Ched Evans

[eFestivals]

PS: did the victim go with McDonald because she recognised him as a famous footballer, or did she (as per the verdict of the court) go with him cos she fancied getting her rocks off with him?

As you can see, nothing of football was any part of anything of the rape.

[feral chile]

because rape is rape and football is football.

If his rape cannot be disassociated from his football, then all footballers are rapists and all rapists are footballers.

It is not necessary for a rapist to be a footballer, it only takes a willingness to rape.

and music is music, and I won't be spending money on Lost Prophets again. It's affected my enjoyment of their music.

I wouldn't be campaigning for their music to be banned, however. And trying to rape little children isn't part of the stereotype of being a musician, so that part of it's not an issue for me either.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't quite a few underage groupies around, come to think of it.

[eFestivals]

But he does provide a service in the same way that all entertainers do, and that's essentially what he is. Therefore, he's subject to the vagaries of public opinion.

public opinion within those who might be entertained, yep. A countrywide campaign from those with no interest in football? No.

I would disagree with the idea that he's not a role model, I think any celebrity is potentially a role model. They have tremendous public influence, particularly over impressionable people.

1. "potentially", yep - if they do something worth lauding. Which isn't them doing their normal job.

2. "impressionable people". So not only do women become a sub-species when drunk that absolves themselves from responsibility some of their self-actions, you now don't even need to be drunk?

FFS.

Either people have responsibility for their own minds - and therefore actions - or they don't. If they don't, then how can Evans be deemed to have done something evil when he could claim his mind was taken over by some strange force that he had no control over?

But just supposing you have a situation where vulnerable people are blinded by the supposed glamour of a successful celebrity,

and just suppose that fame had zero to do with this case at the moment of the crime.

Oh, you don't need to 'suppose' for that one. It's the actual fact of things.

If you wish to bring fame into this discussion, it only has relevance post-sentence and not for the crime itself.

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

PS: did the victim go with McDonald because she recognised him as a famous footballer, or did she (as per the verdict of the court) go with him cos she fancied getting her rocks off with him?

As you can see, nothing of football was any part of anything of the rape.

I'm not trying to say that women are willing to get raped by famous footballers.

What I'm worrying about is that there might be footballers/ men with aspirations to become footballers, that don't recognise rape boundaries. That they think women will be grateful for their sexual services, and won't accept refusal, as they feel entitled to claim sexual rewards.

[feral chile]

public opinion within those who might be entertained, yep. A countrywide campaign from those with no interest in football? No.

1. "potentially", yep - if they do something worth lauding. Which isn't them doing their normal job.

2. "impressionable people". So not only do women become a sub-species when drunk that absolves themselves from responsibility some of their self-actions, you now don't even need to be drunk?

FFS.

Either people have responsibility for their own minds - and therefore actions - or they don't. If they don't, then how can Evans be deemed to have done something evil when he could claim his mind was taken over by some strange force that he had no control over?

and just suppose that fame had zero to do with this case at the moment of the crime.

Oh, you don't need to 'suppose' for that one. It's the actual fact of things.

If you wish to bring fame into this discussion, it only has relevance post-sentence and not for the crime itself.

Yes, people can be vulnerable for reasons other than being drunk.

Ian Watkin's victims/co-conspirators were willing to hand over their own children. Would they have handed them over to a shop assistant?

Maybe. Were they desperate for male approval or for celebrity approval?

I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here. I'm really focusing on the reputational damage to football. Since I don't actually watch the bloody sport, all I know of it is media sensationalist reports of arrogant footballers causing mayhem by being unable to handle their money and fame.

Maybe you're right. Maybe they'd be obnoxious mysogynists anyway.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I think my main issue is that I object to power giving you freedom to do what you like. Or think you can.

So I'm linking Operation Yewtree, Ian Watkins, errant footballers, Mp expenses scandals etc. etc. into this.

