I don't much care for proclaiming guilt because there was an "aura of pervert". Guilt depends on being guilty, not having an aura.

No doubt part of the reason this is surfacing is because the dead cannot sue for libel - and it may be interesting to compare the widespread rumours that in order to compete on (much less win) Opportunity Knocks you had to be shagged by Hughie Green (known as "Huge" even in public, to his last lady companion but I cannot say the reason) whatever gender you were. But of course the dead cannot be posthumously convicted either.

Back in the 60s the pill had removed terror of unwanted pregnancy. Herpes was a distant threat, and the idea of Aids would have been unthinkable. STDs were not that common, and treatable. It was the first great liberation of sex - and many groupies were begging for it, and going back for more if they could. The ones who got into the star's pants were accounted the lucky ones - and although the Bay City Rollers were musically vile I felt the much delayed conviction and investigation there were a bit puritanical. The tales of Jagger, of the Status Quo, and many others were uniform. The dam had burst and sex could be and was enjoyed. Think of songs like "Young Girl", "Mellow Yellow", Young Girl" "Don't Stand So Close to Me". Think of the Oz schoolkids issue. Think of the cartoon "Honeybunch". That was the zeitgeist of the times and the time I assumed everyone was doing it and wanted to do it even more. The majority of my friends of gender started their sex lives when under age and I am reasonably confident the same has prevailed ever since and still does.

But it seems that not everyone was of the same frame of mind. King was clearly a predator rather than an opportunist, and in some cases coercion now appears to have been thought to be in play. In 2003 the "abuse of position of responsibility" crime came into play.

I am not sure that we have got our collective position on this right. Young people between about 12 and 16 face either unwanted (in many cases) celibacy or criminality. Only some positions involve deemed trust that may render what might be (or might not be) a genuine relationship unlawful. I know of one case not all that long ago at the Hundred of Hoo school where a teacher entered a relationship with a girl pupil - to whom he is now married. More recently there was another case with another teacher (Spendley) at the same school in which there was no coercion but there appears to have been a misuse of position: the relationship foundered, and Spendley is still married to his wife but in prison and mentally ill. The girl also continues to feel adverse after effects. As the judge said, it was a tragedy for all concerned. What I have said here about Spendley was all in the press at the time.

We have the law as a blunt instrument. It criminalises too much and too little. Referring to the 2003 Act Sections 9 to 15 are probably too wide - although I am less clear on sections 14 and 15 - and 16 to 44 are probably too narrow.

I tend to think that S 72 is too wide. Some commentators above should however have a look at it.