Should Ched Evans be allowed to play professional football in the UK? No, says Roger
Posted by Roger Godsiff, MP for Birmingham, Hall Green, at 13:45, Thursday 8 January:
Ched Evans was a high profile professional footballer prior to being convicted of rape. He served part of his sentence and has now been released on licence. He has shown no remorse and insists he was wrongly convicted.
Roger chairs a large football charity which engages with 10,000 young people every week and has won national and international awards for its work, and he is strongly opposed to allowing Ched Evans to resume his professional football career in the UK.
Says Roger: “I very much support programmes to rehabilitate offenders and this includes finding them employment. But to allow a convicted rapist – who is now on the Sex Offenders List – to resume his employment in such a high profile profession, with footballers viewed as ‘role models’ by many young people, would be wrong and perverse, particularly as he has not admitted that his behaviour was utterly wrong and reprehensible.
“Would it be considered appropriate, for example, to allow a convicted paedophile who worked in a children’s home to resume similar employment when they were released? Of course it would not.
“Ched Evans is entitled to find employment but it would be totally wrong of any professional club in the UK to employ him because it would send out completely the wrong message to young football supporters who idolise their heroes on the pitch.
“Any professional football club which employed him should be rightly condemned as putting greed and profit above morality.”
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Colin, 13:59, Thursday 8 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
But what if Mr. Evans is, indeed, innocent? - it wouldn't be the first miscarriage of justice. If certain occupations & certain crimes warrant such draconian sanctions, let MP's debate & change the law accordingly. Considering the scandalous behaviour of some Parliamentarians in their personal lives, let alone their expenses fiddles, this sounds like sanctimonious claptrap.
Posted by steve freer, 14:21, Thursday 8 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
If a person has served his time conforms to the terms of his release he should not be persecuted in finding employment. This is stigma, I would rather him in the public eye on the field than an other forgotten ex con with no hope
Posted by Ian Soady, 16:15, Thursday 8 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
He has not "served his time" he has been released on licence. What is shocking is that the parole board has allowed this even though he refuses to show any contrition and maintains his innocence. Compare this with others who languish in prison long after their parole dates because they are fighting to prove their innocence. Why have they not been released on licence?
Posted by Elizabeth Norman, 16:59, Friday 9 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Those who have bought in to the claim that Ched has 'served his time and is being persecuted' should understand that he has not served his time, he is out on licence. He is on the Sex Offenders register so he can be monitored, because he is a risk. He is not rehabilitated - see the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Posted by Elizabeth Norman, 17:07, Friday 9 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Ian, you wish to use this case to highlight what you feel are wrongful decisions of the Parole Board in other cases. Actually the Parole Board are not involved in this particular case. It involves a determinate sentence, and there is an automatic release on licence after a certain period. The Parole Board consider the release of people on indeterminate sentences.