The big difference is obviously intent. The deliberate nature of Ranger's crimes is what differentiates him from a Chapman or a McCormick. If you look at the actual actions of the individual involved rather than the ultimate outcome, it seems clear to me that an extended (10 years+) history of deliberately violent, dishonest and hate-filled acts is reflective of a significantly more contemptible character than either Chapman or McCormick. It's not just the extent of the crimes, either: I am also very glad we didn't sign Ched Evans, as, again, in my book the deliberate nature of rape makes it a far worse crime than stupidly getting behind the wheel of a car when drunk, and it is not a crime I want associated with the club of which I am so proud.But it was alright for a drunk driver who killed 2 children and permanently disabled another person to play for us, as it gave him a chance. If and it is a big if Ranger can put all the s**t that has happened behind him for good and do what he is capable of doing.....then why not? Although one error and its bye bye
I just don't understand anyone here saying 'oh come on, let's give him his one last chance, let's see if he can 'put all the s**t that has happened behind him'. Again, he has CONSISTENTLY been in trouble with the law for over a DECADE - what on earth makes you think that joining Oxford United is going to be some moment of divine intervention for him that turns his morals and character completely on their head?