In
theory (and this is a complex layered subject with many pros and cons that would easily occupy a book) British libel law forces a serious conversation as to firmly allege that Jimmy Saville fiddles children would require hard proof that Jimmy Saville fiddles children.
ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts.
On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court.
Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.