Except the verdict is not guilty. Now I accept that means that we take the view that they're treated as innocent, as their is insufficient evidence.

I agree, people are 'innocent until proven guilty' as a general theme of a just and fair society. And we should treat those found not guilty as if they were completely innocent in terms of the offence.

Obviously in some cases people are completely innocent, in others they had a good defence.

However, we also need to be reasonable with this idea. Assuming that say a victim of rape is lying because someone is found not guilty and then treating them as a liar isn't established in law.

A good example of this, would be Freddie Star who was found not guilty of allegations of sexual assault allegations. However, when he sued his accuser, he lost the case, because the Judge found in favour of the accuser, that the events she alleged had most probably occurred, but that there was insufficient evidence for this being 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Its not about truth or untrue, its about what you can and cannot prove, refute and disprove. Innocence is something we extend as 'benefit of the doubt'. Usually you can tell 'how innocent' someone is from the summing up of the Judge.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Has he? I haven't seen too many people who think he is guilty, or news media exposing 'the secret life of cliff Richard' only that the police have investigated and the CPS are reviewing the evidence.

The only person really talking about this is in press is Mr Webb himself, who has made more statements about it, than anyone else.

The BBC coverage of the search wasn't tasteful or even remotely right, but it wasn't illegal either. Plenty of news coverage and even entertainment involves footage of searches or dawn raids etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Most people, I haven't met many. I really don't like the bloke and I'm not referring to him as a kiddie fiddler and have defended him on occasion (Personally, I think he may have attended Elm Guest house, as it was a very popular place for people who were gay in a time where being outed ended careers). And the stories about Cliff being gay are very prevalent (but that's his business).

Also, I'm inclined to think he may be innocent if its only one or two allegations being made. It would be odd if only one or two people came forward with allegations.

The BBC coverage was pretty poor taste. But its a bit hypocritical to complain when its a celebrity, but not when its anyone else. Police Camera Action style entertainment is pretty much the same and the news regularly has broadcast police searches. But it was overkill

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

There are benefits to all this. We'll never hear "Mistletoe and Wine" at Christmas ever again.

This is the problem with historical allegations - if they'd been taken seriously at the time we'd have be spared the musical out put of

Gary Glitter (no I don't want to be in your gang)
Cliff Richard (and no f**king Summer Holiday movie)
Rolf Harris (Keep your didgeridoo to yourself, Blue)
Jonathon King (f**k off to the moon alone you nonce)

They'd be no Klunk-Klick, Jim'll wouldn't have to Fix it, Top of the Pops, Age of the Train.

Plus no Max Clifford.

The world would objectively have been a better place

Of course there would have been no 'its a knockout' or Rolfs Cartoon Toon club.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Plus Lost Prophets, The Who and R Kelly to name three more