Player investigated for 3 rapes still plays on...

I understand the rules protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences but can't find anything specifying similar protection granted to the suspect. Presumably it is to protect them in case they are ultimately found innocent?

(Is this perhaps an outcome of the Cliff Richards fiasco a few years back?)

But the actions of Everton FC in (a) suspending the unidentified player, and (b) making a big song and dance about the fact that they were suspending the unidentified player – were just an absolute fiasco. Everyone and their mother knew exactly who it was almost immediately, confirmed by news sources in Iceland, and by the omission of the unnamed player in any subsequent line-up, as promised by the club.

Why did Everton suspend him? With arguably drastic consequences to their subsequent season??? It seems to have been the club's choice, a completely unnecessary move to the massive self-inflicted detriment of their Premier League campaign.

There is an 8-minute YouTube summary from a guy in Poland back in February but it doesn't add much that is not already known.

I also saw a claim recently that the ex-Everton player who was suspended last summer has supposedly gone to Turkey and is playing for Galatasasry but I can't find anything that confirms this. It would seem strange if he's still under investigation that he would be allowed out of the country?

But he's not our concern anymore and best probably to expunge him entirely from our history. Yes, that would the woke thing to do. Totally destroy him and all he ever did for Everton FC.

As I said, what an utter fiasco.

Michael (1), the only reason I can think of for not playing the man from Iceland is that he would have received an awful lot of stick at every game, enough to put him completely off his game.

I think the player accused now will get this stick when he appears next week, I know who he is, or I think I do so he will be outed when he appears, whether he is guilty or not.

Michael

I did post on another thread before you wrote this post, that another Premier league player was under investigation by the Met police for rape. He was originally being investigated for 3 cases but they have dropped 1 case but are still investigating the other 2. The reason I posted was the unnamed club are intending on playing this player while the investigation goes on, which is the complete opposite to what Everton did. What I cant quite understand as well as the different approaches taken by both clubs is that after the Cliff Richard debacle the police were asked why they allowed his name to be made public. They claimed it was standard procedure to name any rape suspect to hopefully flush out anymore victims that were scared to come forward but would if they knew they weren't alone.

As far as I know thats still the standard procedure, but maybe somebody from the legal profession can say if this is still standard procedure to name a prospective rapist. Personally I think unless the person is charged no names should be put in the public domain as it must be awful to be named to be subsequently found completely innocent.

The case of the Everton player seems very, very complex, because it says on that video that he has still not been charged? Either way it has finished him because he's gone from a hero to a pariah in his homeland, and possibly because it's rumored that he hasn't denied any wrongdoing?

The Arsenal player involved in these current claims is obviously denying any form of guilt, and this has got to be why his club are backing him?

Tony

All I knew was the Met police were involved which made me think it was probably a London club but didnt know it was Arsenal and I havent a clue who the player is but as Dave said no doubt it will be out on twitter.

Regarding the Everton player's case this has been going on since last August, and it seems to only involve 1 person as I understand it so I cant understand after nearly 12 months why he hasn't been charged or released from bail. I would also think it would be against the law to leave this country while under bail restrictions, although maybe his lawyers got that lifted to allow him to continue earning a living now he is out of contract at Everton.
I assume Everton were paying him his 𧴜,000 per week while on bail.

The Everton one is strange. Obviously we don't know the details but I think Dave is probably close to the reasoning behind the club's decision.

His head will have been all over the place with that hanging over him, so as much of a loss on the pitch, he could have been a liability on it, so it was probably the right decision.

Unless there's a clear contractual right to do so an employer, in this case Everton, would NOT be entitled to suspend without pay under the circumstances.
A suspension shouldn't be seen as a punishment either but rather a "neutral act" in the interests of both the employer and the employee while the matter is investigated.

