In reply to Indy:
I share your concern, but I have the problem that I am, opinion-wise, pulled in two directions.
1) That I (strongly) believe that the way in which claims of this nature are prosecuted at present is vastly at variance to "innocent until proven guilty" and that a number of, what I consider to be basic tenets of a fair justice system appear to have been ignored or simply don't apply anymore.
In the case of two areas - terrorism and sex allegations - it appears to be the job of the accused to prove themselves innocent rather than the prosecution to prove them guilty. Often in the case of extremely historical allegations there is no way of doing this, so the burden of proof is on the accused.
Particularly in the case of some terrorism trials the degree to which the justice system is being utterly abused by the authorities makes me very, very worried and unhappy.
2) That I strongly believe that no-one should get off with a crime simply because of time passed since the offence.
However, it is interesting that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe with no statute of limitations on sexual accusations.
My general view is that where you have allegations that are approaching 50 years past, of a nature which is likely to boil down to the jury believing one person or another, there can be no way of proving or disproving beyond reasonable doubt.