Grateful that we are not a League One club

McCormick an Evans are no different people. McCormick is solely responsible for two deaths which is far worse and takes a lot more remorse to ever let that slide and be forgotten about it like so many seem passionate to do with this he has remorse, he plead guilty he repented his sins and was absolved by the pope etc.
Only difference is McCormick came back to football on the quiet while Evans made a fanfare.

Maybe someone should have the decency to give him a job having already been punished in law, in life and with a Criminal Cases Review Commission application pending.

Hitch wrote:

Maybe someone should have the decency to give him a job having already been punished in law, in life and with a Criminal Cases Review Commission application pending.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Alot of no comments including us

I think the most likely outcome is someone (like Oldham) will bite the bullet and give him a short-term contract.

In doing so they'll absorb a massive amount of criticism.

He'll score a few goals and will then be signed up by a much bigger club that will think it's worth the risk as Oldham would have set a precedent and already taken the vast majority of media flak.

Things will then just continue on as they have done for Lee Hughes, McCormick etc.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It is for the courts to decide appropriate punishment for wrong-doing and McCormick has quietly taken his punishment as it has come whilst doing all he can to make amends. In this regard the McCormick and Evans cases are entirely different.

I'm perfectly comfortable with McCormick playing for Argyle but would be deeply unhappy for Evans to do so as things currently stand.

i can't believe I've read this. This so trivialises the crime as to make Luke appear almost saintly.

How do you make amends?

I'm not trivialising anything. He did something daft that had terrible consequences. Since then he has shown contrition in various ways. Obviously whatever he does will never be enough to undo what he has done but at least he is trying.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It is for the courts to decide appropriate punishment for wrong-doing and McCormick has quietly taken his punishment as it has come whilst doing all he can to make amends. In this regard the McCormick and Evans cases are entirely different.

I'm perfectly comfortable with McCormick playing for Argyle but would be deeply unhappy for Evans to do so as things currently stand.

i can't believe I've read this. This so trivialises the crime as to make Luke appear almost saintly.

How do you make amends?

Dont go on twitter my friend there are some argyle fans trying to paint him as the fallen madonna (with the big boobies). No prizes for guessing what group they belong too and where they sit.

Well your use of phrases such as " quietly taken his punishment", " make amends", "did something daft" and that you're "perfectly comfortable with him playing for Argyle" suggests to me a soft view of what happened.

It does when you take it out of context like that.

Not at all.

He caused a dreadful accident through his own drunken, stupid, negligent irresponsibility. I'm not denying any of that.

On one evening he displayed appallingly reckless judgement.

What he did not do is cold-bloodedly plan to have sex with a girl too pissed to give her consent while his mates filmed it and then claim he had done nothing wrong.

That said if Evans was to allow the legal process to conclude, as McCormick did, then he should be allowed to play football again assuming that he can find a club that wants him but that's not the case, is it? Evans is appealing against his conviction and until the appeal is done he should not be playing anywhere.

In both cases it is for a jury to decide guilt and a judge to apportion the sanction if required to do so. Not me, not you and definitely not a football club.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all.

He caused a dreadful accident through his own drunken, stupid, negligent irresponsibility. I'm not denying any of that.

On one evening he displayed appallingly reckless judgement.

What he did not do is cold-bloodedly plan to have sex with a girl too pissed to give her consent while his mates filmed it and then claim he had done nothing wrong.

That said if Evans was to allow the legal process to conclude, as McCormick did, then he should be allowed to play football again assuming that he can find a club that wants him but that's not the case, is it? Evans is appealing against his conviction and until the appeal is done he should not be playing anywhere.

In both cases it is for a jury to decide guilt and a judge to apportion the sanction if required to do so. Not me, not you and definitely not a football club.

Still comes across as if your trying to gloss over what mccormick did and try and make it sound less serious than ched's case.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all.

He caused a dreadful accident through his own drunken, stupid, negligent irresponsibility. I'm not denying any of that.

On one evening he displayed appallingly reckless judgement.