And rather than being a fiasco the club acted accordingly under very difficult circumstances. They made a statement where, by law, they couldn't name the player but it was always going to be obvious who it was by the fact that he was missing. So the club acknowledged the situation and made an announcement as to their actions while trying to protect the reputation of the club itself.

It seems some want to castigate this club at every opportunity.

City played Mendy for months after he was first arrested, I guess it's all about morals.

There's a couple of guys at work who reckon this guy is one of their's based on the address where he was arrested.

Everton did exactly the right thing in the case of the nameless one. He was under investigation for a serious crime and it would have been entirely inappropriate for him the come to work, particularly in a professional where the role operates so visibly in the public domain.

Equally, the club had to pay his salary as they would have been in breach of contract not to do so. If the police had concluded the investigation during his contract and charged him, he could have been sacked for gross misconduct if found guilty.

I think the club made the right decision in suspending him, even though that was very costly. The bile that would have been directed at him would have not only destroyed his game but would have affected the morale of his teammates and our own supporters too.

It could be argued that if the unnamed player was found to be guilty he should give this last years wages back to the club in full. Even though that may not be necessary legally, it would be the fair and decent thing to do.

Everton behaved properly having got advice.

There are several victims here.
The person that made the accusation.
His wife and kids.
Everton were also victims but obviously not at the scale of the above two.

What else could Everton do but suspend him? The fact that City played Mandy was outrageous but also underlines the standing of women in the country of its owners. We might moan and bitch about our current owners but credit to them for acting as they did.

My sympathies are only directed to wards the victim and the perpetrator's family. The club has a family-orientated standard that has had my backing for 60 years.

The police create this bizarre situation by the nature of their original but obtuse announcement. No-one has yet provided any explanation as to why the suspect is not named at that point. If he were, then all else would follow.

But if he can't be named "for legal reasons" then why is any announcement made at all? What public interest does it serve? Why not keep the matter in confidence until the police complete their investigation and either make charges or let it drop?

And if the player is not identified, then the next key decision is down to the club. If the police were maintaining the anonymity of the suspect, then why did the club say anything?

Why on earth did the club suspend him? For doing what exactly, if anonymity was being maintained???

Well obviously it wasn't being maintained, and only then does the logic of Dave @2 and Steve @9 kick in... and not before.

Although I still don't understand, Steve, why he could not continue to work if he was out on bail and still unidentified? Especially as these other players appear to have done so, with the agreement of their clubs, even after they were identified.

The player's name is all over the place so what's the point of it all?

A person accused of a crime is innocent unless proved guilty of a crime in a court of law. Since the unnamed Everton player was innocent of any crime and was not on remand, he should have been allowed to play for Everton last season.

But if any authorities objected to him playing, they should have compensated Everton for the loss of a player they were paying his salary to in full.

But if Everton took the decision to suspend him, then the ex-Everton player was entitled to be paid in full because he is still innocent of any crime.

Very good, Sean @11.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Michael, one can only assume it was an over-reaction by the club in the first place, probably knee-jerk with shock. But, as time has progressed without any charges being made, which in itself seems bizarre, then the club appears to have gone for the nuclear button and taken off its own foot!

Given the high profile of the player, an investigation would suggest a certain amount of speed but at what point do the police have to put up or shut up? If an allegation, where is the evidence? If they have evidence, is the CPS debating how good the evidence is? The longer it goes on, the interpretation must be that the case against him isn't that solid.

What ever happened his career in the epl is finished, probably everywhere if guilty. It's hard to judge if the club were too hasty but perhaps they are privvy to more information than we are. But the question mark hangs not just over the player, but the police – charge or drop... Sadl,y it's academic now.

The fact that he hasn't been charged after a 12 month investigation, show the complexity of this case, and you do wonder if there was an admittance, which made the club suspend him, but also a denial, about him being aware that he was allegedly with a minor?

Arsenal don't have Arab owners, and yet they are also playing their unnamed player, and didn't something similar just happen to the new Spurs player Bissouma, (although I'm not sure the allegations whilst serious, were so severe) but he has has since had the allegations dropped.

