Former Everton player will not be charged

Hope he can sue them.

Probably little chance of anybody being able to sue as the statement below, indicates a lack of evidence available at this time.

A statement from Greater Manchester Police read: 'The investigation team and Crown Prosecution Service have been working together and reached the decision that the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold set out on the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Could be interesting developments...

Meanwhile, Ivan Toney, who has been found guilty on his own admissions for betting irregularities plays on and is helping Brentford stay in the PL.

Very skewed. I appreciate they are miles apart in terms of the alleged offence but is it fair ? I don't think so

I appreciate the allegations were serious and had to be looked into but the damage done to "the player who cannot be named", his family, and our club is incalculable.

Basically, a complete fuck-up!!

At least 2 years of a player's career lost, probably more as I suspect he'll find it hard to get a meaningful contract.

Presumably we had to pay him when he was suspended so that has probably cost the club ٣M, or more if we could have sold him while he still had a year left on his contract.

Impact on CPS: nothing. Scandalous that it can take so long…

Would other clubs have reacted in a similar vein?

I've made my feelings known on this absolute travesty of 'justice' all along since the ridiculous decision taken by the club unilaterally (as far as I can tell) to suspend the player – who astoundingly still cannot be named 'for legal reasons' that no-one seems able or willing to elucidate.

Why did the club not bend over backwards to protect his identity — especially if he 'cannot be named for legal reasons'??? Surely there was absolutely no need to suspend him, if they had the option to completely avoid doing anything whatsoever to provide any kind of identifying clues of any kind, and instead acted as they should have done to protect his identity.

Yes, I know with social media it would have been all over the place in any event... but that is not the point. The point should be (1) "innocent until proven guilty", and (2) identity protected at all costs. The utter incongruity of the club stepping forward of their own volition and announcing that they had suspended some unnamed player – for what exactly? – can only be the utmost in crass virtue signalling of the worst possible kind – guaranteed as it was to destroy at a stroke what remained of the professional football career of one of our better players at the time.

How much of an impact this atrocious episode had on creating the environment of a team in free-fall toward relegation that season is anyone's guess, and yes, perhaps that could not have been foreseen, but the lasting consequences of this sad and sorry episode leave a very very bitter taste in the mouth.

I remain and will always be utterly ashamed of the disgusting behaviour of Everton Football Club in this case, and especially the personnel who made the critical decision to announce to the world for no good reason whatsoever, that they had suspended one of their players in response to the action of the police.

The evidence does not meet the threshold. What they mean is they had only the word of the accuser!

Plus the fact that since he has gone we haven't had a fuckin' midfielder even half as likely to score the same amount of goals.

A complete royal fuck up if ever I seen one.

If we had carried on playing him there would be a circus happening at every game that would only serve as a huge distraction to the team. These were serious allegations and the club's decision has got to be seen in the light of the Saville, Hall, Glitter and Harris cases, where people asked quite rightly why nothing was done sooner.

The big question is why it has taken almost 2 years to come to the decision that there was no case to answer? There is no doubt the player's life both personally and professionally has been ruined by this protracted delay, and Everton have also suffered as a result.

He is going to be just waiting for someone to heckle him:

"Oy you, I know your embarrassing secret. You can't hide, it's definitely you. You're one of those that played in that Everton team under Koeman".

Poor sod!

The club should have taken the ‘innocent until proven guilty' approach in my opinion and tried to stay neutral.

If he hadn't have been suspended by the club and was ultimately charged with the alleged offence, how much damage to Everton's reputation as a family club would have been done?

It's an utterly sad and sorry affair and nobody comes out of a difficult situation, at all well, not the police, the player, the club, nor the person - if there was one - that made the allegations.

Trial by social media should be stopped too.

It is far too easy for people to seek their moments of fame by making allegations against someone famous which then colours real allegations as a result.

Its just a shame that the club who were totally innocent had to suffer the greatest loss and the player who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty had his playing career cut short albeit he continued to get a huge wage while biting his nails.

Totally agree with Michael's conclusion that IT IS virtue signalling of the worst kind. Who's surprised though - these arseholes are more bothered about opening some charity site than the actual football club that is on its arse and falling apart.

