http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35754380

It certainly wasn't the Met. leaking names whether they'd been charged or not, was it?

The real problem is without naming them few others have the confidence to come forward, especially with historic cases. Some of our celebs would still be abusing people if they hadn't been named. It's a nasty process but it beats the alternative.

Also doesn't help that the CPS are a useless shower of sh1te.

Hmm no. The fact is naming suspects in advance of prosecution in the hope other victims may come forward is the kind of 'fishing' that the police do that goes against how our system is supposed to work. Let's get one thing clear - if they manage to get the prosecution to stick and whoever it is is found guilty and their names published then, that's just as much of a chance for other victims to come forwarded to attempt further protections. Probably more so, because the victims have much more confidence that they'll be believed.

There's no law saying you can't prosecute someone just because they 're in prison. In fact it's better to do so because fresh sentences against people in prison are more likely to be added on, rather than being set to run concurrently as would probably happen if you prosecuted all the crimes in one case.

What generally happens here is the police/CPS have a very iffy case and they leak the suspects name in the hope they can use other accusations as a bargaining chip to get the accused to confess and/or make a case seem more overwhelming in court - because someone accused of doing something once you can have some doubt about but someone accused of doing something on six separate occasions? Most people are going to be influenced by that.

It's a cheap tactic and it's wrong. If you can't find someone guilty on the evidence of an individual case in isolation, they aren't guilty of that offence. Them's the rules.

All points accepted, and as I said, it's nasty, but how many cases will the likes of the Met. not even send to the CPS? Or see the CPS do their greatest hits of 'insufficient evidence' and 'not in the public interest', never giving it a chance to reach court with the public then unaware? There's enough cover-up as it is. It's fcuked-up but I can't help thinking it inadvertently saves other victims since paedos and the like may otherwise never be truly exposed and simply carry on. The BBC lot certainly did.

We're already approaching a time when we're questioning the starting point of believing the victim, the great and good lining up to defend Lord Bramshall (once he'd been cleared of course, 'Don't you know he's a war hero!?'), the press shouting about witchhunts cos the police are belatedly doing their jobs...

So, you are wrongfully arrested and they haven't got any firm evidence, so they slip your name to the press, in the hope of getting more victims to come forward, and destroy your life in the process, even though you have done nothing wrong?

The problem is, once it is in the press, that is pretty much it, guilty or not, you are a sex offender in the eyes of the public, you will probably be fired from your job, so-called friends won't want to have anything to do with you and you will probably have to move to another town, maybe change your name and hope nobody catches on and reports you to the press... Yep, that seems like a totally fair way of doing things.

I have no truck with these people, if they have committed an offence, but if the police don't have enough to go on to get a conviction with the current offence, then I don't see why they should be able to destroy your life, just for a fishing expedition.

I agree - and that's the problem with leaking their names. There have been a few instances lately of people being accused of Rape link and being found innocent but it blighting their lives

I think that the persons name should be protected until they are found guilty BUT there should be an option to go Public but that its should be signed off by a senior judge as a separate action.