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]

ummmm, you weren't the accuser. There's no reason you should have been involved at all.

[mikey4444]

Ummm....I suspect that if every person making a accusation of sexual abuse was made public, then an awful lot of perpetrators would be walking free.

You weren't named, and quite rightly so.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //You weren't named, and quite rightly so. //

She wasn't involved. Read her post.

[hc4361]

The alleged victims should never be named.

[mikey4444]

Too right hc !

[naomi24]

...but people who make false accusations should.

[hc4361]

How is it established that a false accusation has been made? If it is beyond doubt then they should be, and some have.

If the case is dismissed due to insufficient evidence or the defendant is found not guilty, then no, the accuser should not be prosecuted.

[hc4361]

Surprising:

"At least 109 women have been prosecuted in the last five years for making false rape allegations in the UK......"

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

[naomi24]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t seem to apply in cases like this. The accuser can’t produce the necessary evidence to support his accusation but still the accused is not exonerated - and the accuser gets off scot-free. It stinks!

[hc4361]

Don't forget most accusations of rape and sexual assault never get the initial stages, certainly not in to court or the newspapers. Many are arrested, few are charged.