or Professional his profile remains the same. Right, I hadn't quite grasped that.

So, anyone with "celebrity" who serves a jail sentence should "never!" be allowed subsequent employment in the UK for the rest of his or her life. Have I got it now? That's the essential element underlying this thread?

As I said, it depends on the extent of the crime. Using your logic do you feel that Rolf Harris should be permitted to return to his Celebrity status once he serves his time?

FG;1469862 wrote: Generalize, Gill. Does this "never!" apply to everyone released from jail? If not, what's the selection process for getting a "never!"?


I'm not sure where I mentioned 'never', I thought it was you FG ! Nobody should be stopped getting work to earn money to live on, it's just the suitability of a job for a person who has a criminal record, and depends, I would think, on the type of crime he/she has committed. e.g. I don't suppose it would be a good idea for somebody who had been a bank robber to find work in a bank !

I haven't got the faintest clue what "the selection process for getting a 'never' " is !

FourPart;1469875 wrote: As I said, it depends on the extent of the crime. Using your logic do you feel that Rolf Harris should be permitted to return to his Celebrity status once he serves his time?


With regard to Rolf Harris. There must be thousands of thousands of people young and old, who are totally shocked by what he has been found guilty of doing. I know I am. I doubt very much whether anybody in show business would give Mr. Harris the time of day now. He is an old man so I would imagine that he wouldn't have the brass neck to even contemplate trying to get back into entertainment when he is released. Like Gary Glitter, he will be instantly recognised wherever he goes to live, so I expect he will live out the rest of his days in lonely misery.

It is such a pity about his portrait of Queen Elizabeth. I thought it was the best portrait that anybody had done of her. Not sure what is happening to it now.

G#Gill;1469876 wrote: I'm not sure where I mentioned 'never', I thought it was you FG ! Nobody should be stopped getting work to earn money to live on, it's just the suitability of a job for a person who has a criminal record, and depends, I would think, on the type of crime he/she has committed. e.g. I don't suppose it would be a good idea for somebody who had been a bank robber to find work in a bank !

I haven't got the faintest clue what "the selection process for getting a 'never' " is !


My use of "never!" was shorthand for your "he has shot it as far as a football career is concerned, unless he tries a different country". I always employ the late Ian Paisley's voice when reading your posts, Gill, so the "never!" was always close to the surface. Does "he has shot it as far as a football career is concerned, unless he tries a different country" not sound very like "never!" to you?

Are you being rambunctious or obstreperous FG ?

FourPart;1469875 wrote: As I said, it depends on the extent of the crime. Using your logic do you feel that Rolf Harris should be permitted to return to his Celebrity status once he serves his time?


Permitted by whom?

Should he appear on stage again I'd happily book a ticket to hear his set.

Bruv;1469882 wrote: Are you being rambunctious or obstreperous FG ?


Good lord no.

The bank robber comment has little to do with a footballer whose crime had nothing to do with footballing. Is this footballer to be permanently stopped from televised employment, that's the question I'd like to see addressed.

FG;1469884 wrote: Good lord no.

The bank robber comment has little to do with a footballer whose crime had nothing to do with footballing. Is this footballer to be permanently stopped from televised employment, that's the question I'd like to see addressed.


He is an entertainer, in the football game, people pay his wages through the turnstile.

Jessica Ennis has said she wants her stand to be renamed if he remains as a player.

Public reaction has been such that any manager fielding him as a player would be extremely brave or stupid.

It would not be wise for any UK club to employ the man, until a decent time has elapsed at least.

The decision is financial not a moral one.

Bruv;1469885 wrote: He is an entertainer, in the football game, people pay his wages through the turnstile.

Jessica Ennis has said she wants her stand to be renamed if he remains as a player.

Public reaction has been such that any manager fielding him as a player would be extremely brave or stupid.

It would not be wise for any UK club to employ the man, until a decent time has elapsed at least.

The decision is financial not a moral one.


He could join any national football commentary panel, I carefully avoided putting him back on a playing field with my question.

How long is "a decent time" in years? I'd quite like to work out how old he'll be by then.

FG;1469884 wrote: Good lord no.

