In The Wake Of Sir Cliff's Exoneration.......

[ToraToraTora]

1) Are the police and the Media now the tools of compo seeking lowlives who now know they have unlimited power to ruin lives at a whim?
2) Should the accusers also be named?
3) Should the Police have to do a preliminary investigation to establish credibility of the accuser before savaging the accused with no evidence?
4) Should false accusers be prosecuted?

[naomi24]

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

[jambutty]

Yes to all.

[andy-hughes]

No, the accusers should not be named, but neither should the accused, until charges are brought.

Otherwise, it's a yes from me.

[ToraToraTora]

good point Andy, name both or neither I prefer neither.

[pixie374]

The accusers shouldn't be named or prosecuted. They might be telling the truth. Otherwise, yes.

[jambutty]

Yes on reflection, I prefer neither also.

[naomi24]

I haven't changed my mind. The accusers have ruined a man's life. They deserve to be named.

[Hopkirk]

Often the victims don't feel able to speak up until they realise they are not alone.
Apparently Stuart Hall might still be a free man if he hadn't been named.
Not all the accusers are 'compo seeking lowlives' by a long way.

[pixie374]

Nobody has proved they lied, Naomi.

[Old_Geezer]

Justice can not afford to name accusers as it could dissuade others from whistle-blowing if their accurate accusations are unsupported by sufficient evidence after the investigation.

It is already debatable when the accused gets named. IMO certainly not before being charged and probably not before being convicted.

[naomi24]

pixie, if they have confidence in their accusation they shouldn't mind being named. If I was accusing someone I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is - but then I wouldn't make false accusations.

[pixie374]

They might not want everyone to know. It makes more sense to keep the accused anonymous before they are charged. And people might believe they are lying, just because of a lack of evidence.

[zebo]

Some people here sound like my late mother, no-one was ever innocent, they "got away with it".

[naomi24]

The accused should be anonymous until charged.

[naomi24]

zebo, par for the course I'm afraid.

[pixie374]

Yes, Naomi. I'm not suggesting that, zero, but it is legally right. That's exactly why they use the words "not guilty" and not "innocent" to avoid this confusion.

[mikey4444]

OG...I agree...its daft to suggest that accusers be identified. Rape victims are not identified, so why should people associated with other forms of sexual abuse be ?

For the record, I think Richards has not been very well served, by the Police or the BBC. If the Police now say that there is not enough evidence to charge him, then lets let the matter rest.

[pixie374]

Zebo...autocorrect...sorry

[Bigbad]

Yes, yes but only if the allegations are proven false, yes and yes.

[jambutty]

I've changed my mind back to four yesses - I'll get my coat !!