Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee View Post
I think it's wrong to name someone charged with such an offence before they are found guilty or not. If this turns out to be a pack of lies, Johns' career is still in tatters and his repute will forever be questioned.
I agree with that Eric.

As a child protection specialist I've been involved in some high profile cases and believe that names of victims and the accused should remain out of the public domain while there is a judicial process.. most of the time anyway (when the authorities won't listen, when things are being hidden and covered up there may be good reason to release details to get the authorities to act, especially when there is compelling evidence - i.e. Epstein case).

The clamour for the public to know the names and details don't serve the best interest of the victims anyway, it can work against the process of justice. Look at that twat Tommy Robinson, he gave the lawyers defending the grooming gang a compelling reason to get the charges dropped because Tommy was outside court revealing details which shouldn't have been released until the end of the trial.

On the occasions when the allegations are false it can ruin people and is very unfair.. Matthew Kelly, Dave Jones and Cliff Richard to name a few.

If the guy is guilty then of course throw the book at him, undertake an investigation (as there would be enablers that knew/helped) and importantly get the survivors help.