What he did not do is cold-bloodedly plan to have sex with a girl too pissed to give her consent while his mates filmed it and then claim he had done nothing wrong.

That said if Evans was to allow the legal process to conclude, as McCormick did, then he should be allowed to play football again assuming that he can find a club that wants him but that's not the case, is it? Evans is appealing against his conviction and until the appeal is done he should not be playing anywhere.

In both cases it is for a jury to decide guilt and a judge to apportion the sanction if required to do so. Not me, not you and definitely not a football club.

Oh come now Franny unless you write column inches for the Mail that's pretty emotive summing up. If that is true (and I don't read newspapers on the whole as they insult my intelligence) then shorely the audience would be culpable, they would have at least aided and abetted? Are you saying Ched stayed sober to implement his dastardly plan? Not sticking up for him but the context needs to be kept in view. Let's also remeber that he maintains his innocence and is taking this to appeal.
On the other hand by calling Luke "daft" you trivialise his crime, sure there was no intent but I don't believe for one minute CE planned his rape ahead of time. To cut it right down to basics and which crime is worse would you rather your missus was raped by a footballer or killed in her car by a drunk footballer? No amount of counselling would bring back a dead wife, as for the little ones how the feck do you live with that?
I am totally on the side of the law here which is unusual for me but they have both been found guilty of crimes and they have both served time, they should both should be allowed to work. Leave the drama to the red tops where it belongs.

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case. Non-consensual sex is rape so as things stand, according to a jury, Evans is a convicted rapist as a result.

I don't think comparing one awful crime with another to assess which is the worst is helpful. They are both dreadful and assigning some sort of hierarchy to them isn't necessary or useful. That's what a judge is there to do via the sentence once guilt has been established.

Like I have already said: if Evans was under contract he would surely be suspended pending the trial due to the seriousness of the charge - at least that is what woud happen in nearly every other workplace in the land - and it is what should have (probably did - I don't know) happened here. If Evans was not appealing the conviction then I would say his and McCormick's cases were as near identical as makes no difference apart from the sex offender slant which has its own lasting repercussions. Evans's appeal means that either he is innocent as he claims, in which case he should be given every chance to clear his name, or doesn't to this date realise that he did anything wrong meaning that he is potentially likely to do the same thing again. It is highly unlikely, I feel, that McCormick is ever going to get ratted and leap behind the wheel of a car again - but then he might.

I think both should be allowed to continue their careers as footballers if they can find a club to take them on and whether a club employs either is up to the club concerned.

There's plenty of examples of miscreant footballers in the past who were punished for something and carried on playing: Tony Adams and Micky Quinn are two that immediately spring to mind. Adams like McCormick was done for drink driving and I forget what Quinn did but they are not the only ones by a long chalk.

The punisment decided by a judge is supposed to fulfill a number of criteria: it is supposed to deter the guilty party and others from committing a similar crime; it is supposed to protect society while that person is in prison; it is supposed to allow the convicted a chance of rehabilitation; it is supposed to punish the offender. I would suggest that McCormick's rehabilitation is pretty much as complete as it ever could be and that Evans's has not even begun. That's the difference between the two and that's why I am comfortable with McCormick as our goalie but wouldn't, yet, want to see Evans play for us.

I'm not excusing or belittling what either of them did nor do I think that either should be denied the chance to resume their careers I just think that their current suitabilities for employment as a footballer are very different.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case. Non-consensual sex is rape so as things stand, according to a jury, Evans is a convicted rapist as a result.

I don't think comparing one awful crime with another to assess which is the worst is helpful. They are both dreadful and assigning some sort of hierarchy to them isn't necessary or useful. That's what a judge is there to do via the sentence once guilt has been established.

Like I have already said: if Evans was under contract he would surely be suspended pending the trial due to the seriousness of the charge - at least that is what woud happen in nearly every other workplace in the land - and it is what should have (probably did - I don't know) happened here. If Evans was not appealing the conviction then I would say his and McCormick's cases were as near identical as makes no difference apart from the sex offender slant which has its own lasting repercussions. Evans's appeal means that either he is innocent as he claims, in which case he should be given every chance to clear his name, or doesn't to this date realise that he did anything wrong meaning that he is potentially likely to do the same thing again. It is highly unlikely, I feel, that McCormick is ever going to get ratted and leap behind the wheel of a car again -  but then he might.

