"This isn't a random accusation.
It is a police investigation.
Do you understand the difference?"
If he hasn't been charged yet, then it may be exactly the former. Someone walks into a Police station, makes a complaint, the target of the complaint is questioned. That puts him "under investigation", potentially on the sole say-so of a single individual, who even gets to remain anonymous into the deal. There may be NO other evidence against him, it may even (unlikely but it DOES happen) be a malicious and fabricated complaint. Until the evidence is taken to court and cross-examined, it actually could be malicious. You don't know, we don't know, no one knows except the complainant and the defendant.
There's a local case in particular that has formed my opinion on this sort of thing. In one case a teacher was questioned on suspicion of possessing child porn. 6 months later - having not been able to leave his house for fear of getting mobbed - the CPS got around to actually charging him and taking the case to court. Whereupon he was found innocent, because they hadn't done due diligence on the intelligence they had received, and it transpired his card details had been skimmed and used fraudulently, which explained why they could find no evidence of him actually ever accessing or possessing this porn on any computer he had access to, nor anything untoward in the extensive search of his house.
There was no evidence in fact, except the FBI saying his card details had popped up on a server they'd seized. And realistically, how much of an idiot do you have to be to use your own card details to buy something illegal? That list should have been assumed to be full of fraudulent transactions from the off. The Police are shockingly bad at "cyber crime", and how it took the CPS 6 months to bring a case to court when they only had one piece of evidence I will never know. They ruined his life based on a piece of evidence that an expert witness took apart in 5 minutes. The case was thrown out in under 5 hours FFS. But I digress.
Nevertheless, in that period, the shameful behaviour of the local gossip rags had made his position utterly untenable and he had to move away. That is UTTERLY unacceptable in my mind, to be forced out of a job simply because of a (false) accusation, whether it be rape, child porn, child molesting (not that I conflate possession of porn as being even remotely as serious as actual abuse, but the media generally lumps it all together).
That sort of thing sticks with you.
"So why did you leave your last post?"
"Aaaaah, would you believe me if I said I fancied a new challenge?"
Now that's a toughie, because clearly it's inappropriate for him to be teaching in the interim - pending trial - but equally, the rags shouldn't be able to smear his name through the mud just because he's on a precautionary leave of absence. He has a right to his family life, his privacy, and his reputation, which should be left intact until such a time as a guilty verdict is reached. No one has the right to go taking photos through his windows of him and his kids having breakfast, which is exactly what one of the grubby local papers did.
And this guy should have the exact same rights. We shouldn't be having this discussion at all.
You can see why I automatically feel some sympathy for the accused. Because they are the accused, and NOTHING ELSE until they are tried and found guilty.
It's not "rape culture" to treat someone as innocent until they are proven guilty. That is in fact the entire premise of our whole legal system. If there's an idea that they pose a threat to the public, remand without bail remains an option.
I think he did get some compo from one of the nasty little rags which had crossed the line well into both harassment and libel territory, but that hardly makes up for a shattered reputation and having to move house. Unsurprisingly he was pretty pissed with both the CPS and the media and didn't pull any punches when it came to attacking their handling of the whole sorry affair.
My view is anything to do with child porn, child abuse or rape should carry an automatic media ban, making it contempt of court to report that someone is being investigated until such a time as a guilty verdict is reached. This topic for instance, would constitute contempt.
Unless the judge is convinced there may be other victims and a media appeal is the best way to encourage others to come forward, then no one should know you've been investigated or even charged.
Nigel Evans has expressed this sentiment recently after he was found entirely innocent after months of press speculation, and hopefully something may come of it.
In fact he's even written an article in the Spectator about exactly this, given he was in Mr Sullivan's position not so long ago.
Supposedly you are innocent until proven guilty, but on the internet, with social media (exactly like this, people posting around notices on forums when no charge has even been brought), these sorts of accusations have a habit of sticking, even if nothing comes of them. "He was never charged, but there was this incident ten years back, no smoke without fire, I'd steer clear if I were you". Which is actually libellous, but it kind of follows people around after such events.