Am I the only one who see's a witch hunt here. As far as I know not one of these accusations (not even the original JS) has ever been tested in Court. I can see a possibility of libel claims against the Police.(Which, of course, we, the taxpayer will pay)
You cannot sue the police for libel. They have a qualified exemption.
It makes sense as most people who are arrested get released without charge dependent on evidence.
The Police service would be bankrupt if everyone sued them every time they were arrested and released.
If someone makes an accusation it has to be followed through otherwise they sould be sued instead for NOT arresting people.
The sad thing is
crimestoppers that much lauded service (by the police at least) where you can contact them anonymously via phone or the internet without revealing your identity is absolutely awash with false and malicious accusations wasting mountains of police time.
Want to screw up someone life? Just phone crimestoppers and say they fiddle with kids.
The resultant information will stay on that persons record for life affecting their employability even if the accusation was totally bogus.
Since Huntley the police keep all records of domestic or child abuse regardless of source on a persons police file even untested information from crimestoppers which is anonymously given.
It's a national disgrace but because it is a 'charity' (Another jobs for the boys ex police role like ceop) you cannot get freedom of information requests answered.
Just to clarify the Rolf Harris case though. Suggesting the police information is true ie suggesting Rolf has been sexually assaulting people will leave YOU open to being sued for Libel. It's a grey area as the information is in the public domain but dependent on what you say and the end outcome you could be sued.
Remember Lord McAlpine..
