Absolutely agree with all of gillymor's post. A couple of things here. He committed a crime for which he's served his punishment according to the law. He gets his "second chance" by dint of the fact that he wasn't incarcerated for ever. But that second chance comes with caveats, and there's a fair bit of conflating going on here. Public opinion isn't punishing him. There is no "court of public opinion." We are not talking about him still being punished by some law or other. The law is no longer interested in him. He will have done hundreds of gigs I'm sure since the offence. The organisers and punters either didn't care or didn't know or a mixture of the two. That's all fine by me. It's just that I personally wouldn't have gone to those gigs. That's not me punishing him. That's me refusing to hold my nose. He's a child abuser and I'm not, so I find it odd that I'm criticised for demurring while he's being stood up for. Incidentally, I've seen all his gushing sorrow, etc., for what he did. I note that one excuse (yes, excuse) was that that's what people did in those days. Well that don't wash with me, because I for one didn't and wouldn't have. That's not me being self-righteous, pfr. That's me being normal, unlike him. I also noted from the contemporary reports that the 14-year-old had been obliged to resist his advances. No casual accident, was it then? I wouldn't bandy around unfounded suspicions as to whether he did it before or since, but I know what I think and what I think informs my attitude to him. That's how it should be and I respect anyone's right to have a different attitude.