This is where people are getting mixed up. A profession in which you hold a position of trust (doctor, nurse, teacher) is not comparible to being a footballer.
All the witch hunt mob will do is turn Evans in to the victim. There are people playing football that have killed before, where's the outcry about them? Ones even captaining his club.

He was given legal advice to not speak. Why should he apologise for something he's adamant he hasn't done, would you?
He has completely distanced himself from those that have vilified the girl and apologised for the hurt caused by events that night.
He has a right, as does every other person to rehabilitation. Part of that is being allowed to resume his career. Making rehabilitation conditional is not a path we should go down, under any circumstances.

As I said, his guilt is not the issue for me, the very laws that convicted him also say he has a right to be rehabilitated.

Listening to bruces' comments I wonder if he had watched question time on Thursday night as one of the panelists made virtually the same comments

...or maybe he reads [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.htmlThe Telegraph.[/url

1865, please stop trying to be inflammatory. I was only responding to your sweeping statement that anyone has the right to resume their career.

Have you read the transcripts yet then sheeple???? Or are you going to come out with an educated opinion or just carry on talking b0llocks???

Rehabilitation is a right. Showing you the flaws in your argument is not inflammatory.

Rehabilitation isn't a right. It's a courtesy given by a civilised society. Expecting to be defended against a dangerous convicted criminal is a right.

I didn't propose an argument, I questioned your statement. There is a difference. If your comprehension skills cannot recognise that, then that is not my problem. You made a statement, I questioned it, which you've still not answered. Do I need to copy and paste it as a quote?

You never questioned my statement, you proposed a situation which you know could never happen and tried to compare it to the Ched Evans situation, just because I didn't make clear that he has a right to resume his career because he's not barred from his profession like a teacher, nurse etc. would be. Although I must admit, I did assume most rational people would be intelligent enough to make that distinction. In your case, I won't make that error again.

Firstly I think Steve Bruce's comments are said with good intentions because of the media attention against Evans but ill advised because as previous contributors have said would he be prepared to sign him if he was good enough. There would be a massive out cry against I am fairly sure.
As regards the conviction. I agree with others that it is difficult to understand, after reading the evidence in a previous post, why one was convicted and the other not.
Should he be allowed to play football again? Yes. Why? Because as it has been pointed by others there are players who have committed crimes and have been to prison and are now playing or have played after serving their time. He has served his. However what club in their right mind would sign him and risk the backlash of the supporters and probably loss of income to the club, after all the media attention and the nature of the crime?

Rehabilitation is NOT a right. It is a choice made by the offender.

In the full sense of the word rehabilitation can only be achieved by the offender taking full responsibility for their crime and demonstrating their contrition by word as well as deed. Rehabilitation is not 'ours to give'.

There are very few professions that would welcome a convicted rapist returning to their previous career path full stop and even fewer that would do so without the offender having shown any remorse or made any apology to their victim. Soccer stars are are idolised by many and, given Evans' attitude, it would send entirely the wrong message to the youth of today for this convicted rapist to be welcomed back into the fold as if he is blameless.

Regardless of individuals' opinions regarding the rights and wrongs of this case, he remains a convicted rapist whose appeal was thrown out. If/until that status changes that is how he must be judged. As he believes he is innocent, and has shown no contrition, nor made no apology to his victim, how can he undertake his rehabilitation? He doesn't admit there is a crime for him to undertake rehabilitation from.

Every person who meets the criteria has a right to undergo rehabilitation, so yes, it's his choice to make but having made that choice it is no less his right


That's a romantic idea, but it's not how the law sees it at all.


Again, why should he apologise for something he knows he hasn't done?
Also, football is littered with convicted criminals, as is rugby. Some have even killed and been accepted back into the game.


Again, under the law he doesn't have to. You could even argue that because he knows he didn't commit a crime, why does he have to be rehabilitated at all?