Kevin Johns

[exiledclaseboy]

Yes. Everyone else is.

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

Ok. My answer doesn’t change. More often than not naming a suspect on charge leads to other potential victims coming forward and increases the chance of a successful prosecution. It can also, of course, lead to an innocent person’s reputation being ruined if they’re falsely and maliciously accused. On the flip side, a massive amount of lives are ruined by abuse by people who are never reported, charged or convicted and if they are the accusers are often automatically disbelieved and/or blamed. We see it om here all the time.

I’ve never met Kevin Johns and know nothing about him apart from his work with the Swans and the odd panto. But I think all of us feel like we know him. I was as shocked as anyone else when I heard this. There are some on here who do know him and don’t believe he’s capable of something like this. That’s fine but again there are countless cases of convicted criminals where their friends, family and acquaintances have said “they were such a lovely person, I didn’t think they had it in them to do this”.

There are probably only two people in the whole world who know the truth of this accusation. Whatever that truth is.

 

[Darran]

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

Ok. My answer doesn’t change. More often than not naming a suspect on charge leads to other potential victims coming forward and increases the chance of a successful prosecution. It can also, of course, lead to an innocent person’s reputation being ruined if they’re falsely and maliciously accused. On the flip side, a massive amount of lives are ruined by abuse by people who are never reported, charged or convicted and if they are the accusers are often automatically disbelieved and/or blamed. We see it om here all the time.

I’ve never met Kevin Johns and know nothing about him apart from his work with the Swans and the odd panto. But I think all of us feel like we know him. I was as shocked as anyone else when I heard this. There are some on here who do know him and don’t believe he’s capable of something like this. That’s fine but again there are countless cases of convicted criminals where their friends, family and acquaintances have said “they were such a lovely person, I didn’t think they had it in them to do this”.

There are probably only two people in the whole world who know the truth of this accusation. Whatever that truth is.

 

[Darran]

Someone actually tagged KJ in the breaking news on Twitter earlier asking him if he’d seen it. :lol:

 

[Londonlisa2001]

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!

Where does the ‘teenage’ bit come from? It’s a genuine question btw - I’ve only seen the Wales online report.


Don’t want to comment really as not appropriate in an ongoing legal process other than to express shock.

 

[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!

Where does the ‘teenage’ bit come from? It’s a genuine question btw - I’ve only seen the Wales online report.


Don’t want to comment really as not appropriate in an ongoing legal process other than to express shock.

It states in the article 'a child under 16'. If it was a child under 12 then that is what he would have been charged with as it's a more serious offence. Therefore the complainant must have been a teenage boy at the time, unless he was 12 of course.

 

[Darran]

This link in here is a little bizarre isn’t it?

https://www.scfc2.co.uk/forums/discussion/4451/kev-johns

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Where does the ‘teenage’ bit come from? It’s a genuine question btw - I’ve only seen the Wales online report.


Don’t want to comment really as not appropriate in an ongoing legal process other than to express shock.

It states in the article 'a child under 16'. If it was a child under 12 then that is what he would have been charged with as it's a more serious offence. Therefore the complainant must have been a teenage boy at the time, unless he was 12 of course.

Doesn’t the old law apply though due to the historic nature ?

 

[Garyjack]

Doesn’t the old law apply though due to the historic nature ?

Good point, as i'm not sure when the law was changed. What i do know is that an ex neighbour of mine was charged (and convicted) of offences against a child under 12 from the early 90's.

 

[BanosSwan]

Should always be anonymous before sentenced.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Good point, as i'm not sure when the law was changed. What i do know is that an ex neighbour of mine was charged (and convicted) of offences against a child under 12 from the early 90's.

I have a feeling the gender makes a difference as well in older cases.

Anyway. Sorry. Somewhat irrelevant. I’d thought perhaps there was more information than was in Wales online.

Very, very shocking to see this.

 

[Glyn1]

Shouldn't the moderators close this discussion?

 

[Cooperman]

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?

I sincerely hope not but nothing is certain in this social media driven world.

 

[PSumbler]

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

Ok. My answer doesn’t change. More often than not naming a suspect on charge leads to other potential victims coming forward and increases the chance of a successful prosecution. It can also, of course, lead to an innocent person’s reputation being ruined if they’re falsely and maliciously accused. On the flip side, a massive amount of lives are ruined by abuse by people who are never reported, charged or convicted and if they are the accusers are often automatically disbelieved and/or blamed. We see it om here all the time.

I’ve never met Kevin Johns and know nothing about him apart from his work with the Swans and the odd panto. But I think all of us feel like we know him. I was as shocked as anyone else when I heard this. There are some on here who do know him and don’t believe he’s capable of something like this. That’s fine but again there are countless cases of convicted criminals where their friends, family and acquaintances have said “they were such a lovely person, I didn’t think they had it in them to do this”.

There are probably only two people in the whole world who know the truth of this accusation. Whatever that truth is.

This completely stunned me yesterday. I have known Kev for probably 15 years and have a lot of time for him. He hosted a lovely memorial when my brother passed and we scattered his Ashes by Ivor and I would class him as a friend. We have watched panto as a family every New Year's eve for probably 12 years or more and almost every time he goes out of his way to say hello to the family.

I have no idea what the full accusation is but I hope if he is innocent he can clear his name and move on from it. I really am stunned.

There was also a comment further down the topic of "the mods should lock this topic" but I totally disagree, there is nothing that I can see posted in the topic that would warrant its locking at the moment.

 

[jackharris]

This is what Dave Jones had to endure. We MUST remember Innocent to proven guilty!

 

[LeonWasTheDog's]

Do you think he should be named prior to trial?

Yes. Everyone else is.

Are they? I didn't realise that - didn't think the police were allowed to name people except in rare cases of public interest.