
This leads the cynic in me to wonder whether there is an element of fame-hunting (or event compensation-seeking) in those who have stepped forward with their stories. If there really were 'hundreds' of victims, then why has it taken so many years for anyone to bring their allegations to the public attention?
"The wave of allegations made against him sparked the launch of the Operation Yewtree police investigation, which is also looking into claims about others linked to him as well as separate allegations about a number of high-profile figures." The Guardian Website, 14/10/2013
The key here, for me, is that not only has Jimmy Savile not yet been found guilty of any of these allegations but also that numerous other public figures have been brought into the limelight for all the wrong reasons as well. Take, for example, the case of Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell who was arrested and taken to court for raping a child, this heinous crime turned the nation against him- he was suspended without pay from his job, he was ridiculed and insulted and everyone was sure he was guilty because he was in court and every day he was shamed on the news with his head hung low. Yet he was cleared. All allegations said to be false and where do the public stand then? In support of the man they briefly shunned from society.

In my opinion it is not freedom of speech for the press to publish the names of individuals when it may harm their own right to a private life. To me, it is clear that part of punishment for a crime should be the public knowledge of the guilty perpetrator (which leads on to all sorts of rants regarding super injunctions or 'gagging orders' protecting the guilty from shame) but part of the trial should not be compromised by the public knowledge of a defendant. Is it a fair trial if his jury are bombarded with propaganda in the tabloids and outcry in the streets? Should an innocent man's reputation be forever blighted because of one person's word against another?