John Goff – Missing from Parade

THE NEWARK ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1943.

FINED FOR BEING ABSENT FROM HOME GUARD PARADES

CARLTON FARM WORKER

SEVERE CENSURE BY BENCH

STRONG criticism of a young farm worker’s action in absenting himself from Home Guard parades was made by the Chairman of the County Police Court (Col. H. Thorpe, D.S.O.) on Wednesday. Before the Court was John Goff (21), of Carlton-on-Trent, who pleaded guilty to being absent from parades on June 17th, 20th, 24th, and 27th. Goff said he had volunteered three times for the Services. “I am willing to fight for my country,” he told the Bench. “They won’t have me, so why should I go in the Home Guard?” In a statement alleged to have been made by Goff to the police, he said, “Why should I do duty, when other young men in the village are not doing it? Anyway, I’m fed up.”

“Not Your Choice.”

Fining Goff £1 on each charge, and ordering him to pay 28s. costs, the Chairman said: “This is a most serious offence. It is not for you to choose in what way you serve your country. The country has decided that you will be of most use on the land, and doing some duty with the Home Guard to fit yourself in the event of invasion. You have taken it upon yourself to be absent from parades. If it wasn’t for the fact that you are working on the land, the Bench would not have hesitated a moment to send you to prison. You will be given six weeks to pay, and don’t let this thing happen again. Even though the men fighting in Sicily and elsewhere are tired, they have got to go on with it, and you have got to do the same.” After giving the facts of the case, Supt. E. Burley, who prosecuted for the military authorities, said it was because defendant was working on the land that he was not in the Army. His attendances at Home Guard parades had been bad, and towards the end of 1942 he decided to “chuck it up” altogether. Despite frequent warning by his Platoon Commander, he had attended two parades only this year – on March 8th and 11th.

His Work Considered.

“Defendant was expected to do 48 hours’ duty a month,” said Supt. Burley, “but he was not bound to do it because of his work. Notices informing him of the parades covered by the charges, were sent by registered post, but he did not attend. Evidence will be given that defendant finished work in time to be present at the parades, and that his employer arranged for him to cease work early.” Defendant had not even taken the trouble to reply to the notices sent by registered post, and made no explanation to his Platoon Commander. “The attendances of the other Home Guards in the area have been very good indeed with the exception of defendant,” said Supt. Burley. “He is having a bad influence on the other young men, because they do not see why they should attend parades when defendant is getting away with this sort of thing.”

Missed 48 Parades.

Lieut. Vernon L. Morley, defendant’s Platoon Commander, said Goff joined the Home Guard in May, 1941. He had been told what he had to do, and the number of parades he had to attend. “His attendances had been very poor,” said witness. “When I interviewed him he said he had been sick and had worked overtime. When he did not turn up at the parades I saw his employer, who told me defendant had not been working overtime at the time of the parades mentioned in the charges.” From the beginning of 1943, Goff’s last attendance had been on March 11th. There had been 48 parades since then, and Goff had been absent from every one. On June 15th witness posted to Goff by registered post notices of parades on the 17th, 20th, 24th, and 27th. He did not receive any reply. In consequence he and Sergeant Toone again interviewed defendant. Asked why he had not attended and not replied to the notices, defendant said, “Why should I do duty when other young men in the village are not doing it? Anyway, I’m fed up.”

Bad Effect On Others.

Lieut. Morley said that arrangements had been made to fit in the times of the parades with the spare time of the agricultural worker. Defendant’s absences were definitely having a bad effect upon the other young men, and the attendances of the Platoon had fallen. Witness attributed this falling off to Goff’s conduct. John Davenport, farmer, and employer of Goff, said defendant finished work in plenty of time to attend the parades on the dates in the charges. The Chairman: Has defendant worked any overtime at all? – Yes, but not on the Home Guard nights. Supt. Burley: When defendant has to go on duty, you make all arrangements necessary to allow him to attend? – Yes. Re-called, Lieut. Morley said the decline in defendant’s absences began at the end of last year. Before that, there had been no complaint to make, and his attendances had been good.

Principal Individuals:

• John Goff:
  • Role in Document: Defendant in court case.
  • Biographical Details: Age 21, residing at Carlton-on-Trent. Occupation: Farm worker employed by John Davenport. He was fined for missing Home Guard parades.

Associated Individuals:

• Col. H. Thorpe, D.S.O.: Chairman of the County Police Court.
• Supt. E. Burley: Prosecutor for the military authorities.
• Lieut. Vernon L. Morley: Platoon Commander of the Home Guard.
• John Davenport: Farmer and employer of John Goff.

The newspaper page details several local events in the Newark district in August 1943. A significant article covers the court case of 21-year-old farm worker John Goff, who was heavily fined for repeatedly missing Home Guard parades despite his agricultural exemption from the regular army.