It's basic commonsense that we don't set up a convicted rapist as a role model for young boys, especially in the present climate of young boys not understanding that girls aren't easy meat. Saw a documentary recently on TV which was hair-raising in that respect.
Quote: keewik @ 9th January 2015, 9:39 PM GMTIt's basic commonsense that we don't set up a convicted rapist as a role model for young boys, especially in the present climate of young boys not understanding that girls aren't easy meat. Saw a documentary recently on TV which was hair-raising in that respect.
Well, as I said, I don't think he should be in professional football. It isn't just a question of role models. In fact, does any football supporter really idolise Rooney as a person? I would have thought even an average 7 year old who reveres him as a footballer would think him a bit of an idiot. It is about whether supporters of all ages could support a team with Evans in it. The crime, by definition, is a barrier to all reasonable support.
Woe you're not going down that whole rape culture path are you Keewik.
And lets be clear what we mean by [we]. I think when courts start deciding who can and can't work, unless it's a case of genuine risk is insane and dangerous.
As it is the Ched thing is generally working the right way, its public disaproval forcing him out of any team.
I agree and let's hope public opinion continues on these lines. Nothing to do with the Court - it's not saying anything.
But no one is deciding he 'can't work'. So he can't be a pro footballer, there are approximately 20 squillion other jobs he can f**k off and do.
But, Horseradish, how many 7-year-olds do you know well? You can't expect them to be that discriminating. And if they happen to gave a thicko father, well ....
Quote: zooo @ 9th January 2015, 9:52 PM GMTBut no one is deciding he 'can't work'. So he can't be a pro footballer, there are approximately 20 squillion other jobs he can f**k off and do.
Exactly. Is he too genteel to empty bins or stack shelves?
Quote: zooo @ 9th January 2015, 9:52 PM GMTBut no one is deciding he 'can't work'. So he can't be a pro footballer, there are approximately 20 squillion other jobs he can f**k off and do.
No but the lady Annie Hatchett I believe is her nom de plum, organising the petitions against him. Is quite clear she wants people accused of rape banned from football amongst other professions.
She has a lot of supporters.
Ah I see. Well, I do find it hard to care.
So don't rape someone, work in any job you like. There's that fixed.
Quote: Jennie @ 9th January 2015, 9:39 PM GMTIt is pretty similar to the original CRB check - difference being that the "standard" check shows spent convictions.
https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview
I do think though that an employer has the right to know about an employees criminal convictions. I would simply impose a "reasonableness" criteria - i.e. you can only dismiss/not hire someone on the basis of the DBS check if it is objectively reasonable.
Thanks for replying. I don't think that an employer should have the right to know about criminal convictions except in the most extreme cases of crime. Most people commit crime at some point. The current situation merely provides the scope for past law breakers to discriminate in favour of applicants who were never caught against people who may have been. There is something a bit questionable about those with the power to employ, following a youthful period of speeding down rural roads to illegal raves, deciding whether someone from the local council estate doesn't meet their criteria because of some moderate distant lapse.
Plus a lot of it is being retrospectively applied. Crimes may in many cases have been committed before there were employers' rights to know. And there is the anti-British dimension. Loonies from Latvia scoot around from job to job as happy as Larry whereas past petty thieves from Plymouth are now rejected out of hand.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th January 2015, 10:05 PM GMTThanks for replying. I don't think that an employer should have the right to know about criminal convictions except in the most extreme cases of crime. Most people commit crime at some point. The current situation merely provides the scope for past law breakers to discriminate in favour of applicants who were never caught against people who may have been. There is something a bit questionable about those with the power to employ, following a youthful period of speeding down rural roads to illegal raves, deciding whether someone from the local council estate doesn't meet their criteria because of some moderate distant lapse.
Plus a lot of it is being retrospectively applied. Crimes may in many cases have been committed before there were employers' rights to know. And there is the anti-British dimension. Loonies from Latvia scoot around from job to job as happy as Larry whereas past petty thieves from Plymouth are now rejected out of hand.
Let's just cut to the chase. Do you believe this creature should be employed as a high profile worker in a high profile team. Yes? No? No prevarication or sitting on the fence.
Footnote to Jennie: Of course, if you are an employer who bends the rules - and which doesn't? - then it might well be in your interest to appoint staff who have a proven record of getting away with things. The last thing you want is some clumsy dope who managed to get caught for carrying a dodgy pill in the 1980s.
That, I think, is what the new system sustains. It isn't support for employers who try to be Papal. It's support for a charmless version of Del Boy, probably with a degree and apparently clean cut. One thing I know is that there is one thing worse than being an applicant with a criminal conviction and that's having been in a job which ensures rules are followed. Put the latter on your cv and most of them run a mile.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th January 2015, 10:05 PM GMTMost people commit crime at some point.
I don't really think that's true.
Unless you mean not wearing your seat belt or something.
Quote: zooo @ 9th January 2015, 10:22 PM GMTI don't really think that's true.
Unless you mean not wearing your seat belt or something.
Ditto.
Quote: keewik @ 9th January 2015, 10:18 PM GMTLet's just cut to the chase. Do you believe this creature should be employed as a high profile worker in a high profile team. Yes? No? No prevarication or sitting on the fence.
Not in football or other sport, no. If he ends up as a millionaire investment banker, I'd find it absolutely sickening but I don't see why there should be any barrier. Unfortunately, he could be very well suited.
Quote: zooo @ 9th January 2015, 10:22 PM GMTI don't really think that's true.
Unless you mean not wearing your seat belt or something.
Tax evasion or illegal substance use or quite dangerous driving? Most must have done one of the three.
I'd agree, though doubt he'll ever be a millionaire banker, but that indicates my prejudice that present day footballers are thick.