The furore surrounding the Savile affair shows no signs of abating. According to the media, some "showbiz" people, contemporaries of Savile, are now running scared that they will be dragged into the mire because of their sexual encounters with, let us call them their fans, which in the case of pop music, probably means adolescent girls, age indeterminate. We are talking about the "Swinging Sixties", the decade when sex suddenly became easy and available, the era of the Pill, no inhibitions, no risk of getting pregnant, no AIDS, just mini skirts and fun and hanging loose. I got married, started a family and was building my career in that decade so I was just an observer, though my eyes regularly popped at the sight of a pelmet miniskirt (up to C level as someone called it). TV pop progammes showed screaming teenagers, mostly but not exclusively girls, going wild for their favourite pop idols. It was not uncommon for discarded panties to be thrown on the stage. I suppose this sort of harmless hysteria reached its apogee in Beatlemania. Now, I would be very surprised if no member of a pop group EVER took advantage of the situation - all that pulchritude, all that adulation, all that easily available sex.
Now, before you get out the tar and feathers or start pushing dog turds through my letterbox, let me say I am not condoning or approving this behaviour, but I am at least trying to understand the fears of those old showbiz guys who are now expecting the copper's knock on their front door any minute. And also, before you get out the tar etc etc, I am not ignoring the genuine victims of genuine sexual abuse. Vulnerable people betrayed by others put in a position of trust over them deserve our total protection, and the law should be brought to bear on those betraying that trust. At the moment, I am just trying to put some perspective into the situation that obtained in the sixties. From a legalistic point of view, it might be helpful to define a "child".