Peter Hain has simply named Green. He has not prejudiced any future trial by doing that. He hasn't compromised any evidence that might be brought by either defence or prosecution. Green has, de facto, admitted that he's the man in question. You are defending not only the indefensible but you are arguing for the perpetuation of sexual and racial abuse via keeping it secret. Had Hain not named him, there was every prospect that Green's offensive behaviour would never have been made public (and you can hardly deny that outing him is in the public interest) and would have given him carte blanche to carry on doing it. Well done for making that argument, I must say. It seems to me that protecting this charlatan's "confidentiality" (aka his dirty little secrets) is far more important to you than hearing from his victims and stopping him from carrying on having his grubby little indulgences.