Unless the nation is in the grip of a mass hysteria, which isn’t out of the question, it seems Sir Jimmy Savile perpetrated many crimes over many years and was protected from exposure by his fame and connections.

How different would it have been if it were not for the libel laws? No news agency dared run the stories which followed after him, and it must be presumed the fear of litigation played a large part in this. If this danger had not existed, it would have been much more likely for the man to be exposed. Some will argue that, in this case, everyone’s reputation would be at risk from unsubstantiated accusations. That is true, but, as I’ve argued before, that being the case, the value attributed to such accusations would rest on the evidence, and anyway, it’s a freedom of speech issue.