Everything, but no specifics.

Well now, I read the whole of that page and it seems he has got it there.

I've said before that I think the liberal (with a small "L") attitude has gone far too far. Those that promote that attitude see wrong in everything if they don't agree. Far from simply disagreeing they go on the attack and before long, if it continues it'll go beyond the spoken and written word and develop in to physical "action".

I'm with purple roger......there should be a time limit. If you don't complain at the time, then you lose your right to complain later.

It’s taken her 20 years to mention it?.🤔

Yes...a time limit is a time limit, and should apply to everyone.

I think Saville was a quite unique case - people were scared to expose his bad deeds due to the extent of his good deeds.

Many accusers were stopped due to this.

Also children are not as easily taken as effective witnesses. 

Two hyporthetical cases.

1/ A man is suddenly accused out of the Blue of "touching inapropriately" at an event he knows he attended fifteen years ago. He had no contact with the female before or since, he doesn't "know" her or even know of her. Now that he's a "prominent member of society", he's highly embarrassed and is now getting lots of sideways "aye-aye, he's a groper" looks. How does he defend himself?

2/ A woman is attending an event and enjoys a long chat and later a drink with "a prominent member of society". In an unguarded moment, he has a quick grope. She's shocked by the unwelcome touching and quickly beats a retreat. What should she have done and what should she do? Many years later the man is "an even more prominent member of society" and is often paraded as a pillar of respectable society but as she's toatlly opposed to a current direction the man is taking, should she bring the previous incident to everyone's attention or.... what?

I see no problem with someone bringing into the public arena an accusation of wrong doing no matter who it is against nor how long ago the alleged incident was.

There is already a legal remedy available to the "accused" if they want to take it.  

Creating new law to prevent individuals from making claims would not achieve anything.

In the scenario we are currently considering the idea of a statute of limitations is irrelevant - such a statute would not stop an accusation nor the potential damage it would do to the accused - all such a statute would achieve would be the potential to stop an offender facing justice.  

There have been a number of cases of historic serious sexual assault that have been solved decades later thanks to the advances in DNA research.

Where've you been? You've been missing?

DNA cannot remotely help in the issue of alleged "groping" many years down the line.

It boils down to the word of one against another. 

I brought the DNA cases in regarding the suggestion that there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault cases.

As you say no help at all with cases such as the one involving our PM.  As I said in my post there is no way you can stop such allegations being made at which point the damage is done.