The bank robber comment has little to do with a footballer whose crime had nothing to do with footballing. Is this footballer to be permanently stopped from televised employment, that's the question I'd like to see addressed.


I think it would be highly undesirable to have this particular footballer portrayed playing in a football match shown on television and consequently held up as an example to follow, particularly by teenage lads. As somebody remarked earlier - Oh he's back in football, no problem, so that must be an OK way to behave ? But I don't think this particular matter will occur, as it seems that more and more football team execs. are turning his application down. He may be lucky with a continental team, I don't know.

FG;1469886 wrote: He could join any national football commentary panel, I carefully avoided putting him back on a playing field with my question.

How long is "a decent time" in years? I'd quite like to work out how old he'll be by then.


Would be a brave company to employ him as a pundit.

A decent time is when the furore has died down for a football career.

G#Gill;1469887 wrote: I think it would be highly undesirable to have this particular footballer portrayed playing in a football match shown on television and consequently held up as an example to follow, particularly by teenage lads. As somebody remarked earlier - Oh he's back in football, no problem, so that must be an OK way to behave ? But I don't think this particular matter will occur, as it seems that more and more football team execs. are turning his application down. He may be lucky with a continental team, I don't know.


So the guilty verdict of the court doesn't just result in a jail sentence, the court also imposes bankruptcy and prevents the criminal from any further significant lifetime earnings.

I suppose Mr Evans could take the Vinnie Jones option and become a film star, that might satisfy all your conditions.

You do talk a lot of nonsense, sometimes FG. Nobody is stopping the man from getting a job, just not one in the public eye that's all ! He will have to come to terms with that terrible action he took in a moment of his male weakness, and the consequences of that action . May I remind you that in parts of America, if I remember rightly, they used to hang rapists, like they hang murderers ! I'm not so sure that that wasn't also the case in the UK !

G#Gill;1469891 wrote: Nobody is stopping the man from getting a job, just not one in the public eye that's all !


Just so I get your exact meaning - who is it that's preventing him from getting a job in the public eye?

I'd be fascinated to know when a rapist was last hanged in the USA, and whether it was done by a lynch mob or a court order.

FG;1469889 wrote: So the guilty verdict of the court doesn't just result in a jail sentence, the court also imposes bankruptcy and prevents the criminal from any further significant lifetime earnings.

I suppose Mr Evans could take the Vinnie Jones option and become a film star, that might satisfy all your conditions.


As it does any criminal - you try getting a job with a criominal record or any kind of mortgage. Diesn;t matter what the crime was you have problems.

This was not a foolish crime of youth or a misunderstanding between two people this was a carefully set up and planned rape. Read what it was he actually did and was found guilty of by a jury. Lots of blokes think a drunk woman is fair game he clearly does and can;t seem to accept that he was in the wrong.

gmc;1469894 wrote: This was not a foolish crime of youth or a misunderstanding between two people this was a carefully set up and planned rape. Read what it was he actually did and was found guilty of by a jury. Lots of blokes think a drunk woman is fair game he clearly does and can;t seem to accept that he was in the wrong.


You will have to excuse me, I have no knowledge of anything to do with the crime other than that he was sentenced to jail for it. My interest is what society does to jailed people once they've completed their penal obligation. Part of my problem is that I have no idea what purpose jail sentences are supposed to fulfill.

FG;1469893 wrote: I'd be fascinated to know when a rapist was last hanged in the USA, and whether it was done by a lynch mob or a court order.
I have an instance by court order, if anyone's interested. In 1936 Rainey Bethea was hanged after he was convicted of rape. Over 20,000 people came to Owensboro, Kentucky to witness Bethea's execution.

Hanging in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There must still be people alive who went to watch. Someone ought to interview them.

Next thing you know they'll be bidding for the Franchises for Pay For View - Free Enterprise - it's the American Way.

FourPart;1470550 wrote: Next thing you know they'll be bidding for the Franchises for Pay For View - Free Enterprise - it's the American Way.


I note it's starting elsewhere - China Turns Prisoner Executions Into Reality TV

Though wasn't Timothy McVeigh's execution televised? I have a dim recollection that it was.

