In late March 2015 we wrote "another day in the UK another celebrity named, shamed and charged with allegations of sex abuse, highlighting British hypocrisy regarding such offences; BBC News reports that Dr Neil Fox, 53, a DJ, has been charged with nine offences which date back to between 1991 and 1996." but Monday December 15 the celebrity DJ was cleared of all offences.
54-year-old Fox wept in the Dock as was cleared of all charges, and then hugged his wife before making an emotional speech.
The judge said he believed the accusers but that the case was difficult due to the 'historic' nature of charges.
The Mail Online reporting Monday raises an important issue - "But last night a mother of two aged 42, who claims the DJ indecently assaulted her as a teenager, told the Mail: ‘How can the judge say he believes all our accounts but not find him guilty? I don’t see how that is justice.’ She also questioned why the case was not put before a jury."
This case was the first of its kind to be held at a magistrate's rather than crown court.
Scotland Yard said in March that he faced six charges of indecent assault, of which three allegedly involved girls aged under 16, and two allegations of sexual assault.
Fox "categorically denied each and every allegation that has been made against him." His first 'day in court' was scheduled for April 16.
But as we noted what will gall many reading this story is the naming and shaming of accused celebrities prior to court appearances unlike the accused allegedly involved in the Westminster paedophile ring.
The victims or survivors of abuse at the hands of the establishment continue to wait for their day in court and justice to be served.
Current policy in the UK means a person accused of sex and or child abuse will be named with police justifying that method of operating by claiming it helps give other victims the confidence to come forward.
When Sir Cliff Richard's house was searched the police even informed the BBC who had reporters present though Richard's was out of the country at the time. That has to be wrong.
Yet historical allegations of child and sex abuse that run deep into the British establishment are veiled in secrecy. Allegations and accusations, along with some names, can be found online but there is no blatant naming and shaming by the authorities.
And of course the problem with naming celebrities and other abusers is if they are in reality innocent of the charges. There have been at least a couple of 'name' who were vindicated including Corrie's William Roache and DJ Paul Gambaccini.
But if it is the British way in these cases then it must cut across the board and apply to ministers, Lords et al.
The inquiry into establishment abuse was stalled twice in 2014 when Theresa May Home Secretary appointed a chairperson with establishment links.
Ultimately she had to look further afield and appointed from New Zealand.
But the inquiry is still stalled and did not play out before the May 2015 General Election.
Now that Westminster and the establishment are under the microscope some MPS believe anonymity is the way forward.
But is that just for the establishment or the rest of the UK?
This from the Mail Online has to be a cause for concern, but not as far as Fox goes - "District Judge Howard Riddle described the case against the star as ‘strong’ and said the witnesses told the truth ‘as they remember it’.But he said the most difficult aspect of the case was that many of the allegations were historic and they should be treated with caution. As a result, he said the bench ‘could not be sure that in the context it was a criminal offence’."
Was Riddle preparing the ground for a whitewash when allegations of an 'historic' establishment paedophile ring finally come to a head?
Note: One case worth following is "Solihull actor Ben Fellows charged with perverting the course of justice" - Daily Mirror