Those defending Jimmy Savile, whose basic premise appears to be a syllogistic delusion based around that he was a celebrity and lived in an era where droit de seigneur had only just been abolished, are a morality tale for the rest of us. Savile always had the air of the creepy park-lurker about him, and it is hardly surprising that there are now sufficiently-motivated victims who find the solidarity in numbers that the abuser habitually seeks to deny.
The few remaining apologists refer to "charity" as though that acts as a justification - and they would be horrified were this to be made equivalent to Hitler's advocacy of vegetarianism. The next hoary old right-wind chestnut that they spout is that the victims are just looking for compensation.
This is so deluded that it would be hilarious were it not demeaning those who have been damaged and degraded over a period of decades. Closure and progress go together, and now that the genie is out of the bottle a collective process may actually provide some way forward for the unfortunate prey upon which he feasted, with or without collusion from others.
Given that there has been progress over the decades, it is hardly surprising that this kind of behaviour has become easier both to spot and to prevent. Yet the progress is only limited - the morality of celebrity magazines and the "lad's mag" phenomenon is not that far removed from the kind of sexist workplace and blind-eye culture that permeated institutions far beyond the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s.
Only last week, there was a furore raised about the night-club culture targeted at students that promotes sexism at best and the misogynist macho wannabe-Alpha male at worst. Those who attack this are portrayed as killjoys or politically-correct mavens - demonstrating quite how fragile is any vision of valuing the human being.
Therefore, I'm firmly with those who believe that the Savile boil has to be lanced publicly, as only by revealing the damage that has been wrought can we even claim to be aspiring to civilisation.