Rage Online

slappy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:12 pm Where do we draw the line on this morality scale of who plays for the club?
There are always tales going around of player X or staff member Y having affairs. Other examples given of killing people in motoring accidents /drink driving, assaults, racism etc

Is Ched Evans a risk to the women at the club? I'd say probably not on a day-to-day level - though if there was a players' night out, you probably wouldn't recommend a woman go back to Evans's place on the basis he is a bit "rapey".

EDIT - i get that a lot of the argument is not about risk or regret or apologies, but about whether he is a suitable role model / character at the club.

Also, say Cristiano Ronaldo said he wanted to come and play for us? He is currently under investigation for an alleged rape of a women in a Las Vegas hotel room, with rumours of pay-offs. Innocent until proven guilty? Or too good to turn down?

I get the point about the club not being the right body to determine morality. Affairs are not the same thing, as they are between consenting adults. Rape (of which Evans has been found not guilty) is illegal and by definition not between consenting adults. The law sets the absolute boundary, and as individuals we use that as a guide to morality. If an action or inaction is very close to being illegal, would you not agree that it is likely to be morally dubious at least?

On the Ronaldo case, I don't know the details, but I wouldn't want the club to sign a player who has been charged with rape or other serious sexual offence, no matter how good they were. As I said earlier, the bigger picture becomes more important.

In a no doubt miserable attempt to identify a vague line:
On the case of someone killing a person as a result of careless driving due to using a mobile phone, is that not a mistake? Without demeaning the crime and its horrendous consequences at all, if someone uses their phone whilst driving, it is not with aforethought of killing someone, hence it is "careless". When someone rapes someone else, it is a deliberately selfish and knowing act.

That aspect of knowing in conscience is an important dividing line imho in determining relative morality.

Its an interesting argument about where you draw the line, and I guess we all have different perspectives on that.

Adding to OYs comments, Chapman and McCormick showed remorse and, I believe, at least in McCormick's case (maybe Chapman as well?), worked to warn others subsequently. Evans has shown no remorse about his conduct. Not being found guilty of rape is one thing, but appearing not to think that his behaviour was in any way inappropriate towards a young woman is, to put it very mildly, distasteful - to myself and, judging by this (I have to say, excellent) thread, quite a few others as well.

The thing about morality and the drawing of lines, however, is that if there is an absolute right or wrong, then there are laws to deal with that (such as rape). Otherwise there are just shades of grey - about which, as OY says, we all have different perspectives.

I also think that fans have every right to voice their fears over signing players that they consider to be extremely morally dubious. This is not someone trying to get a job at a local supermarket, this is someone representing the club and city, whose name could well be chanted by thousands. If fans cannot express their moral judgements on who turns out for the club, then who the hell are we expecting will do it for us?

Thank goodness for that:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/footbal ... m8VKbtivxY

Jimski wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:11 pm Thank goodness for that:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/footbal ... m8VKbtivxY

Indeed, although I feel for FT, its staff and supporters.

I've just read through this thread. Credit to everyone for an adult conversation about this. I learned a thing or two.

It's nailed on that Evans comes on and scores Fleetwood's winner in this game, isn't it? (Hope not...

Well, if it wasn't him, then someone else. I hate Fleetwood...