I think both should be allowed to continue their careers as footballers if they can find a club to take them on and whether a club employs either is up to the club concerned.

There's plenty of examples of miscreant footballers in the past who were punished for something and carried on playing: Tony Adams and Micky Quinn are two that immediately spring to mind. Adams like McCormick was done for drink driving and I forget what Quinn did but they are not the only ones by a long chalk.

The punisment decided by a judge is supposed to fulfill a number of criteria: it is supposed to deter the guilty party and others from committing a similar crime; it is supposed to protect society while that person is in prison; it is supposed to allow the convicted a chance of rehabilitation; it is supposed to punish the offender. I would suggest that McCormick's rehabilitation is pretty much as complete as it ever could be and that Evans's has not even begun. That's the difference between the two and that's why I am comfortable with McCormick as our goalie but wouldn't, yet, want to see Evans play for us.

I'm not excusing or belittling what either of them did nor do I think that either should be denied the chance to resume their careers I just think that their current suitabilities for employment as a footballer are very different.

you wont accept when you are wrong about something ever will you.

What are you saying here?

That any footballer convicted of any crime should never play again?

Is that it?

If not that then what? Which crimes should incur a lifelong ban from the game and which should not?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

What are you saying here?

That any footballer convicted of any crime should never play again?

Is that it?

If not that then what? Which crimes should incur a lifelong ban from the game and which should not?

no the still trying to lessen what luke did compared to a rape like its not as bad bit.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case. Non-consensual sex is rape so as things stand, according to a jury, Evans is a convicted rapist as a result.

I don't think comparing one awful crime with another to assess which is the worst is helpful. They are both dreadful and assigning some sort of hierarchy to them isn't necessary or useful. That's what a judge is there to do via the sentence once guilt has been established.

Like I have already said: if Evans was under contract he would surely be suspended pending the trial due to the seriousness of the charge - at least that is what woud happen in nearly every other workplace in the land - and it is what should have (probably did - I don't know) happened here. If Evans was not appealing the conviction then I would say his and McCormick's cases were as near identical as makes no difference apart from the sex offender slant which has its own lasting repercussions. Evans's appeal means that either he is innocent as he claims, in which case he should be given every chance to clear his name, or doesn't to this date realise that he did anything wrong meaning that he is potentially likely to do the same thing again. It is highly unlikely, I feel, that McCormick is ever going to get ratted and leap behind the wheel of a car again -  but then he might.

I think both should be allowed to continue their careers as footballers if they can find a club to take them on and whether a club employs either is up to the club concerned.

There's plenty of examples of miscreant footballers in the past who were punished for something and carried on playing: Tony Adams and Micky Quinn are two that immediately spring to mind. Adams like McCormick was done for drink driving and I forget what Quinn did but they are not the only ones by a long chalk.

The punisment decided by a judge is supposed to fulfill a number of criteria: it is supposed to deter the guilty party and others from committing a similar crime; it is supposed to protect society while that person is in prison; it is supposed to allow the convicted a chance of rehabilitation; it is supposed to punish the offender. I would suggest that McCormick's rehabilitation is pretty much as complete as it ever could be and that Evans's has not even begun. That's the difference between the two and that's why I am comfortable with McCormick as our goalie but wouldn't, yet, want to see Evans play for us.

I'm not excusing or belittling what either of them did nor do I think that either should be denied the chance to resume their careers I just think that their current suitabilities for employment as a footballer are very different.

you wont accept when you are wrong about something ever will you.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You're right, of course.

I am not worthy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'You never think you're wrong' is a statement I've never understood. Of course people don't think their opinions are wrong- they wouldn't be their opinions otherwise.

He's not trying to trivialise what Luke did at all- he just has a different opinion on it to some of you.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

What are you saying here?