Has Mason Greenwood been charged yet? I know he was arrested on suspicion of rape and assault, but is currently out on bail. Anyway, he was suspended indefinitely by his club, and all his sponsors dropped him.

With this, and our player, as precedents, I'm not sure I understand why the unnamed player – who, as has been mentioned, has been named on Twitter – is still playing for his club and has kept all his sponsorship.

It's either innocent until proven guilty, or it isn't. Though given the very public nature of a pro footballer's life, it could be said that while a Premier League footballer is facing such a serious charge, it's best for him not to play.

Some good points there, Christine, but I think the timeline is crucial here. The Everton player was arrested and a police statement put out, then immediately the club posted its suspension statement. There was no time gap between his arrest and the club electing for the nuclear button.

Perhaps the motivation was to protect the reputation of the club, as Brian @7 suggests, and in so doing, they effectively throw him to the wolves because they had all but identified him and yes, there was no way he could play. But I still ask Why? Even though it is academic.

To attempt to answer Brian's original question, the only difference I can see – and somebody better versed can tell me if this is incorrect – is that the player was arrested for child sexual offences, and supposedly is given anonymity – whereas the others are cases of rape. It seems in Greenwood's and Mendy's case, their names were all over the UK news coverage.

I don't think England has a statute of limitations so presumably there is no timescale for bringing charges beyond what might be considered practical by the police and CPS themselves.

I don't think the police always have any inkling who is guilty but they are supposedly expected to assume the accusations have some merit unless they find evidence they do not. If the judicial system has been impacted or delayed during the pandemic, it may just suit them to keep someone under investigation ‘swinging in the wind' whilst they satisfy themselves no stone has been left unturned.

Against that, the player may have been able to negotiate a way to get on with his life as long as he remains in a country that would send him back if charges were brought.

In the pursuit of justice, sadly you can't always guarantee the innocent will get better treatment than the guilty (and that works on both sides of the accuser / accused divide). I don't think the club had a lot of practical choice especially since being accused of certain offences may attract a greater level of potential vigilantism than others.

As guilty verdicts can be reached on the subjective ‘reasonable doubt' or majority decisions, I don't think you can always claim it would be categorically fair to claw back any wages paid prior to the court case.

Michael (19), to be fair to the player Michael when you say the player was “Arrested for child sexual offences” the story going around was the victim was working in one of the oldest professions known to man,which puts the alleged offence in a slightly different light, there were other parts of the story which puts the victim less of a victim but obviously the stories are all hearsay.

One of the issues is that our criminal justice system has been underfunded for a long time and is falling apart at the seams – with many cases now taking 3-5 years to get to court.

I highly recommend reading the books by the Secret Barrister, most folk would then support the striking barristers and see how tragic the situation has become.

At first glance it seems like a case of - Justice delayed is justice denied. But it's probably more complicated than that...it always is with Everton.

Michael #15 where did I say he was guilty. When an accusation of this nature is made against a professional footballer there are many victims even if they turn out to be false. The club had no choice to put him on gardening leave. Social media had him in the frame and proven guilty before the club acted. Imagine every away game in the season just ended if he had played. It was probably felt it was in the club's and the players best interest for him to be put on gardening leave. As for his guilt or innocence I will leave that to the offices of the cps.

And the court system obviously

Sean, no crime is yet proven, so to call the accuser a victim at this stage kind of implies guilt of the accused.

The as-yet innocent accused has already suffered tangible loss, so would be arguably more a victim at this stage, should he finally prove to be innocent.

Arteta is used to playing racists at Man City.

Michael,

In this case, there is a minor involved so consent doesn't come into it. It is considered sexual activity with a child (statutory rape) and he was arrested, then granted bail which was later extended. Everton FC were absolutely correct in suspending him.

