View Single Post
Old 01-05-2013, 22:04
andyrich666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 63
I don't think the accused should be named unless found guilty.

However - as an observation, they seem to have acted swiftly in this case - the fact that they have been working with the CPS since March 1st before, as far as we know talking to the accused would suggest there is sufficient evidence. Who knows - independent ex friends he bragged to or something to corroborate what the victim says? Anyway, innocent until proven guilty.......
Totally disagree, a lot of people either witnesses or even previous victims would never come forward if people were not named and not just for sexual offences, also there has to be some evidence for arrest anyway, its not often you would be arrested without something there, it really is no smoke without fire.

Jimmy Savile is the best reason to disagree, I would say had he been tried he probably would not have been found guilty on many occasions and therefore no one may have ever came forward if his trials were secret, i.e he was never found guilty.
andyrich666 is offline