That any footballer convicted of any crime should never play again?

Is that it?

If not that then what? Which crimes should incur a lifelong ban from the game and which should not?

no the still trying to lessen what luke did compared to a rape like its not as bad bit.

I haven't done that at all.

That's what you are projecting onto what I have said not what I have said.

cheers asti.

sam its not that he has a differing opinion its the way he is trying to make rape seem lesser an evil crime to killing to two kids because luke is an argyle player.

That's the issue im having the issue with. Its not just sfd. what he had said is nothing compared to the tripe on twitter from forza nerde twats.

There you go again: telling me what I think and why when you cannot possibly know either.

None of what I think is formed because McCormick is an Argyle player.

There's a few career paths denied to criminals convicted of sex offences - teaching is one of them and nursing another but they are not the only ones; footballer is not. I don't think any career is proscribed because of causing death by reckless driving or driving under the influence.

So both players are free to pursue their career options as best they can.

From that point, and I have explained why more than once, I think the cases differ and McCormick, for me, falls one side of a line and Evans the other.

I'm not sure how often I have to say I think that McCormick did a terrible thing - it doesn't even need saying at all, does it, really?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

There you go again: telling me what I think and why when you cannot possibly know either.

None of what I think is formed because McCormick is an Argyle player.

There's a few career paths denied to criminals convicted of sex offences - teaching is one of them and nursing another but they are not the only ones; footballer is not. I don't think any career is proscribed because of causing death by reckless driving or driving under the influence.

So both players are free to pursue their career options as best they can.

From that point, and I have explained why more than once, I think the cases differ and McCormick, for me, falls one side of a line and Evans the other.

I'm not sure how often I have to say I think that McCormick did a terrible thing - it doesn't even need saying at all, does it, really?

stop digging a hole and lets draw aline

Cornish Chris wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Usual bunch of Hippos bloviating away, the boy done his time and the conviction was a joke, arse wipe he is, rapist? No chance.

If he hadn't been a footballer he would not have been convicted yet now because of the PC, holier than thou wanker brigade he can't get a job, I would take him in the blink of an eye and feck off any sponsors or so called fans who didn't like it.

Did you sit through all the evidence in court? Or have you just decided what is most convenient for the particular bees that are in your bonnet today?

Josh makes a good point - he's still serving a sentence for rape. Surely no club can touch him until either a) he's made a grovelling apology to his victim, or b) his conviction is overturned. McCormick was remorseful, and by all accounts spends most of his free time trying to make amends by volunteering to take part in drink-drive education work. Has Ched Evans done anything of the sort apart from try to smear the girl he raped?

There have been lots of good points made in favour of Evans' return so far on this thread, but I wouldn't feel comfortable employing him if it was down to me unless there's a serious show of remorse. Justice hasn't run its course just yet.

I did follow the case as closely as I could and then applied my knowledge of the law and my experience of jury duty to come to the opinion I hold.

The most important thing by far in any court case is the judge's summing up he basically tells the jury what verdict to return, this judge told them to find him guilty and let the other chap off, simple as that.

Evans shagged a pissed up bird just like all all of us have at one time or another, she didn't object and she was conscious, Evans went down because the judge didn't like him, nothing else, and the jury did as they were told.

There was nothing in the evidence to suggest if the bitch had said no that Evans would not have stopped, that would have been rape.

Comparison with your club captain are moot, he did what he did, fessed up, done his time and is now doing his job, yet plenty on here were saying they would never visit the club again if he was taken on, fecking hippos the bunch of them. Evans, quite rightly, considers himself to have been innocent, he was refused leave to appeal this obviously wrong verdict, he has no reason to apologise for something he didn't do.

As I said before he is a gobby arse wipe, but he is no more a rapist than any one of us that has ever porked a pissed up girly, or as in my case, the girly who raped me when I was 15 and vulnerable due to the demon drink, gawd luv her.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

Can we, well you Lord Tis, stop referring to her as bitch, slag or any other offensive term?

Nobody on here is that easily impressed.