Kevin Johns

[Neath_Jack]

Why would he not be named?

Many lives/ careers have been ruined by false allegations, somebody could make up a groundless allegation towards yourself, how would you like to be named?

If Kev Johns is found guilty then he will be rightly be made to pay for the rest of his days.

And on the flip side to that, many victims go through their whole lives knowing that an absolute monster has ruined their, and several other peoples lives through their vile actions.

It's not easy to say which is right and which is wrong. But I know for a fact if it was one of my family members who had been abused, I'd want it out there.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Many lives/ careers have been ruined by false allegations, somebody could make up a groundless allegation towards yourself, how would you like to be named?

If Kev Johns is found guilty then he will be rightly be made to pay for the rest of his days.

And on the flip side to that, many victims go through their whole lives knowing that an absolute monster has ruined their, and several other peoples lives through their vile actions.

It's not easy to say which is right and which is wrong. But I know for a fact if it was one of my family members who had been abused, I'd want it out there.

As you say, which is right and which is wrong.

I take your view, and respect it.

 

[DwightYorkeSuperstar]

Why would he not be named?

After what happened with Cliff and now the MP, there is surely an argument to say he shouldn't be. IFF true then he should get all the sht coming, if not, then human nature is that sht sticks no matter.
Hope that clarifies for you? I know it must be hard for you to follow.

I don't recall Cliff Richard being charged.

The police clearly feel they have enough evidence to pursue a conviction. With that in mind, I do think people who have been charged with this sort of crime should be named as often there are others who have been abused who later come forward after seeing their abuser is under investigation.

I do strongly believe that better processes should be in place to support those found not guilty; to restore their reputation and ensure that their previous employment etc is guaranteed. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, often the allegation alone is enough to irreversibly ruin lives of innocent people.

 

[Rob]

He'll be found guilty already on Twitter no doubt.

Best to say nothing until the legal process is finished.

 

[MrSwerve]

That's the problem, isn't it. Only takes one idiot to ruin a career. Same goes for rape cases.

A massive issue though, far bigger than one thread on here.

Best we don't speculate at this moment in time and start calling people idiot's etc. It is what it is, and we can only hope the man is innocent.

I in no way meant that the person involved in this case was an idiot.

 

[Sirjohnalot]

Not talking about this case but I’ve defended and prosecuted in various sex cases, each one has been as horrible as the last. You know whatever happens, you’re destroying someone’s life, be It if you’re cross examining a truthful complainant or defendant. There’s also the families of either party also in court who are going through it, through no fault of their own. You have to pick through the most intimate part of people’s lives and potentially accuse someone who may be telling the truth of, at best being mistaken, at worst, lying.

Case where there are potentially other complainants, there is a case for the def to be named, but I believe, the Crown should have to make an application to the Judge, perhaps, in secret to explain why they think it’s justified.

John’s career is over either way. Can’t imagine being accused of anything worse

 

[Darran]

Not talking about this case but I’ve defended and prosecuted in various sex cases, each one has been as horrible as the last. You know whatever happens, you’re destroying someone’s life, be It if you’re cross examining a truthful complainant or defendant. There’s also the families of either party also in court who are going through it, through no fault of their own. You have to pick through the most intimate part of people’s lives and potentially accuse someone who may be telling the truth of, at best being mistaken, at worst, lying.

Case where there are potentially other complainants, there is a case for the def to be named, but I believe, the Crown should have to make an application to the Judge, perhaps, in secret to explain why they think it’s justified.

John’s career is over either way. Can’t imagine being accused of anything worse

Do you really believe his career is over if he’s not-guilty John?

 

[Garyjack]

Not talking about this case but I’ve defended and prosecuted in various sex cases, each one has been as horrible as the last. You know whatever happens, you’re destroying someone’s life, be It if you’re cross examining a truthful complainant or defendant. There’s also the families of either party also in court who are going through it, through no fault of their own. You have to pick through the most intimate part of people’s lives and potentially accuse someone who may be telling the truth of, at best being mistaken, at worst, lying.

Case where there are potentially other complainants, there is a case for the def to be named, but I believe, the Crown should have to make an application to the Judge, perhaps, in secret to explain why they think it’s justified.

John’s career is over either way. Can’t imagine being accused of anything worse

Do you really believe his career is over if he’s not-guilty John?

Let's face it Dar, it would be very difficult for him unless the complainant was shown to be lying.

 

[Darran]

Do you really believe his career is over if he’s not-guilty John?

Let's face it Dar, it would be very difficult for him unless the complainant was shown to be lying.

Well a not-guilty verdict should really be enough Gar but I take your point.

 

[Sirjohnalot]

Thats exactly the problem. I’ve only ever had one case in 17 years where I’ve got a complainant to admit she was lying, to make her boyfriend jealous. People will always say ‘no smoke without fire’. A NG verdict doesn’t, in reality, mean they’ve not done it, just that the jury ‘wasn’t sure’.

Second problem is the backlog of cases, which is nothing to do with COVID. I had a simple, 2 day trial last week listed for July next year ! A case like this in Manchester, you’d be lucky for it to be heard before the end of 2021 ! By which time he’ll have been out of the game for a long time, people move on.

It is a sensitive case but the custody cases take priority, it’s historic. To going to be anytime soon. (Not sure of the backlog in Swansea )

 

[Darran]

Thats exactly the problem. I’ve only ever had one case in 17 years where I’ve got a complainant to admit she was lying, to make her boyfriend jealous. People will always say ‘no smoke without fire’. A NG verdict doesn’t, in reality, mean they’ve not done it, just that the jury ‘wasn’t sure’.

Second problem is the backlog of cases, which is nothing to do with COVID. I had a simple, 2 day trial last week listed for July next year ! A case like this in Manchester, you’d be lucky for it to be heard before the end of 2021 ! By which time he’ll have been out of the game for a long time, people move on.

It is a sensitive case but the custody cases take priority, it’s historic. To going to be anytime soon. (Not sure of the backlog in Swansea )

Do you see many cases where you are certain they’re innocent and they’re found guilty John?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Why would he not be named?

Do you think he should be named prior to trial?

Yes. Everyone else is.

 

[Darran]

Do you think he should be named prior to trial?

Yes. Everyone else is.

I don’t think Coops meant just KJ,Andrew.

 

[Garyjack]

So to recap, what we're talking about here is a man in his early 20's sexual assaulting an under age teenage boy. It's a difficult one isn't it!

 

[Darran]

So to recap, what we're talking about here is a man in his early 20's sexual assaulting an under age teenage boy. It's a difficult one isn't it!

Yes it is.