Ched Evans

[jeds]

I expect most know the story. My question is; I was always under the impression that you had to acknowledge the crime in order to qualify for parole. Was I wrong or have things changed?

 

[Brigadier]

AFAIK, he's not finished his sentence yet; although out of jail, he is still on licence.

If he thinks his only crime is cheating on his missus (which he himself has said), there is no logical reason why he wouldn't do the same in future. So, he must still pose a threat to women?

I think that the idea of banning him from playing football is as much based on the politics of envy, than it is on anything else - he's only there to boot a ball into a net, isn't he?

That said, if I ran a high-profile "business" where a slight on its reputation or standing could cost millions in sponsorship etc, I'd have my lawyers redrafting the terms of employment.

 

[JBR]

I had to google that, but I suppose that not being interested in football I wouldn't know.

Isn't it quite usual for all prisoners to be let out of prison long before their sentence is up? I suppose it may be something to do with prisons being so full that they have to make room for all the newly convicted criminals.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Football is what it is. I blame blokes who pay to watch it. Millions of twots who couldn't run a bath waxing lyrical about how to run a ball.

 

[jeds]

I had to google that, but I suppose that not being interested in football I wouldn't know.

Isn't it quite usual for all prisoners to be let out of prison long before their sentence is up? I suppose it may be something to do with prisons being so full that they have to make room for all the newly convicted criminals.

I agree, everybody seems to get out after about 5 minutes these days. But I have always thought you had to acknowledge your crime to qualify for parole. Which he hasn't done.

 

[gigz]

He's apparently appealing to get the conviction squashed.

 

[jockscott]

Isn't it quite usual for all prisoners to be let out of prison long before their sentence is up?

Aye the law's bloody stupid on this. Someone pleading guilty, automatically receives 1/3rd off their sentence. With good behaviour in prison they are often released after half the sentence has been served (and remember any time spent on remand is taken off too) If I was a judge, I'd give them maximum sentences all the time.

 

[gas112]

Was he actually guilty in the first place or a stupid guy set up by someone who got guilt pangs the morning after

 

[Brigadier]

Was he actually guilty in the first place or a stupid guy set up by someone who got guilt pangs the morning after

Given that it actually got to court, he was convicted by a jury in fuller possession of the evidence than anyone on here (neither of which is common, in sexual assault cases), you might want to accept the possibility that he was "guilty".

 

[ellal]

Was he actually guilty in the first place or a stupid guy set up by someone who got guilt pangs the morning after

Given that it actually got to court, he was convicted by a jury in fuller possession of the evidence than anyone on here (neither of which is common, in sexual assault cases), you might want to accept the possibility that he was "guilty".

I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...

But might you want to accept the possibility that there are actually innocent people in prison?

 

[jockscott]

But might you want to accept the possibility that there are actually innocent people in prison?

Yes, they're called warders.

 

[ellal]

But might you want to accept the possibility that there are actually innocent people in prison?

Yes, they're called warders.

Plenty of bent 'screws'

Or worse

 

[Brigadier]

Was he actually guilty in the first place or a stupid guy set up by someone who got guilt pangs the morning after

Given that it actually got to court, he was convicted by a jury in fuller possession of the evidence than anyone on here (neither of which is common, in sexual assault cases), you might want to accept the possibility that he was "guilty".

I have no idea whether he is guilty or not...

But might you want to accept the possibility that there are actually innocent people in prison?

Not a problem for me.

 

[terrypin]

I expect most know the story. My question is; I was always under the impression that you had to acknowledge the crime in order to qualify for parole. Was I wrong or have things changed?

He didn't get parole, he was released on licence at the half sentence point just like every prisoner who receives a 'determinate' prison sentence.

Only those who receive an 'indeterminate' sentence apply for parole.

 

[jeds]

I expect most know the story. My question is; I was always under the impression that you had to acknowledge the crime in order to qualify for parole. Was I wrong or have things changed?

He didn't get parole, he was released on licence at the half sentence point just like every prisoner who receives a 'determinate' prison sentence.

Only those who receive an 'indeterminate' sentence apply for parole.

That's not what the gov.uk website says. It says you can apply for parole for 'determinate' sentences of 4 years or longer. In other documents (from different sites) it says those who deny their crimes will only be eligible for parole at 2/3 of the sentence and gives clear recent examples of people who serve longer because they will not admit their crimes. Others who acknowledge their crimes are allowed parole at 1/2 sentence. So there is some truth in it but I can't find anything definitive.

The point is this bloke refuses to acknowledge that any crime took place. He admits what happened but apparently thinks what he did was ok. He acts like he can't understand what all the fuss is about. The logical conclusion of that is he would happily go and do the same thing again. Why not, he's done nothing wrong! And then he wants to be allowed to play professional football in front of thousands (hundreds - I don't know?) of screaming, admiring girls. It just sounds wrong to me.