Newsflash for Bill - being virtuous and pretending to care doesn't get you points in the Premier League. They have conspired to completely ruin this lad's career, and have cost the football club so dearly. It's heart breaking what they have done. The fans deserve so so much better than you selfish, self-serving bastards.

Being in the legal profession (not police), there were obviously good grounds to arrest him, we have to accept that or it would not have happened. And the statement today on the current situation is open for him to be rearrested in the future, hence the ‘at this time' element of today's narrative.

As to what that refers to it could be anything to who had any computer access and nailing that down or the age of any victims, and of course they can get older and more mature and able to deal with the stress of giving evidence (I am only surmising here) but these are the two most frequent issues for any prosecution.

As for him suing any legal body, the conditions surrounding his arrest would have been well thought through weighed up against the evidence that was had at the time 2 years ago. I doubt he would have any redress there. And if he does believe he has, then would he really want to reopen these wounds?

In his defence, it seems the investigation was prolonged, but again there needs to be thorough information collection. From an Everton point of view as fans, you have every right to be annoyed at the outcome, but at this time he hasn't been exonerated, just had his bail cancelled. He wasn't charged or named in the press despite a lot of people knowing who he was, and to continue to play him would have been a nonsense. To compare this to Ivan Toney is hardly appropriate as these are clearly serious allegations.

He has done a great job at remaining out of the picture and maybe now it's time for him to continue to do so. It's an awful situation that has been left with people still unsure as to what he has done. He now has to decide, does he go for the throat or accept what ‘he' knows and draw a line under it? It's a tough one as a public response by him could open up all sorts of issues for him.

This has to be the worst nightmare facing anyone who, on the face of it, is innocent.

Two years is unacceptable, I realise covid got in the way, but it doesnt take that long to figure out you don't have enough evidence. Whether he was guilty or not he must be in a pretty bad place now, it always sounded unlikely to be true but unfortunately mud sticks and it's always going to be difficult for him to put it behind him.

It certainly looks like the club just cast him aside and left him to suffer the mental anguish on his own when other clubs have not done the same. Shame on you, Everton.

If they would have not suspended him and tried to make it go away or play it down, as in the other cases hinted at on here, his every appearance would have been a complete circus and given the type of allegations would have left him open to every vigilante and nutter around.

One way or another, this situation was going to be a tragedy for someone either the alleged victim if proven true or the accused himself. I do believe that Everton were dammed if they did or dammed if they didn't take some sort of action.

I'm not going to say he didn't deserve this or did deserve this given I have no idea of the details, it's possible he acted in a disgusting and illegal way but there was not enough proof to convict so I'm not going to get on my high horse about it either way.

However, the reality is that Everton FC have lost masses and masses of money over this and in my eyes someone else could and maybe should be held to account. We lost not only all the wages we have presumably been paying him this whole time but also a potential (say 㾶M) transfer fee we could have got for him should we have decided to sell before his contract was up.

Now, if said player had been found guilty with irrefutable evidence against him I would have wanted us to sue his ass off to recoup what we have lost. Now, if someone has just simply stitched him up, they have caused huge damage to him, his family, his reputation and the club. If that is the case, then I feel sorry for him and feel angry on behalf of Everton FC.

Crazy situation.

Agreed - as far as that can go. Continuing with him in the playing staff was obviously not possible whatever the realities. It's understandably a hugely emotive thing and the flames are massively fanned in the court of public opinion. No retractions or apologies later.

I think a statement reflecting that the player and club have arranged ongoing leave for him to meet the legal obligations or similar is more fair and balanced - but then this and the club would likely be attacked. It's a total media melee. I think too much is released or "leaked" from official channels today too.

"Trial by social media should be stopped too."

Amen to that. Say certain wrong words or call someone the wrong name - ton of bricks. Flagrantly libel someone... OK.

On top of the lack of apology is the threat of “the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold”. Disgraceful.

Can we re-sign him? On a lowish wage, he could do a job for us in the squad.

He was not acquitted of charges. It appears that the CPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any offence. They would have been in close liason with the Police throughout much of the 2-year investigation.

We may never know the details of the allegations nor the precise reasons why, ultimately, the decision not to proceed was made. What it is fair to conclude is that the career of a prominent footballer, and his reputation, have been destroyed.

