I didn't realise that you had to have a degree in law to have an opinion worthy of consideration on a judgement. Just yesterday I was asked, by a firm of solicitors, to give an opinion on what a judgement meant operationally regarding a patent being pursued. The worth and merit of that opinion can then be discussed by those suitably qualified but the fact that it was requested must mean it has some value? If we follow your logic then, for example, only dentists should have opinions on teeth, sommeliers opinions on wine, parents opinions on children and, dare I say it, qualified coaches opinions on football. Interesting world you live in eh?
For the record, any opinion you have has, in my opinion, some worth. It's good to have opinions but, more importantly the substance to back up what your opinion is based on.
My opinion in this case is based on the flow of information within the public domain through all forms (and qualities) of media with particular attention being paid to the views of organisations such as Children 1st and the clear admission of guilt by Thomson. Taking this all into account and my natural instinct to protect my own as much as possible, I form the opinion I express above.
What is your opinion based on?