They seem to have forgotten the crucial ingredient in this story - it makes a good story.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713797...ion-campaigners.html

She said: ‘Most members of the public understand the presumption of innocence and are able to distinguish between the position of someone who has been (merely) arrested, someone who has been charged, and someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence."


doesn't get out much then does she.

So glad you picked up on this Hedda (perhaps our most astute poster?) - precisely the sentence I felt warranted noticing. Is there a legal way of getting Judges censored for losing their marbles?

Apologies - I failed to notice the Editorial on P18 where they admit that the reason for their delight is because stopping police telling the Mail who they arrest might seriously damage their main source of stories. They admit that media publicity provokes false allegations and claims by people seeking compensation or media interview fees but say it's worth it. Or at least that's what I THINK the Editorial says - read it for yourself.