Clifford has been released on bail and denies the accusations saying they're distressing, damaging and untrue.

I guess that denying the accusations will attract the comment "Well he would, wouldn't he?" but like I've said on the "evidence" thread, a verbal accusation shouldn't be taken as evidence without it leading to hard evidence?

OK, it's all in the air at the moment and we don't know if hard evidence might be found (can't think what that might be dating from 1977?) but surely until such evidence comes to light, an accuseds name shouldn't be splashed all over "the media" as, even if no further evidence is found and he's not charged, in the public eye he'll be regarded as guilty by association (with such things)?