In reply to Antigua:
> A jury has found that 8 of them aren't victims. CPS is still considering a retrial for the other 2.
No it hasn't. A jury has found that the crown was unable to prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. It says nothing at all about the status of the alleged victims.
> As a person of prominence i.e. in the police force doesn't this sort of thing worry you? Whats to stop a person with a grudge making up an allegation about you which happened in the distant past. Your name etc is released to the press and other people also make allegations against you based on the fact no one will ever know one way or the other. They get 100% anonymity and if they sway a jury into believing the false allegations then theres compensation at the end of it.... so much the better if your rich.
What worries me is when people start posting stuff like "it was one woman's word" when there were 11 complainants and "the evidence was no more than 'he said-she said'" when the case involved allegations of similar fact evidence and evidence of first complaint at least, that I am aware of.
I have been involved in investigating a number of, for want of a better description, "common or garden" rape and sexual offences. The amount of work that goes into investigation is massive - and that includes testing the account of the alleged victim.
There is a separate discussion to be had about anonymity for rape suspects, one that I am sure the victims of Stuart Hall would have a very definite view on.