The fact that it has taken so long to get to this stage is appalling and unacceptable. I do hope that there will be a clear and comprehensive explanation for the sake of everyone affected.

A certain acquaintance of mine, legally represented a certain Man Utd international player, who was similarly accused during his Unitde tenure.

His legal team put in place a Super Injunction which imposed a restriction on all parties involved – police, judiciary, legal teams both prosecution & defence – of all/any public disclosure, and most definitely all/any media publication.

Said player continued to be selected by both Man Utd and his country (having not been found guilty of any alleged crime) prior to the conclusion of all legal aspects of the allegations, in his favour. Finally returning to his homeland at the conclusion of his contract, having been able to continue with his career, and with both his bank balance and reputation in tact.

It's most unlikely that anyone can identify said player, and that's as it should be, given none of the allegations were proven and he was not found to be guilty. Compare this to how the police, judiciary, defence counsel and EFC handled this case.

One word: SHAMEFUL.

According to Sky News (Sept 2022) "1,244 people have currently spent more than one year on remand. A total of 219 people have spent more than two years in prison and the number waiting three years or more is 314" – all waiting for their case to be decided.

I suspect many more have been on bail, waiting for their case to be heard. And Ministry of Justice statistics show that around one in five people on remand are not subsequently given a prison sentence.

Sky News: "Penelope Gibbs, from Transform Justice, says the situation is 'getting worse every day'. Around one in 10 are acquitted completely, raising the possibility that growing numbers of innocent people are spending years in prison for crimes they did not commit".

It seems that resources aren't sufficient to dispatch justice to those on remand and those on bail, apart from any industrial action by court staff and barristers.

Defence counsel – what have they done or not done given that this case hasn't been to court?

As for Everton – were you privy to discussions between the club and player? Maybe the player asked for time away to clear his name which the club agreed to?

We don't know anything about this case other than gossip and tittle-tattle.

Can the CPS please send us a cheque for 㾻 million for the player's proposed transfer fee and wages and and another say 㾶m in damages for the club league position, then another 㿞m in damages to the club's reputation being associated with this. The 㿷m can be offset against the P&S rules and then we can walk away from this episode where everyone involved has lost.

Apparently that doesn't extend to an innocent individual whose allegation against them could just as easily have been spiteful and who rots away as their reputation dissolves. With no right of reply. Democratic? Protecting all involved? Like fuck.

And meanwhile, his employers treated him as guilty from the off and got rid of him on the quiet. What would Everton do?

The terms of that super injunction are what should be standard procedure right until commencement of trial.

Unnamed for legal reasons – but every other clue and hint fine, to the obvious conclusion.

Chris, I believe the club stated that it suspended the player.

Adds more weight to the conspiracy theorists' view that ‘the authorities' have an Everton agenda after the vocal opposition to the breakaway European Super League….

Arsenal have a foreigner who is on bail for rape and still playing, and a previous allegation of rape was quashed because legislation hadn't been in place!

None of us are privy to details so none of us can actually judge. Much as we think we can.

Proving a crime took place can be spectacularly difficult. Let's not judge the club on this as they were in a ‘no win' situation and judging in hindsight is total folly.

And if he were to be guilty of interfering with a minor (albeit difficult to prove) then I'm glad we took the moral high ground. Presumably there MUST have been some circumstantial evidence that suggested as much (albeit he ‘could' be innocent too). If there was intent without the action then that's still enough for me.

However, none of us knows so sometimes there's subjects out there that we simply aren't qualified to offer an opinion on.

And yet you do.

However, confining myself to the football angle, what is pretty clear is that we have lost, and for an extended period, a 㿙M footballer whose track record would suggest 10 goals a season from midfield.

Boy, could we have done with those goals.

The statement "...that the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold set out on the Code for Crown Prosecutors..." suggests to me that there is something but insufficient for a Crown Prosecution.

Sad as it may seem, I believe as a club we are well off divorced from this whole sordid affair. Shame though, as we could do with a non-maligned midfielder for the run-in this season given the shite Dyche is having to work with.

That doesn't mean that the decision to suspend wasn't done at the player's request or with his agreement.