The suspect cannot be named to protect the underage victim; however, he was named in his native Iceland so is accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

In the case of the alleged Arsenal player, I believe it's an accusation of rape but not with a minor, although I'm not Partey to the finer details, but it's not comparing apples with apples. Just my guess but I imagine were it also a minor, then the club may have acted similarly to how Everton did.

Nice one Jim, crafty and diplomatic

It would be interesting to know how many of these cases would come out if the men involved were just average guys with little or no money!

Young modern players will have girls all over them but in most cases it's not because they are good looking guys, great in conversation or things like that. Some girls are just attracted to the stardom and money and, if they get rejected or hurt in some way, then it sometimes can end up badly for the player – especially if they have abused their fame by acting like pricks. Modern footballers could have a different girl on the arm every night of the week if the wanted… and some probably do.

In our player's case, he was married so definitely should not have been in that situation and he stands to lose a lot more than money and that's without mentioning his football career being over too. I hope in this case especially that his innocence is proven rather than an out of court settlement.

Most of us have been through the ups and downs of being young, sometimes stupid and I'm sure there are plenty of us who have caused hurt and of course been hurt.

Will Mabon @26 - that's poor logic.

Absolutely the law should not assume that suspects are 'victims' until proven guilty. Nor should they assume alleged victims, especially of sexual offences, are malicious accusers until a guilty verdict. The process is already toxic enough for victims of sexual assaults and abuse. The number of malicious accusations is hugely dwarfed by the pitiful number of sexual offences that are successfully prosecuted. Most rapists get away with it. Most true victims never see justice.

Each of these cases is no doubt complex and should be judged on its merits by those with actual knowledge of the case – so to compare the actions of the clubs, the CPS or police between Mendy, the Everton player and any other footballer's case – just because they have the same day job – is a bit silly.

The player was bailed until July, so I guess we'll see another update shortly.

The way the system works (or used to) Is that there are a couple of tests that have to be met before a prosecution proceeds:-

1) it must be in the public interest
2) it must have a good chance of winning. This used to be set at more than a 50% chance, so not desperately high.

Condition 1) is clearly met.

In high profile cases, this can spill over into “is the case of interest to the public?”, which isn't always the same thing, but also, they might be trying extra hard to be seen to be bending over backwards in a case like this.

Which possibly means, they have been unable to proceed because Condition 2) has not been met. If so, any further announcement may be enlightening.

It may well be a further bail extension, which is a “limbo” for the player, but both the police and the CPS have been getting hammered for the huge number of rape cases that don't make it to court, so it also has a political aspect as well.

This is the law we're talking about here, which is not always the same as justice.

Dave #21.

And there's lots of hearsay about this one mate. It might be that someone heard from quite a reliable source that the player was caught in a "honey trap" situation where say a girl of a certain age who intentionally attempts to make herself appear older in order to work in the industry of her choice, entices him to unknowingly commit a crime and then, with the assistance of her family, attempts to blackmail him for several million pounds.

When the player tells them where to go, it's only then that they involve the police. That could be what happened... and could be what was told to someone.

Strange days Dave for sure.

That's the story I got, Brian, about a player going to a escort agency and went with a girl who'd given a false age. He was, as you say, then asked to pay up lots of cash, which he refused to do. Don't know who the player was of course, but could very well believe that someone tried it on.

ps: If it was an Escort agency, well, aren't they responsible for checking the details of the applicant who wants to become employed... especially the applicant's identity and age!

Brian (33), yes that's more or less the story I heard, that's why I implied the victim was maybe not so much a victim as it seemed.

What did Charles Dickens say!!! "The law sir...the law is a ass"

Jim 28.

I seen what you did there. Very clever.

Not a secret though is it, his name has been floating about for a while.

I have a pretty good idea who the Arsenal player is, having been told by a long-standing AFC season ticket holder. However, I am not going to be a partey to any revelation. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge!

Trevor, that's who I've been told it is!

