Felix.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ainst-him.html

I know its the daily mail, but its everywhere. Why should they apologise for investigating a complaint for a serious sexual crime?
Its all well a good with hindsight, but at the time of the initial investigation he may have been guilty. So it has to be investigated to obtain the evidence.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Maybe if the Police didn't keep leaking names and details of the investigation to the media then they would have no need to apologise.

Meanwhile the anonymity of alleged victims remains quite secure. Why is it they can manage that but can't do that with alleged suspects? Alleged being the operative word here as often a suspects name is leaked before any evidence of guilt is verified.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

On the other hand, if someone doesn't keep this in the public's eye, the establishment will bury it.

Does no-one else find it odd that so many performers have been targeted and done, whereas, so far, not ONE establishment figure???

Felix.

Very odd. And when an investigation does start it should be allowed to run its course without interference from the other establishment figures who were not around at the time.

I take your point Ali-B about anonymity - but i don't think the police routinely leak the names as such. They always state ".... a 45 year old male has been arrested..." etc

There are cases where they will name the suspect, as in the case of Stuart Hall, which encouraged more victims to come forward and he later admitted to attacking them.

Or is it the press that over egg it for more sensationalist headline etc. Such as "10 officer search his house!!" Well that's probably because he lives in a big house with loads of rooms - if you had one officer, he'd be there for a week.