We are all aware of the mistakes that our Board have made and this costly one can be added to the list. The player has had two seasons written off at the end of his natural career span. We have been robbed of some important goals and assists at a time when we have been very close to relegation.
It is an absolute mess.

What a surprise… Imagine the internal memos.

Some of what you say is true; some of it may be.

"Not having enough evidence to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt does not mean he's innocent either."

Having "enough" also results in the conviction of innocent people sometimes.

"Presumably there MUST have been some circumstantial evidence that suggested as much (albeit he ‘could' be innocent too). If there was intent without the action then that's still enough for me."

Presumably, circumstantial, suggested. This is why there is a process and procedure in place – that starts from a point of presumed innocence in this country. People can harbour thoughts of no smoke without fire forever after. Innocent people suffer this all the time.

Incidentally, people are frequently convicted for proven intent to commit various crimes so it would appear there is no evidence to prove intent in this case.

I agree that the club were in a no-win position. Much of the reason for this is the modern culture of public drama pre-trial.

Now here we sit with pretty big losses all round. A mess.

Football matters aside concerning the player in question, there must be a course of conduct that the player can take in order to redress his reputation and ask questions of the authorities as to why his life and career has been left in tatters?

You're right, it doesn't – but that's a guess, speculation. The club's statement said otherwise.

There has been an increasing backlog of cases that need to be handled by the courts, which is presumably why "he" has had to wait on bail for so long, just like hundreds of other people who have either been on bail or on remand for a long time – hundreds having been waiting longer than "him".

CPS staff cuts have very possibly contributed to these delays.

"The club's statement said otherwise"

Surely that's as speculative as my comment? The club confirmed the player had been suspended...t hat's all we know. It may have been done with or without the player's agreement. We simply don't know.

As a society, we have to expect these things will be investigated and people taken seriously. At the same time, there seems a huge penalty regardless of guilt or innocence.

Given that those in the justice system know this, you'd think that speed of resolution would be important. 2 years to decide there's not enough evidence is a disgrace.

As for the club, they couldn't win. No-one wins in this situation.

The partey at the center of allegations at Arsenal is also widely known. I don't understand the logic of the "you cannot name a suspect," but you can say where he works, where he lives, his age etc and that it's not the one other player at Everton who seemed to meet the criteria based on those factors.

Surely they should make it that you can't say anything about the suspect at all otherwise it makes a mockery of the situation.

No speculation from me; I'm simply going with what is known, available information versus what we don't know.

You said it – we simply don't know. We do know they said they suspended him, nothing more.

Everton can confirm it has suspended a First-Team player pending a police investigation. The Club will continue to support the authorities with their inquiries and will not be making any further statement at this time.

Any subtle differences to speak of? I know libel standards are very different.

No Everton FC board or chairman, is bigger than Everton FC.

Focus on the game tomorrow, beat Fulham, and keep the same focus for every game, until the end of this season.

Then, and hopefully then, at the end of this season, Everton can start a new era, in the EPL, with a new board.

UTFTs!

I agree we don't know if the suspension was agreed or imposed but you seem to be speculating that it was obviously the latter.

I'm admitting I don't know but suggesting there's nothing in the club statement which rules out the possibility that it was mutually agreed as the best course of action for both club and player.

As we know, almost everything to do with the UK government is dysfunctional (apart from the military and the traffic wardens), so put the two together and you end up with a man whose career is ruined, and without any compensation or comeback.

"Greater Manchester Police is committed to investigating allegations to secure the best possible outcomes for all involved and will continue to work with partner agencies to ensure individuals are supported throughout investigations and beyond." - What ever the fuck that means

'South Yorkshire Police, you've taught us well' - alleged comment by Greater Manchester Police spokesperson.

Ed @ 64; technically yes - but in real terms the mud will stick

There have been many, many posts over many months criticising how the matter has been handled by the Club, the police and the CPS.

The fact that your posts received only one supportive reply means absolutely nothing.

I know what you're saying and yes, I am really insofar as the usually perceived implication and tone of that statement.

The club could as easily have said they will both help authorities and support the player and his family as necessary (him being lawfully innocent at the time), or have arranged ongoing leave for him to meet the legal obligations as I posted earlier, or similar.

