Congratulations - Cliff.

[Observer II]

A blow for the right to privacy from press intrusion on the basis of allegation alone - let's hope so.  But the arguement from the BBC (at our expense) and from the media generally, is "the public interest".  Well, just how is it in the public interest to hype up stories based on unfounded allegations, until and unless they have been properly investigated (by the Police) and proven in a court of law ?  And is is time that people who are accused, should have the same right as the accusers to annonimity, until the allegations are proven in a court of law ?

[Davy51]

It is about time trial by media was banned. Apart from possibly reporting what could turn out to be false accusations,any reports could prejudice any resulting court proceedings. Only this week vigilante gangs have been criticised for stinging paedophiles in case any revelations mean the case cannot go to court. The law & the rule of law should be preserved.

[Confused52]

I agree Davy. I fail to understand the argument that it its done to encourage others to come forward since they may be fake, like the fabled Nick, and it sounds to me to be really close to perverting the course of justice.

[Observer II]

Not a fan of Alex Salmond,  but yet another case of guilt by accusation alone.  He's all over the front pages, while his accuser has the protection of anonymity.  So he's subject to trial by public opinion, rather than evidence based legal process.  Result - inevitable damage to his reputation, even if found innocent by a court. Surely, in the interest of justice, it's time for both accused and accuser to retain anonymity, until convicted by a court ?  

[Evil Sid]

It does seem as though some sort of caution on reporting crime is being practised by journalists as all people caught are alleged to have committed or suspected of having committed the crimes, even when caught with the goods on them or after a lengthy police chase.

The biggest problem is that people will condemn them whatever they do. if they report using names and it turns out they were wrong then they get dragged over the coals for it. If they don't report it and then later say so then they are accused of covering up.There are ways such as saying that a (add description such as politician/rockstar/other) has been linked with (add socially or near criminal activity). without actually naming names, but at some point the names and activity will be leaked on some social media site whether what has happened is true or not.

One of the main reasons i liked reading the sunday sport for such things as "elvis seen serving burgers on a B52 bomber on the moon" or "aliens abducted my hamster" (there were other reasons but well....)