So while I don't think offenders should be denied rehabilitation, I'm happy for people to stand up and say power trips are unacceptable if they hurt people.

Hopefully when his appeal has been heard, he'll get the chance to distance himself properly from any kind of 'she was asking for it/she wanted it really' kind of attitude.

that's all I'd like to see, really.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

What I'm worrying about is that there might be footballers/ men with aspirations to become footballers, that don't recognise rape boundaries.

I'm sure that there will be - but no more or less than in all other professions.

That they think women will be grateful for their sexual services, and won't accept refusal, as they feel entitled to claim sexual rewards.

Nothing of that view is unique to footballers. It is, sadly, the way of the world.

Football changes nothing towards these things.

The only way football changes things is with the willingness that women go with footballers (compared to others) as their absolute & willing wish.

[mrtourette]

That's the thing many don't realise. These horrible people have their attributes heightened by power fame and money, but they'd still be arseholes in town on a Saturday night if they were builders or accountants.

The decent humans who play football just don't get media attention outside the back pages so non-fans don't notice them.

Think of how many professionals are in the premier league alone but yet it's pretty much always the same faces in the news for the wrong reasons - apart from when a really talented youngster comes through and isn't necessarily managed right.

Admittedly the percentage of w*nkers is probably higher than other walks of life - apart from maybe bankers or estate agents - but it's still a minority.

Yeah it's only extreme cases like James Milner or the odd time that the Football League Show visit some players doing charitable work that the good guys get highlighted, it just isn't as good copy as the arseholes. Even then you still having to be intentionally reading/watching football media to pick up on it, it doesn't reach the front pages.

Edited January 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

Ian Watkin's victims/co-conspirators were willing to hand over their own children. Would they have handed them over to a shop assistant?

is the issue about that Watkins asking and the shop assistant not, or is that two fully grown adult women with their own fully-working brains were happy enough to hand their children over to be abused?

While Watkins asked, Watklins could do nothing without their compliance. It is those women who facilitated the abuse, not Watkins.

Or are we back to women being poor little creatures who cannot know their own minds, poor things?

Maybe. Were they desperate for male approval or for celebrity approval?

It ultimately matters not a jot, unless your angle is that women are mentally inferior.

They were willing to facilitate abuse.

[russycarps]

and yet i've not seen anyone who'd accept Evans banned from football but would be OK with him stacking shelves. Until such time as the antis can say what they would allow without protest, they have no solution to the dilemma they've created around the situation.

If power corrupts as you say, then by banning Evans you're swapping one abuser for another, and nothing changes - except that new abuser doesn't have the rep of Evans, and so would be more likely to successfully abuse.

The problem with Evans is that banning him from footie doesn't make him go away, and neither does it address anything about what we might do with ex-crims, or about any issues in the football world and how we as a society might respond to them. It merely persecutes an individual, without a basis for why (apart from 'to persecute') that stands up to rational scrutiny.

Exactly.

What is the point in our justice system if someone is convicted, serves their term but then continues to be punished on the whim of the general public?

If we cant have faith in our justice system and believe the punishments they hand out are sufficient then where do we go? Trial by internet petition?

edit nevermind, I see the discussion has moved on now!

Edited January 13, 2015 by russycarps

[feral chile]

is the issue about that Watkins asking and the shop assistant not, or is that two fully grown adult women with their own fully-working brains were happy enough to hand their children over to be abused?

While Watkins asked, Watklins could do nothing without their compliance. It is those women who facilitated the abuse, not Watkins.

Or are we back to women being poor little creatures who cannot know their own minds, poor things?

It ultimately matters not a jot, unless your angle is that women are mentally inferior.

They were willing to facilitate abuse.

That's a crass generalisation! I'd like to think that most women would have reported the little sicko.

Now that I've managed to clarify my own thinking, maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle. maybe my objection is more that ordinary evil sods will be able to self justify by thinking that celebrities can do what they're doing.

