ON MP Neil Carmichael’s claim that the inquiry into abuse allegations against Sir Edward Heath amounted to a ‘witch hunt’.

Posted by mattyfrog: The police need to investigate any allegations. Otherwise what are they for?

People get convicted on evidence, not hearsay. But to collect that evidence, sometimes victims need to know that a line of inquiry is being pursued. That would require the accused being publicly named if that person was a public figure, goes with the territory.

Perhaps some people should spend time with victims of abuse to see why even a posthumous conviction can be part of the coping (some would say healing) process.

If the accused is guilty then evidence will be found but you can’t do that by keeping quiet about it. That’s why these cases are only being heard about now.

Posted by Flash1971: The reason people like Savile and Cyril Smith got away with abuse is because victims were not believed and their allegations were not followed up. The police have to investigate any allegations made.

Posted by Phyllus Jones: Why on earth is Neil Carmichael defending Sir Edward Heath? It is an issue that has to be aired. If no credible evidence of Heath being a paedophile is found, the police will state such. And that will be to Heath’s benefit, since it will clear the air of the innuendo that presently exists. Meanwhile, let the police do their job without political interference.

On Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for the Labour leadership.

Posted by wlozinska: Jeremy Corbyn with the help of “some very clever people” (as he puts it), has formulated a number of very sensible proposals (which are by no means “far left”) with really good and popular ideas, especially on how our economy could be fixed, by stimulating industry (especially focused on green technologies) and growth, to benefit all of the people in this country and not just those at the very top.