Jim - I'm thinking back over 20 years to banter about Gary Glitter
when news first appeared about his computer hard drive..

General tone was something like

"lucky bastard, all that fame and money, and shagging jailbait groupies.."

Then rumours started appearing that he'd raped a baby...
Which completely changed the views of average bloke in a West country pub..

Whatever the facts of his crimes - he got caught and dealt with.
Maybe not as harshly as some would have demanded...

But now to points of law...

Consenting underage teenage girl and raped baby..
Two extremes now conflated in public opinion as the same crime.
Degrees of criminal intent seem immaterial.
Paedo is the only word in use condemning either, and all ages in between.
Even though there are existing definitions distinguishing between paedos,
and sex with post pubescent underage teens..
But by common usage, a paedo is a paedo, is a paedo....

Consent is no defence in law, even if the minor was only one day away from the age of consent.
In such narrowly marginal cases, is consent even considered a mitigating factor for sentencing...???
Should the offender be judged to be as evil as a baby raper...???

I've now read up on Yarrow.
His offence seems non-consensual by most reasonable standards.
Perhaps he was let off too lightly..

Certain Rolling Stones seem to be teflon coated...