The post accuses someone by name with some fairly emotive acts. Enough to have repurcussions on the other person's life. That seems like an attempt at amateur justice to me. In my country, the post would be grounds for libel if she can't prove it in court.
In mine, it would be grounds for libel most likely even if she can prove it in court, as far as I understand law. Or rather, the point is that she can't prove it fast enough for it not be libel (proof has to be produced within ten days, and in this case, proof would be a judgement against the guy).
And I have to say that seems perfectly reasonable to me, as public accusations outside the justice system are something I really disapprove of.
Imagine if the United States adopted the legal structure around the reporting of accusations in Britain. Nancy Grace would be out of a job overnight, and perhaps we'd see more successful libel verdicts.
To explain: the media cannot report on an accusation until the accused is convicted, as I understand it, though I'm not British and not familiar with the very probable nuances that exist.
Factual, are we 100% certain? If you are going to attached these type of title to this person, we had better be damn certain. This is why we have a legal system and not mob rule based on emotions. If he is guilty then so be it but until we know for sure, we should hold judgement. Also she mentions at the beginning that she is just writing this to get it out there, sounds rushed.
