The Cliff case (a good beginning denoting the issue as far as the legal stuff is concerned) is quite exciting insofar the strange statements made by all and sundry. First of all I saw the BBC report made at the time, using a helicopter to show Cliff’s little pad. Was he even there? Well, the police did not seem to care much whether he was or not. The real implication about all of this, should people be named in investigations or not? Obviously the police has to investigate allegations of wrongdoing. I am certain the Crown Prosecution Service was informed and might have given an indication that sounds like an approval. But the next question is – why was the BBC involved at that time? You do not hire a helicopter in five minutes, so collusion with the police?
I think we need to be blunt here, people under investigation must not be named. Actually it serves no purpose to name persons as it only serves unwarranted intrusion and might even harm the court case to come, if any. In other countries, like Holland for instance, reports are made by just using initials. Such as In the court of London the accused HW (the correct name initials!) faced blah blah blah, he will appear at the Crown Court on blah, blah, blah. I don’t think this will harm the public rights to know what is going on but it will stop persons not found guilty to further harm.
In all of this we need a judicial system that will be above any signs of incompetence, we need a CPS that is without doubt more than excellent. And a police force that works for the benefit of the population. Frankly, that stands at 40%. of what it should be. Like in all cases, it is not just a question of money but of leadership. If donkeys are leading lions then who clears the dung?