Originally Posted by Chic Murray
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
To exclude him from an investigation?
That's what they ultimately ended up doing and said there were no charges to answer.
Edit: but I do take the point that he was accused by the alleged victim.
Yes, he was accused by a supposed victim but there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime.
And in the eyes of the law you are innocent until proven guilty.
Although you wouldn't think it these days - funnily enough I was just reading this article.
Pretty poor that someone can be charged, acquitted, but still have their future career prospects affected by having the fact that they were charged put on their disclosure forms.
I was fishing for a bite with my innocent man jibe...apologies
But he was accused of something, by someone. Not enough evidence to lay charges though.
My point was that he spent a lot of money about his name being smeared when he, if innocent, presumably knew that he'd be cleared anyway.
Alas, I can understand the other side of the coin that if you're innocent, you don't want to be tarnished with such allegations at all, for any period of time.