That bedwettingly inept prat Cameron just waded in, desperate as ever to be popular... Prime Minister David Cameron told BBC North West Tonight he "believed in giving people a second chance" but that it was "unrealistic" for Evans to expect to get straight back into the sport. He said: "Perhaps he needs to do more to put back in to the community some sense of atonement for what he's done before he restarts his career."

BBC Sport - Ched Evans: Convicted rapist and footballer issues apology



Perhaps he's said the same about his chum Andy Coulson, though I've not seen it in print.

Perhaps, after all the exposure of her shockingly poor judgement, he said the same about his chum Rebekah Brooks too.

FG;1470576 wrote: I note it's starting elsewhere - China Turns Prisoner Executions Into Reality TV

Though wasn't Timothy McVeigh's execution televised? I have a dim recollection that it was.


Dim is the right word. So far, no executions in the U.S. have been televised, although the plebeians constantly clamor for it.

Ched Evans will not actually be signed to Oldham Athletic Football Club, as stated officially later today. One sponsor has already withdrawn and there have been threats from fans, and other sponsors, and general ill-feelings voiced by fans. IMO his only chance of getting to play football/soccer again is to try a continental team. I doubt he will be risked by any UK club.

G#Gill;1471099 wrote: Ched Evans will not actually be signed to Oldham Athletic Football Club, as stated officially later today. One sponsor has already withdrawn and there have been threats from fans, and other sponsors, and general ill-feelings voiced by fans. IMO his only chance of getting to play football/soccer again is to try a continental team. I doubt he will be risked by any UK club.


But the terms of his parole mean that he cannot play outside this country

Bryn Mawr;1471101 wrote: But the terms of his parole mean that he cannot play outside this country


Oh dear, well that looks as if he's stuffed then ! If he's not guilty of rape, as he still insists, then I'm sorry for him (although he was rather stupid to put himself in such a risky position !), juries can be very perverse sometimes. If he is actually guilty of rape as charged, then I'm afraid it serves him right, he should keep his trousers zipped !

Having read about the events that night at the hotel, and whether actual rape occurred or not, I don't like any of those involved.

I wouldn't want any of them to be in my employ, and would seek ways to dispense their services.

Bruv;1471155 wrote: I wouldn't want any of them to be in my employ, and would seek ways to dispense their services.On the other hand, I have a nagging suspicion that if Mr Evans did actually get as far as a professional match on a pitch in this country the spectators would make it very obvious that on balance they were pleased to see him back. A football crowd would be delighted to annoy those who are mercilessly hounding the chap.

FG;1471158 wrote: On the other hand, I have a nagging suspicion that if Mr Evans did actually get as far as a professional match on a pitch in this country the spectators would make it very obvious that on balance they were pleased to see him back. A football crowd would be delighted to annoy those who are mercilessly hounding the chap.


I don't know about that - the supporters of each of the clubs that have looked to engage his services have, in the main, threatened to cancel their season tickets if he is taken on.

Bryn Mawr;1471167 wrote: I don't know about that - the supporters of each of the clubs that have looked to engage his services have, in the main, threatened to cancel their season tickets if he is taken on.


If that's the case then obviously I'm mistaken. I do wonder whether it's actually so, or whether it's invented pressure. Where did it originate? I'll have a look in a bit.

Bryn Mawr;1471167 wrote: I don't know about that - the supporters of each of the clubs that have looked to engage his services have, in the main, threatened to cancel their season tickets if he is taken on.


I can see lots of reference to "a female season-ticket holder drove from South Wales" "She had her season ticket in her pocket, ready to hand in if the signing went ahead" - I'm stuck so far in discovering a reference to "in the main" or synonyms.

Jessica Ennis current Olympic heptathlon champion had told the club she wanted her name removed from a stand in her honour if they re-signed the player.



More than 60,000 people have signed a petition calling on Sheffield United not to re-employ disgraced footballer Ched Evans.

Sheffield United Football Club has decided to retract the opportunity for its former player, Ched Evans, to use the Club's facilities for training purposes, as was previously intended.

Members of the Board have consulted dispassionately with the Club's supporters, Vice Presidents, Community Foundation members, executives, staff, sponsors and other relevant stakeholders in order to help it reach this decision.