Perhaps simply, agreed a suspension - but that is never heard, as it goes against the concept of what a suspension generally conveys.

I'd say the statement did what the club intended: showed itself decisive and reactive to the gravity of the situation. No concession to the player whatsoever.

The discussions behind it, who knows – no information.

Everton hung him out to dry when they could have stood by him. Not surprisingly, cowardly and shithouse behaviour by this current passive and submissive regime.

Innocent until proven guilty. Don't shy away from the truth.

The player should now sue. The club, if it had any balls, should question loss of a player that could have made a big difference.

I don't mind mentioning his name as we know who it is, but had Sigurdsson been available last season and potentially this one, I doubt we'd have been in the situations we have been in and are in now.

Most importantly, I hope the individual can now rebuild his life with his family.

Everton pretty much abandoned him. It fell into the all too difficult to deal with and awkward pile. They washed their hands of him. It's shameful treatment in my view. Submissive rather than standing up and fighting. Why should I be surprised?

Meanwhile once terrace idol Graeme Sharp will probably avoid Goodison by choice tomorrow when many of us will be there to support the team, many travelling, others getting up at ungodly hours to watch.

They really don't deserve us. But they have us. And it's our club, not theirs. Sooner rather than later, that is going to be realised.

Lets get through tomorrow and this season.

As Jerome says, we might get a shot from midfield. Maybe score a free kick!

Took that from a headline.

But what you say is true. These type of cases, more often than not, always end up with that kind of result .Two years of hell and the party accused is happy to walk away and never seeks redress. It happens every day now.

It has now become quite common for the male partner to find himself accused as a tactic to break the bond with the kids. A year of fighting to see them, then supervised visits and cleared after 2 years. Redress never sought because, at last, the hell is over.

Good luck, Siggy.

There is a threshold of evidence that the CPS need in order to charge. Effectively the prosecution need to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that it never happened.

Also doesn't mean it did happen. Don't speculate. All parties will have to put it behind them and move on.

Serious stuff this. Beyond all that football is about. Believe me.

I used to work in criminal law. Paedophile pornography is almost always circulated on the internet. It takes considerable amounts of time and money to try to find out from where in the world such illegal content originated. A criminal case requires that.

Then there's the extremely distasteful enterprise of trying to identify the identity and age of the various anuses, vaginas and mouths depicted. I've had to try to do that. It's hideous but a UK criminal case requires that too.

So, Sigurdsson aside, we have a system in this country where lives can be ruined by our very lengthy, underfunded, inadequately staffed legal investigative "system" (for many years).

Dave Jones was accused of non-internet offences yet it took the authorities yonks at that time to exonerate him. I believe it damaged his life. He's never received redress.

Whether or not Sigurdsson is as truly innocent as Davey was is known by Sigurdsson alone.

And if he truly is, that's very tough on him.

I'm not saying you're wrong and maybe you've better info than me. But the story I heard from a Manchester journalist before the story broke and from Everton fans after it did was that the suspect engaged a prostitute who was underage and he may or may not have realized that. Then her family tried to blackmail and he contacted the cops on account of the alleged blackmail but obviously the cops were like “blackmail apart – she's a minor.”

Thereafter, the case collapsed as you basically had alleged criminals on either side of the equation. So being generous it sounds like a honey trap with a girl made to look older? But as I say you may know more than me; I don't have any first-hand information.

Don is right in that there is probably no way in hell that anyone can confirm or deny age-related porn on the internet, but the names of those buying it is trawled through by criminal gangs and cyber theft. There can't be many well-known people with his name...

Is prostitution illegal? Of course under age is, but can you see any man asking for a birth certificate first??

As for the club – shameful. They were more afraid of the mud sticking to them than facts – or even support…
why am I never surprised anymore by this club?

As for the police... 2 years to say we haven't got enough to prosecute and he will face no further action seems to indicate the matter is concluded. Rather than he doesn't have a case to answer, they say there isn't enough evidence of a wrongdoing to prosecute.

They may well have ruined a life, cost a club millions of pounds and put him through hell for 2 years. Disgraceful by police and club, I believe a civil case against the accusers could be brought? But the damage has been done. The club and the police should apologise to the player and the police to the club.