Trevor, see Jim @28,

Same, same.

To be honest, it's all a bit of a joke.

Rob (etc), you're spoiling the intrigue – pooper.

There seems to be a chronic typo in this thread. Would the site operator be the correct partey to investigate?

Chris #32, valuable contribution in this area, as always.

Brian, Dave, Jim,

I too heard similar stories, from two different golfing buddies, both in the Police. No names, pack drill etc, all on the qc.

They went on to say that the ‘victim's family had tried it on with other footballers but you know who was the only one to get involved with the ‘sexting'. They also said that there is a lot more to potentially come out.

Andrew @31:

Your first two sentences say twice, that no assumptions should be made, which essentially confirms the basis of my logic; nothing should be assumed.

The toxicity of the process and everything else you say about it may be entirely true but that's a different matter.

One could choose to assume there's truth to the rumours of escort, prostitution, bribery – who would that paint as the victim and the perpetrator?

Something has occurred. The justice system is investigating. The player has suffered sanctions to his career. Everything else is speculation.

I take it that your last paragraph is general and not directed to me, since I haven't said anything in that vein.

Still cant understand why a professional football would want to use the services of an escort.

When I was at Tranmere you could have the pick of any number of pretty girls in the Cabin club Birkenhead (okay, I know) and with these multimillionaire Premier League footballers, probably any choice of Miss World candidates.

Two things don't make any sense to me. Why would a top pro footballer go anywhere near "escorts"? And secondly, if the charge is legitimate, why after 12 months are the police still investigating? Surely the evidence can be quickly established.

It is a disgrace IMO that the law that is supposed to be "innocent until proved guilty" has resulted in a mans loss of his dignity and playing career and Everton's loss of a good player in time of need..

So, hopefully to wrap this one up, here are my final thoughts on the arrest of our former Icelandic player.

Let's put "guilty or innocent" to the side for the moment. That would only be determined for us if this ever goes to court. I think the legal doctrine at play here is a much more pragmatic one: "No smoke without fire."

As I've tried to state, I was always intrigued that the identity of the suspect could not be made known. I've looked at the CPS website and can find nothing on this issue. The only explanation given above is to protect the victim. Which makes no sense. With offences like these, the police often rely on other victims coming forward to strengthen the case against the suspect.

What I did find was this:

Suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge, except where justified by clear circumstances, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or a matter of public interest and confidence.

Looking a bit deeper on the College of Policing website, it says this (attributing its origins to the Leveson Inquiry):

"Police will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so."

It goes on to explain:

When someone is arrested, police can proactively release the person's gender, age, the place – for example, the town or city – where they live, the nature, date and general location of the alleged offence, the date of the arrest, whether they are in custody or have been bailed, any subsequent bail date, or if they were released without bail or with no further action being taken.

The final part of this quote is of particular interest as it relates to said Icelander:

This should not apply in cases where, although not directly naming an arrested person, this information would nevertheless have the effect of confirming their identity. In circumstances where the release of such information is likely to confirm the identity of a person arrested, particularly details relating to age or location, consideration should be given to providing less specific details. For example: ‘a man in his 30's' or ‘at an address in Sussex'.

This is significantly not what the Greater Manchester Police did. I believe they and the club fully expected him to be rapidly identified. And what if he were to be named? The College of Policing says:

This approach recognises that, in cases where the police name those who are arrested, there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those persons, particularly if they are never charged. It cannot and does not seek to prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities.

Look at the last part of that quote. On the original thread, we had utter paranoia about naming him from people threatening all sorts of legal repercussions to shutting the website down... yet the police recognize and admit that: "It cannot and does not seek to prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities."

So, with all that in mind, what really went on in July of last year? I mean when Everton FC were presumably presented with the case of his arrest. How did they respond?

Get behind their vital 㿔M asset and ensure that he could carry on playing, with his right to privacy protected, to avoid any risk of unfair damage to his reputation, considering that his identity was not disclosed?

