http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7089896.html
Some of the stories are swaying me back and forth on this now
Though
Quote:
He said in a statement: “Other than in *exceptional cases, people who are facing *allegations should not be named publicly until charged.
“I have always maintained my innocence. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point.”
Sir Cliff will face no further action over allegations after a South Yorkshire Police investigation this week found there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
|
I wonder what he would class as an 'exceptional case'.
So many seem to think insufficient evidence = guilty. And that insufficient evidence automatically means the accuser is lying too. Just been reading on another forum people going mad that some guy was accused of rape but got a not guilty verdict due to insufficient evidence, they are baying for the accusers blood as apparently this proves it was all made up and he is clearly innocent