The club should sack the individual concerned whose decision it was to suspended the player, for costing the club his value and his loss to the club.

A good friend of mine worked / ran the Met Police area that explored internet paedophilia and sought to prosecute perpetrators.

Notwithstanding the disturbing things he saw in the line of his work, one of his biggest challenges was dealing with staff who were frequently traumatised having to go through evidence to trace these creatures.

Back on subject and without downplaying the subject, did the club over-react when others didn't seem to?

The police obviously did this as he wasn't charged and they will have investigated the alleged crimes with a view to not only securing evidence to prosecute but to disprove those allegations. At times, the police can't do right for doing wrong in some people's eyes.

As I wrote to a fellow ToffeeWebber in the UK earlier today – His career has been ruined and he likely has a case to sue 'some organisation' for damages and potential loss of income.

Too many do-gooder woke people around these days. driving me crazy.

His contract ended so he goes as a free agent, to sign for whomever? There seems to be only one loser in all this: Everton FC and the fans, all the legal people whether that be Defence or Prosecution all get paid for preparation of a non-case. The player picks up chunks every week, while we are totally deficient of his creativity in midfield, and resort to playing donkeys like Dogshit Davies and company.

In the words of a Joe Brown and the Bruvvers song "What a Crazy World We are Living In". No wonder we are in the financial whirlpool we find ourselves in, although this couldn't have been foreseen or predicted, but there are plenty of other instances where they have been like Al Bundy dishing out dollars to all and sundry, even the family dog! :-)

Strewth Bruce! COYB 💙💙👍

Shortly after the news broke about this unnamed footballer and his ‘crime', I played in a golf charity match with three policemen, one retired. The honey trap/blackmail scenario was told to me back then, two years ago. His only crime appeared to be contacting someone who turned out to be underage, but apparently looked years older. Two years is a disgraceful length of time to come to a conclusion.

I think it's reasonable to ask why this was not done. Why did the club not realise on the evidence of previous cases that this would not be resolved quickly?

Why did they see the need to publish anything whatsover and thus actively participate in his 'outing', despite whatever legal reasons supposedly existed that he could not be named?

Why did they choose this path rather than protecting their asset by way of a supper injunction or whatever means was clearly available, at least until (and only if) the case eventually got to court?

We've had a few posters on this thread citing a legal background or professional experience in that realm. I was not able to find what legal requirement, restriction or – as Lyndon now claims – 'media convention' exists in this regard of him not being named. Anyone care to indulge me in explaining where this is written?

Yeah, I know those that are accused go through hell, particularly if innocent and the situation is unclear for them regarding evidence.

A Solicitor friend tells me that his advice to any client if cleared after coming through such a investigation is to move on and walk away

Jeff#90

I can only speculate that case is different in some way, not knowing the facts.

One of the Partey charges has already been dropped BTW.

Nothing here is black & white, so using other cases to prop up an argument about our unnamed 31yr old, doesn't really hold much weight.

Then perhaps the problem here is the standard operating procedure that requires anyone accused of something to be suspended, given that can take years and destroy someone's life. The status quo here is absurd. So is the police statement; 'to secure the best possible outcome for all involved'. That clearly hasn't happened.

Suspending a footballer but then saying you won't name him for confidentiality reasons is another absurdity. That simply cannot work in practice.

If it really isn't possible to conclude no further action sooner than a couple of years, then investigations have to be private not publicly announced, and the individual has a right to continue to work unless and until charged and indeed in this case the employer has a right not to suffer financial loss until that point.

I haven't seen the ‘joke' to which you refer or the photo of Davies.

My information came face to face with serving policemen.

Michael, come on, Man.

I understand this event naturally draws strong opinion but we all have to eat, and sometimes this is in the late evening or night.

It is absurd but that is the way it is.It is a system that evolved after years of abuse that was covered up and hidden, with collusion amongst individuals, organisations and the authorities.

It is open to abuse in that when a couple breakup in some cases, the male partner finds the police knocking on his door and being taken to the police to be questioned.He then finds that his partner has accused him of abusing the Children.He is barred from going home to the house or seeing his children. It then takes a year of legal process to get to see his children in a neutral location, observed by two social workers for one year.It is only then he able to get his visiting rights after being found innocent. He will be out alot of me money going throught the process. This is happening all over the UK.