Or tell the world that "a First-Team player" was suspended, knowing full well that it would not take long for his identity to become common knowledge? (Hard for me to tell if the player's identity was already out on the internet; he was arrested on the Friday but the police and club statements were made on the Monday.)

Well, it was obviously the latter. The club had seen enough ("No Smoke...") and made the decision to trash what remained of his career and throw him to the wolves. They felt they could not name him (there is no 'law' as such, just police procedure) but, with the statement they issued, they did everything they could to dissociate the club from having anything more to do with him, in order to protect the reputation of the club, as Brain said @7.

Anything more, that is, than presumably continuing to pay his wages under contract. He remained technically an Everton player (although not named in the 25-man Premier League squad) until he was released in June at the end of his contract.

For me, this whole business of not naming the suspect was, in this case, a shallow pretence, perhaps excused by an acceptance that it would have been impossible to hide his identity once the arrest was announced. And in our society, where the Police serve at our discretion, there is no way such an arrest would be kept secret.

Then the question would focus on what controls the point in an investigation where they decide to make such an arrest, as that is what triggers the destruction of this man's Everton career. But for that, we'd need to delve into the gory details of the case.

It must suffice for there to have been enough dense smoke to convince all involved that there was a substantial case to answer and that the player had put himself into this situation and ultimately trashed his career... but will we ever get to know?

Public perception, and a club's sensitivity to it, play a big part in the decisions that get made.

Without trying to suggest that it is in any way similar to the crimes alleged here, Moyes's and West Ham's handling of the Kurt Zouma cat-kicking scenario were widely criticised in the media. Tone-deaf was an expression frequently used at the time.

Everton has gone to great lengths to define itself off the field, and has probably been more successful in that area than any other in recent years. It has posited itself as a caring, family club.

Given that the allegations involved a minor, and also that there would be such a limited amount of information available to the public that they would no doubt assume the absolute worst, it was pretty-much impossible for the club to continue fielding the player.

For the life of me, Michael, I don't understand your pre-occupation with the legal aspect of this or your desperation to unmask him, particularly as he is no longer even with the club! I'm very late to this having been buried in code for days on end but we will not be naming the player on this website until his identity has been revealed by the courts. The thread has been updated accordingly.

I don't care how obvious it is based on the information released by police (for the record, the identity of the Arsenal player was just as obvious even before one of his accusers spelled it all out with screenshots of text messages and the whole nine yards) – anyone naming the Everton player on this or other threads will have their posting rights revoked, regardless of status!

Lyndon,

Sorry if my curiosity over what seems to be a highly hypocritical aspect in the policing of this case irks you.

Do you have any idea what rule or law it is you are enforcing? Where it is written? What are these "legal reasons" why he can't be named?

It's less about adhering to a rule or law and more about staying within the conventions around these cases and the spirit of the guidelines you've highlighted, be that for the protection of the victim, the accused (should the allegations prove false) or the integrity of the case and ensuing trial.

"Suspects should not be identified to the media..." – the player wasn't; "Police will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime" – they didn't, etc.

Everton didn't name him, no UK media outlets have named him, yet you seem hell-bent on finding loopholes so you can. Just seems needless to me.

That was never my intention.

My interest was in the way this case was treated, and to find the "legal reasons" why suspects are not named.

The presumption was that the Police and the club would do everything they could to protect the identity of the suspect. However, the club, by stating they were suspending a first-team player, confirmed that the arrested person played for Everton, making it very easy to identify who it was.

Michael #58

Obviously "suspects" are not named in order to protect the victim rather than the suspect.

In the vast majority of cases this works pretty well but in very high profile cases, such as this, it's relatively easy to identify the suspect by piecing together various strands of information.

The media can challenge the decision not to name by arguing in court that the suspect has, as in this case, been all but identified but not named.

Perhaps just not a story the media feel worth challenging the courts over?