Hi
I fully support the position posted by AB2014.
Take away the "celebrity" label and just look at it from a person being judged by the authorities of committing an offence against another person. They had evidence and so taking it to Court was correct. 
Look at societies opinion when it is an act of a man against a woman V a woman against a man.

Please do not let personal anger at the way the CPS has treat us cloud what is correct.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Who do the CPS think they are? They are the people who press ahead with a case when they think they have enough evidence. After all, many cases of domestic violence have been dropped in the past when the abuser persuaded the victim to drop the charges, either because "they can change, it will be different now" or just through threats. They can't change that policy just because the accused is a woman rather than a man, as that would be discrimination. I agree with everything else you said, as this is just another example of this country's social media/celebrity culture obsession.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

The media always just print whatever they feel makes them popular - ie sells newspapers (or their cyber version) and appeals to what they think is public sentiment (ie mob impulses). I think in this case they came down on the side of Caroline Flack just because they felt the issue of mental health is currently trending a little more fervently than domestic abuse, so it tipped the scales for them on which way to go. It helped that she was pretty, and in the public eye. As it happened I think they were right, at least in this case. A proportionate approach to alleged 'abuse' must be prioritized over an all-encompassing prosecution dogma over it (including sexual or domestic) for the sake of the impact on mental health and human family rights of an accused person, just as the punter99 alludes to. I don't honestly think it was a cynical ploy to distract us from their own role in her demise, because I truly think they are too arrogant and stupid to realize the effect they have on the people they report on. As with all guilt, though, much of it ebbs away deep in our subconsciousness so perhaps there was a kind of subliminal awareness at work in them, so the jury is out on that one on second thoughts.
As for the CPS, whilst it was not exactly right to scapegoat them over this (their culpability was shared by the tabloids, the abuse-inquisition charities and a public-who-need-to-get-a-life-who-are-gluttonous for celebrity voyeurism), they are indeed a bunch of CU Next Tuesdays comprising careerist lawyers with no conscience, principally wanting to score a professional notch for their CVs by achieving a prosecution of whatever is fashionable at the time - just now it is in particular making celebrities answerable for their 'crimes', to compensate for notable past failings, especially if it falls within the buzzwords of domestic and abuse, juicier still if it could contain that nebulous concept of 'emotional' abuse. 
Clearly this case was a travesty, falling into all the classic witch hunt rabbit holes. Basically it's a collective manslaughter - CPS and the media should take responsibility because they had the professional power - arising from something little if any different from a tiff. No way was the guy a victim, he probably acknowledged this himself, but even if he didn't he did not want to press the charges so who the hell do the CPS think they are not to respect the wishes of a perfectly self-determinate adult.

Hi
I have been thinking the same since she unfortunately took her life at the weekend.
Note I have no time for shows like love island etc so my words are not as a supporter of her as a viewer but more at the sad loss of a life due to actions of the media and society. 
CPS:
I also believe the CPS were acting correctly as this was an accusation of domestic abuse; which if the abuse was against a woman, it would of received more media coverage preciously. I also agree they could not drop it just because the victim said there was none; there must of been evidence of some sort. Again if it had been a man against a woman and she said drop the charge, they would of said he was controlling her and been outrage if it had been dropped.
We will never know the truth so please everyone, she must be left to rest in peace.

Media:
I have always said if you believe what is said in the Sun then you have to believe what they write/wrote about you and your offence.
As an ex-offender (SO), and when the so righteous Sun writes about SO's I remember some reports they wrote which showed the real nature of this waste of pulp.

1) In previous days a 16 yr old could be photographed topless legally by the press. The good old Sun actually did a countdown of her last days as a 15 yr old to maximise publicity for when she appeared topless on her 16th birthday.
2) In circa 2011 - 12 The Sun published a report about a priest with a hidden camera taking voyeur photos of females and the words they used about were .......... Then when you turned the page they had a large photo of a model on a beach, wrapped in a beach towel trying to change her "pants", not part of a "photoshoot". The words they used were aimed to sexulise the image.
What is the difference between the 2 scenarios I ask?  

Finally in late 2014 an elderly gent (grandfather), clicked on an email link and an illegal image appeared. He showed his wife and both contacted the Police immediately.
The next reactions are arguably a demonstration of bad management by the CPS, Social Services and media.
This is because the Police took the computer, informed Social Services who placed an order preventing him from seeing children, and the media reported in their normal style. Basically his life and his families, was destroyed.
After 6 months with nothing from the Police he took his own life because of the reaction and accusations surrounding him causing so much shame and anguish.
When reported on the Police/CPS only said there was not going to be any charges against him and he should of been told. The Sun only wrote a very small column hidden within the latter pages about his death.

I suppose it is unfortunate that in this modern civilised society we have to accept that as an ex-offender: especially a sex offender - any understanding of the stresses, both emotionally and mentally are not recognised. There is no appreciation that the family of the offender suffers greatly by the media reporting and societies reaction by suggesting guilty by association.

As in this case shows, it doesn't matter if the charges are proved, by publishing offenders personal details does have consequences that cannot be reversed.

In the end if all us ex-offenders - or family members - decided we had only one option left, would there be headline reporting and outcry against the CPS etc. Pointless me providing an answer.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

It's just a huge deflection from the media, The Sun especially considering they wrote a pretty rough, harmful article involving a valentines day card which appears to have now mysteriously vanished from their website... They are a disgusting excuse for a "newspaper" and have shown time and time again that they seem to have zero morals when it comes to getting that "big scoop".

I found a pretty good write up about The Sun's dealing with her.

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/02/caroline-flack-slain-by-sun.html

She isn't the first to be driven to suicide due to media involvement and sadly I can guarantee won't be the last.

This was a headline in one of the papers, following the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack. It's the first time I can remember, that the tabloids have been on the side of the offender, not the CPS.

What explains this sudden change of heart, I wonder? Is it that, in the tabloids neanderthal view of criminal justice, domestic violence still doesn't count as a 'real' crime? Could it be that the increased focus on mental health these days has made them aware of the reality; that anyone accused of a crime will suffer devastating and long lasting damage to their mental health, particularly if they have had no previous contact with the law before?

Maybe, it is just a case of one rule for celebrity offenders and a different rule for everybody else? Or, perhaps it is just a cynical ploy to distract public attention away from the media's own role in her death? To make the CPS the scapegoat, when it's the papers themselves who have blood on their hands. What do people think?