Sigurdsson had the money to fight the case and he could go home to Iceland for a break.He did not have to fight for viewing right.

The other thing is the database for sexual offenders prosecuted he huge and being added to on a daily bases, meaning alot are being caught and punished by the process.I know a policeman who is a Sergeant in a Abuse investigation unit, who tells me everything has to be thoroughly investigated, because you do not know what it will turn up.He says nothing surprises him and he still can be shocked.

Link

Well there you go; wide-reaching destruction comes to nought.

Whether anyone in the process thinks there is no smoke without fire or feel sure he got away with one, I really dislike the "does not reach the threshold set out on the Code for Crown Prosecutors” line.

As the law and its operation stands — innocent.

It does not state exactly what the thresholds are, where or why they are not reached, or comment on the accuracy or validity of any possible crime, nor assign fault. In short, it can stuff up a life without recourse and ruin it forevermore whilst simply stating there is not enough evidence.

On its own, such a statement is a dreadful outcome for all concerned as the ruination for the accused, rightly or wrongly, will be with them for the rest of their life.

One has to ask questions of suspending the player so quickly and without letting the law run its course. He lost a career, reputation, and probably so much more privately; we lost face and the ability and sell/on value of a 㿔M+ player.

On what basis was the call made without all the facts coming in?

To many Siggi is tainted — but why did we suspend him? His input as a footballer would have improved us, obviously, regardless of the sordid allegations against him — but we damaged ourselves and him by doing what we did.

Right now, Arsenal have a certain very skilful party in their team when physically fit, who's been on bail in respect of two allegations of rape for most of the season.

They didn't suspend him. They played him and they benefitted as a club — innocent as he is until convicted.

It almost makes you believe that we're run by morons who are entirely detached from reality.

It's a train wreck all around. There could be lawsuits, and maybe there will be —but the damage is done.

Hard to measure or prove with any accuracy but it might have cost us our league status too.

"On what basis was the call made without all the facts coming in?"

That would be, being in the post-millennium era.

The difficulty for Sigurdsson is that the CPS said no charges would be brought, not because they didn't have any evidence but that they didn't have enough, or enough of sufficient quality to meet their 'threshold'.

For him, and anyone else in that situation, that's a very damning statement and implies they thought there were charges to answer. It's a sort of trial by the CPS rather than a judge and jury and stinks.

Did Everton act hastily? Maybe but, by the very nature of the charges, Sigurdsson would have been crucified in every away game.

If he was innocent of the charges, it's ruined his reputation and, his post-Everton income, cost Everton dearly in suspending a player on full pay until the end of his contract and losing any sell-on value before then. In addition, our failure to replace him contributed to two relegation near-misses.

That would require 1) finding out who it was and 2) proving the information was false. I think it unlikely that either is possible.

That's the problem with the CPO statement, it implies the worst but without adequate proof and then drops any charges but leaves the door open should adequate proof be found. If you actually are innocent of anything, and who knows what actually happened, then this is a life ruined.

We have a prominent footballer who has been accused of something (we don't actually know the details, even if we think we do) where there is insufficient proof or no proof... that's when the accused becomes the victim?

If Sigurdsson did what he was accused of but is not being brought to trial, it's horrendously unfair to the victim(s).

If Sigurdsson didn't do what he's accused of, he has unfairly lost his career and reputation.

Compared to either of those situations, I'm sorry but the so-called unfairness to Everton doesn't even crack the radar. When people's lives have been destroyed, the club's lost transfer fees fade into insignificance, at least for me.

No, I think the actually decision to proceed or not needs to be justified. The facts as outlined and why the CPS made the decision. Clarity would not be left hanging. The statement still condemns the accused and denies them the opportunity to clear their name. A civil case could be brought by either party or by the other but most likely both (depending on truth) will walk away and we will never know.

The tenant of Justice, innocent until proven guilty, is reversed: guilty until proven innocent. That surely is not right either.

One suspects the detail to come out somewhere now there is no prosecution. (Media?)

Could you explain why you make this distinction in wording?

'horrendously unfair to the victim(s).'

If Sigurdsson didn't do what he's accused of, he has unfairly lost his career and reputation.