As long as it's publicly clear that it's not OK, I'm fine with it.

maybe this campaign is a backlash to Evans' supporters protesting his innocence?

I haven't really read either side directly - are there lots of 'she deserved it' kind of comments that would provoke the kneejerk public frenzy?

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

is the issue about that Watkins asking and the shop assistant not, or is that two fully grown adult women with their own fully-working brains were happy enough to hand their children over to be abused?

While Watkins asked, Watklins could do nothing without their compliance. It is those women who facilitated the abuse, not Watkins.

Or are we back to women being poor little creatures who cannot know their own minds, poor things?

Is he not able to discuss two specific women withiout being accusued of generalising against all women?

I think it's the case that they were Lostprophets fans, so would Ian Watkins being the lead singer of Lostprophets have put him in a different position to influence and manipulate these two specific women (read these two, not every single female) compared to if he were a bin man or student?

It's speculation but possible, and seems to be a reasonable question (albeit one which can never really be answered).

And as these women were willing to faciliate what was done to their children, I certainly would consider the two in question to be mentally inferior.

[feral chile]

Exactly.

What is the point in our justice system if someone is convicted, serves their term but then continues to be punished on the whim of the general public?

If we cant have faith in our justice system and believe the punishments they hand out are sufficient then where do we go? Trial by internet petition?

edit nevermind, I see the discussion has moved on now!

yes, as long as we all know it's not Ok to have sex with women just because you're famous, you still have to check with them first

I'm fine with that.

[mrtourette]

Exactly.

What is the point in our justice system if someone is convicted, serves their term but then continues to be punished on the whim of the general public?

If we cant have faith in our justice system and believe the punishments they hand out are sufficient then where do we go? Trial by internet petition?

edit nevermind, I see the discussion has moved on now!

While I agree with the sentiment, I think viberunner raised a good point regarding at what point do we start telling people that they aren't allowed to voice their opinions of Ched Evans' future? People have talked about mob justice and mob rule, but at what point does co-ordinated demonstration/freedom of speech become 'mob rule'? Is campaigning for better human rights for minorities 'mob rule'? And more importantly, if we're saying it's wrong, who do we put the onus on to police it? Should individuals be held acountable for it getting out of hand (and when is it considered such?), should the public be allowed to voice their opinion but compaines (or in this case clubs) be held accountable for bowing down to 'mob rule'? Dangerous ground.

[feral chile]

Is he not able to discuss two specific women withiout being accusued of generalising against all women?

I think it's the case that they were Lostprophets fans, so would Ian Watkins being the lead singer of Lostprophets have put him in a different position to influence and manipulate these two specific women (read these two, not every single female) compared to if he were a bin man or student?

It's speculation but possible, and seems to be a reasonable question (albeit one which can never really be answered).

And as these women were willing to faciliate what was done to their children, I certainly would consider the two in question to be mentally inferior.

Yes, that's it exactly. I know doctors and teachers are specific professions that are regulated, but it's because of the power relationship.

I don't think it would be possible to regulate all power relationships, obviously, but I can see why parallels could be drawn with the relationshp between fans and their idol. It's hardly equal in terms of the power and influence ratio is it!

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think viberunner raised a good point regarding at what point do we start telling people that they aren't allowed to voice their opinions of Ched Evans' future? People have talked about mob justice and mob rule, but at what point does co-ordinated demonstration/freedom of speech become 'mob rule'? Is campaigning for better human rights for minorities 'mob rule'? And more importantly, if we're saying it's wrong, who do we put the onus on to police it? Should individuals be held acountable for it getting out of hand (and when is it considered such?), should the public be allowed to voice their opinion but compaines (or in this case clubs) be held accountable for bowing down to 'mob rule'? Dangerous ground.

well my understanding is the directors of the football team were threatened with violence and their daughters threatened to be raped so I guess that's when the line is crossed!

Voting with your feet by not attending the match and not buying the products of the sponsors is fine. Standing outside the football ground with banners is also fine.

