Catch-up wrote:But people have shared some very personal things just to illustrate these points and I think it's important to acknowledge that.
And Batty has acknowledged that Catch-up and shared some of her own experiences as well, so it's not as if she's saying this girl is a liar, just that the report doesn't co-incide with her own perception of Starr. That's an opinion that's as valid as wanting to believe the allegation is probably true and Batty is arguably more sensible in following a long-held association than automatically assuming that it's true so long after the fact and potentially taken out of context?
This is the problem with public personalities and 'no smoke without fire' thinking - one adverse word, true or no, could make or potentially or break a reputation, which is why official enquiries never name people until they're sure they have sufficient evidence to move on it, because they may not have the 'right' information to act on. The perhaps related case about the Tory MP is a good example - that carries far worse allegations than the one Starr is responding to, of his own volition, and because it's highly likely arrests and custodial sentences will be made when the investigation is over it's only natural justice not to name suspects ahead of their being formally arrested or brought in for questioning, otherwise it's guilty until proved innocent isn't it?
For some crimes that might be a more fitting approach perhaps, but the chances of punishing someone who may in fact not be guilty at all is why the burden of showing proof is on the prosecution and enshrined in English law, no matter what the Red Top press like to think. Naming names and tossing them in the mud before a police enquiry is even conceived is potentially as bad as groping a defenceless child because mud sticks on reputations and careers.
Perhaps we should turn this around and cast the press in the wrong here for this woman's sake as well as Starr's - it's just that he's the one with the public profile and so he's easier to vilify. By the same token, because she's come forward to the media instead of the police, she's also put her motivations on the line by courting publicity in the first place and laid herself open to opinions like Batty and mine - potentially she's bringing evidence to prominence in the wrong way so her version of the truth is tainted already? 
Q, don't think anyone's temper was getting out of control, but I appreciate the thought. So, 