From reading the comments, I guess it is a sign of transitioning into a society that assumes guilty before being proven innocent rather than the opposite.

I'm just surprised it took so long for the authorities to come to this conclusion, when it seems the Police handed over their findings last January according to that link.

Meanwhile Everton's (non) leadership sat on their hands. Done nothing, said nothing and abandoned the player.

We know the feeling.

Oh sorry, wrong thread…

Unfortunately, once the media gets hold of this stuff that balance is thrown way off and both the accuser and the accused lose.

Particular in todays "tweet take" culture once it gets out to the public, you can kiss any hope of a thorough investigation goodbye.

I don't understand woke either.

My interpretation is a generation that doesn't like being criticised and doesn't like being disagreed with.

Whereas you and I probably grew up occasionally being told we were a dickhead and gobshite and either argued it or accepted it. We don't always agree.

And nor should we be outraged if we don't agree. Otherwise we'd be Kopites.

My simplistic view of life!

The true irony of the woke is pretending to have empathy and care for people whilst calling out people who oppose woke ideology as non-empathetic and uncaring.

Pretty much sums it up for me: think like you or else.

That story is now 2 months old and we covered it here on this thread, where I have relocated your post and the ones that followed it.

You are correct if the empathy is not genuine, Absolutely I agree with you and apologise if my comment came across as a judgement.

I am not suggesting everyone has to agree with a certain point of view, but personally for me I just think that inclusion and considering people's circumstances isn't something that should be ridiculed.

I accept my comment above was flippant and a bit simplistic but seeing a lot of the accusations of 'woke' in social media, I don't think learning and understanding of people overall and adjusting one's behaviour around that isn't a bad thing, certainly not scorn worthy.

Again, this hot take culture seems to demand we are either a or b on a topic all the way. You see it whether the topic is football, society, politics etc.

Why don't we consider the grey area more?

I've always considered myself left. However, woke took the left to the extreme. It demanded we stop white people getting jobs (apparently this kind of discrimination is “positive”), created a month-long celebration of what kind of sexual preference you have (as long as it's not hetro!) and invited kids along. It demanded rewriting of history and literature, and great great great grandkids paying money for something their ancestors did.

For me, it is the opposite of inclusion. It is hate and division, forced on people at threat of social exclusion or worse.

This'll be my last post on it, I have too much joy of the club to break it with politics… I'm sure some woke are in the grey area you call. But many are not, and they are just as dangerous as those on extreme right too.

I always thought of myself as reasonably intelligent, but forgive me if I say after reading your last post, that I am obviously of a generation that calls a spade a spade (the iron kind, nothing implied).

I am so confused by the use of "woke" – I ignore it and make my own assumption. In years gone by, if I was out of line, as Danny said, I would get a mouthful or a smack around the back of the head.

The emergence of mass media social outrage of anything you can imagine is far worse than the days of being politically correct. I understood that term, but not “woke”…

Every morning, I was glad I woke up, still am. I am glad to be happy and enjoy life with gay abandon, but this land of righteous indignation at something that you have no experience of, do not understand (but have a viewpoint) and does not affect you or yours in anyway, a bland facsimile of reality, where I am not gender neutral, (who is?), not gay but happy, and if I can say no good about something I know nothing about, I keep my mouth shut.

My life used to be simple… I am a blue. I woke up.

Fair enough. I hear what you are saying. I'd agree that any extreme is wrong.

Anyway, let's go Toffees and celebrate the opening of the new stadium with a Champions League trophy presentation. (Sorry – just heard a cover of King Of Wishful Thinking, I guess I was inspired…)

I once had a very interesting debate with those Momentum people who held a protest outside Uxbridge Civic Centre a few years back. They were basically calling me a war criminal.

I countered and calmed them down. It's interesting what you can do with a bit of life experience versus lack of knowledge. I looked them in the eye, stood my ground and had them eating out of my hand.

Interesting bunch. I don't mind hearing opinions and views. Sometimes they make me think and consider. But I don't appreciate having them rammed down my throat as if they have the right to think that theirs is right.

I form my own, but listen to others. You can learn. A principle of leadership; you have two ears, so listen twice as much as you speak.