Personally I don't think any of them (or any man) should be named - unless they are a current danger to the public or their victim. Where it's historic 'crimes' like these I see no reason at all. If and when they are found guilty fare enough. This latest man is reported to be in a very fragile state - what will be achieved by naming him now? There are a few on the list I don't like but even so have been surprised by it. This one though has left me gobsmacked and in total disbelief. Of course it's possible - but what if it's not true, what a totally dreadful thing to happen to him at his time of life. If it's not true and he were found innocent (or most likely unproved) it will still ruin his good name, mud sticks sadly. I also find it wrong that if he were to be found totally innocent - as in the accusations were untrue - he could not name and shame his accuser. How can that be right. I gather it is not a major offence he has been accused of so isn't it fairer to stop trying to reveal his name - isn't all the gossip bad enough.
I am, by the way, speaking as a woman who had some very unpleasant experiences with older men when I first started work as a naive 16 year old. I know exactly how repugnant it was - and frightening because you don't know how far they will take it etc. The worst was a father of a school friend!! Even so the world has moved on, thank God. If they are found guilty name them but until then remember they are innocent until proven guilty and the way things are going someone (who may be proved innocent) will be driven to their deaths.