The threat of violence is not!

[feral chile]

well my understanding is the directors of the football team were threatened with violence and their daughters threatened to be raped so I guess that's when the line is crossed!

Voting with your feet by not attending the match and not buying the products of the sponsors is fine. Standing outside the football ground with banners is also fine.

The threat of violence is not!

That is absolutely disgusting. Way to go promoting the idea rape is unacceptable by threatening to rape someone else.

Can I generalise like Neil did and state that all Ched Evans anti brigade must be mentally inferior, then, and need protecting from his corrupting influence?

Seriously though, what are these people claiming to be, general public, club supporters, what cause are they thinking they're promoting by threatening rape?

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

That is absolutely disgusting. Way to go promoting the idea rape is unacceptable by threatening to rape someone else.

Can I generalise like Neil did and state that all Ched Evans supporters must be mentally inferior, then, and need protecting from his corrupting influence?

change the "ched evans supporters" to "football supporters" and I'm with you!

[mrtourette]

well my understanding is the directors of the football team were threatened with violence and their daughters threatened to be raped so I guess that's when the line is crossed!

Voting with your feet by not attending the match and not buying the products of the sponsors is fine. Standing outside the football ground with banners is also fine.

The threat of violence is not!

Very true, but then you're addressing the behaviour of the individuals within that 'mob'. I dunno, all this discussions about 'mob' rule don't sit well with me as it's such a difficult thing to define. Co-ordinated demonstration has long been a positive force (even when some members take it too far and threaten violence) and it seems that to have it for the 'good' it needs to be tolerated for the 'bad'. Obviously you can't tolerate specific threats, but suppressing the campaign against Evans can't be a good thing. It seems that it's only a concern as it's actually been successful, but who do we blame or hold responsible for that?

Edited January 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[feral chile]

change the "ched evans supporters" to "football supporters" and I'm with you!

yeah, I did realise what I'd written didn't actually make sense, so I changed it a bit. I don't know what these people are actually hoping to achieve though. They're clearly not wanting to establish rape is unacceptable.

Though mind you, I did get involved in a heated debate about abortion once, which to me was a purely abstract discussion, but ended with the other person wishing my daughter got gang-raped and pregnant.

I'm pretty sure what she meant was, I was talking from an abstract perspective so didn't have the right to an informed opinion. plus maybe sub-text sensitivity warning.

I'm hoping these comments were similarly badly phrased expressions of frustration.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

yeah, I did realise what I'd written didn't actually make sense, so I changed it a bit. I don't know what these people are actually hoping to achieve though. They're clearly not wanting to establish rape is unacceptable.

Well it depends who you're referring to by 'these people'. Despite the best efforts of this thread there are multiple shades of grey between black and white, even amongst whatever group "ched evans/fotball supporters" is supposed to refer to.

Edited January 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[feral chile]

Well it depends who you're referring to by 'these people'. Despite the best efforts of this thread there are multiple shades of grey between black and white, even amongst whatever group "ched evans/fotball supporters" is supposed to refer to.

specifically those making rape threats, in this case.

[mrtourette]

Well in that case yes I agree, although I'd imagine that the vast majority of them are just keyboard warriors.

Anyway I think the rape threats you're referring to were amade by people opposed to Evans signing for Oldham, not his 'supporters'.

Edited January 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[feral chile]

Read this and then tell me being a celebrity is irrelevant to sex charges:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jailed-pop-star-ian-watkins-8394464

This was a woman who had worked in a bank and insurance, been in the army and had been a special constable but that was not the person they saw.

“She became a nuisance harrassing that nice Mr Watkins.”

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[LondonTom]

So I think a high profile footballer and a low profile shop assistant are job descriptions that carry different responsibilities.

I'd say Ched is more famous for being a rapist than a footballer to be fair, outside of the teams he played for before this, he was basically an irrelevance to most.