This has been well discussed on here several times


It's been the cps' role to decide on prosecution in all such cases bar minor obvious ones, for many years now yet still the idea persists that the police decide.

As has also been said on here too, and before, it is mostly the press who specifically identify an individual, not the police
So if you are so concerned, stop buying their newspapers, but i seriously doubt most will.The press justification is the public want to know, and their sales increase. If their sales went down they might not name as they are free to do now
The same papers which name and salivate over cases, may also lecture on why the case was brought in the first place,if a NG verdict is reached, and how the defendant has suffered badly, and hint there was no real evidence, hoping their readers will clutch at pearls and forget they named them publicly and ran a daily commentary.Yes the press have culpability, and so do their readers
What would ronalds take be?

There is no time limit in principle on criminal cases, whatever they may be, with few exceptions

It's the prosecutions job to make a case beyond reasonable doubt so the idea that the defendant has to somehow prove his/her innocence is a false picture often presented by tabloid press, and swallowed by the gullible

ahh but its a celeb, therefore more risk. Experience and observation suggest some of gbp would not convict certain celebs
whatever the evidence

I've no idea what so-called hard evidence is, other than some evidence may be more compelling than others

No evidence. If that were so, the case would be NFA, unless you're inclined to believe the police, cps, judge are incompetent based on what was read in the Sun

There are plenty of sources and those who have been abused on the internet.It might be a learning experience for some.Course if that's not the aim, then no doubt the same will be re recycled again at a future date along with same horizontal 'learning curve'