| Quote: |  | |
| From your own article...
"Lord Shackleton wrote that police had investigated Smith in 1970 for "indecent assault against teenage boys" between 1961 and 1966, but the director of public prosecutions (DPP) had decided "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction"."
So are we denying people jobs/honours/etc now on the basis that they were investigated and released without charge? If I reported you as a child molester tomorrow, you would hope exactly the same thing would happen to you, investigation, not enough evidence, case dropped. I don't think the fact it happened should prejudice the rest of your life though and I don't think your boss should look at a dropped investigation and say "err, he shouldn't get a promotion because of this". | |
| | |
How very liberal of you. Each case should be looked at by its merit, in this case the investigation period was between 1961 and 1966. He was being investigated for the possibility of a number of serious crimes which means (at least) any prospect of honours, etc might have been put on hold. It was a cover up in the end, it is not the same kind of situation as the scenario you are comparing with, there was fire to go with the smoke. Like so many of these cases, if they were really bothered to find out the truth they very easily could have.