But also once we stop scrutinising it, we open it to abuse.

Very true, and scrutinise we should, where and when it's apprpriate. In this case it's been over scrutinised simply because he's a footballer. If he was a builder, bin man etc it wouldn't be. We have had trial by jury. We have had a failed appeal. And now he's hoping to over turn those verdicts. If he does (which I doubt very much he will) win an appeal then it's a whole new ball game. But I have yet to read anything that makes me feel he will clear his name. That's not to say he has to accept the decision, but all of us on here should as we do not know enough to question it.

Generally speaking though when you have 12 totally independent jury members it is very hard to claim any abuse. It takes a lot of work by police CPS barristers, QCs etc to get a case to trial. I'm sure any abuse would have been recognised way before the appeal.
Even during a trial the police and CPS don't stop the work. So yes by all means scrutinise but once all avenues are exhausted accept decisions which ever way they go.

Totally agree about how trials come about and how they go once they start.I have done jury service twice and its a minefield once it starts,points of law is the big one,lost count how many times we went out.

Rehabilitation should be afforded to all, no matter what the crime. That doesn't mean that certain criminals should be let back into society at all or as if nothing happened but as a very famous & one of the greatest minds of his time once said
"A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals."
It's as applicable today (probably more so) as it was almost 150 years ago...

We punish but fail to rehabilitate & treat criminals and that is one of the many prime reasons why criminals continue on in a life of crime after their punishment, much of which perpetuates itself through generations and as we are in a broken society with crime increasing (certainly in this country) turning the tide just isn't going to happen any time soon.

Well, quite. But the desire to enter into rehabilitation has to be there with the individual, otherwise it will fail. Ask any recovering drug addict, alcoholic or, indeed, released prisoner who has no intention of returning to gaol.

But Evans believes he is innocent. Therefore he doesn't recognise the need for rehabilitation. How can you recover from a crime you're accused of perpetuating if you don't accept a crime has been committed?

Ched Evans does have the right to look for work again. Even to try and resurrect his football career.

The thing is, though, the fans/public/sponsors etc also have a right to say whether or not they want him at any particular club. This is just as they do with any player, it's just that in this case the weight of opinion appears to be heavy enough to actually have some ramifications for the clubs so far. Football has been morally bankrupt for a fair while, which is why his proposed moves have broken down because of the financial impact, not any moral judgement by the clubs concerned.

To me, there's a subtle difference between somebody being banned from doing something, and somebody not being wanted. A possible analogy would be that once Rolf Harris is released he is free to paint or make TV programmes, but don't expect people to queue up to buy/watch.

As is so often the case on here, people need to remember that a sports club is very different to any other type of business/employer, and one of these differences is the amount and type of stakeholders they have.

The same one as the members of the jury did.

Those who actually have law degrees were prepared to defend him from the allegations made.( It seems okay for the CPS to support in court an individual who broke the laws of the land and had controlled drugs in her system despite doing everything they can to save money and NOT proceed in cases where some witnesses have previous convictions which are not so serious.)

cod'head wrote - Much of the game of professional soccer is still steeped in misogyny, it's high time they dragged themselves into the 21st century

Of course it is.That is why the WAG's are rushing away in their droves.

Out of thousands of soccer players over the past 5 years through their clubs scattered around the nation only Marlon King and Ched Evans have made the news for their actions.Please add to the list of all the people steeped in misogyny - or can I just accept that Evans was an easy target, and an easy conviction,and the general public are beyond ridiculous?

There is one decent bloke out there - rlHererl

had drugs in her system so it was her fault she was raped?

Are you for real. Those with Law Degrees defended the killers of Lee Rigby. They defended Peter Sutcliffe, they defended anyone who has gone through a court process. Its called a fair judicial system. Without it it is liable to abuse on a large scale.
The fact that she had drugs, drink etc in her system does not make her fair game for abuse. I may well be reading too much into your comments and if I am I apologies but having read it several times I think you are treading on decidedly dodgy ground. In your world any lady drunk on a street in Hull on Friday night (or any other time of the day, or any other place in the world) is open to abuse. Then if they are abused the CPS, Police, courts etc should simply say unlucky lady, you got what you deserved.

As for your list I'll raise your two and give you Terry, Giggs, though I'd argue Coddy is being a little over dramatic, but it does have issues as does all sport. Golf and their no women policy (in some parts) being a main one. But then the moral standard in this country is supposedly set by the Church. Lets leave it there.

The difference being, of course, that Steve Bruce heard and saw all the evidence in court and the jury didn't...

Also, the jury's daughter's are best mates with Evan's girlfriend, whereas Bruce's family obviously have no connections whatsoever and made his comments free from all bias or influence......

my response was with regard to rehabilitation in general not specifically to Evans. even if he maintains his innocence he could well be rehabilitated in so far as not being a sloth of a human being. doing the dirty on his partner and picking up crack-head sluts..on that front I'm sure he has learnt a very hard life lesson, one he will regret for the rest of his life.

You might want to edit part of your post.

Rehabilitation does not necessarily mean a return to the offender's previous profession as swiftly as possible. I have already stated that I hope Evans is receiving counselling because I reckon he will be needing it. Instead of Gordon Taylor reverting to his "rent-a-gob[is[/ihite" default position, perhaps he would be better employed using the PFA's resource to ensure Evans is adequately counselled.