That seems improbable, so perhaps we will see similar prosecutions arise here and elsewhere, of now ageing television and radio stars, plus politicians of yesteryear.
Secondly: why are entertainers and politicians the culprit group? The answer tendered with Savile and Harris is their stardom, plus their sense of invulnerability. But those factors apply even more to sportsmen in the modern era and, isolated incidents aside, we don't see these complaints with them.
Another interesting issue stems from the outcry protesting at Harris's sentence of nearly six years as grossly inadequate. The ghastly celebrity spin doctor Max Clifford copped eight years, yet unlike many of Harris's victims, with the exception of a 15-year-old girl, his targets were young women, rather than children. The reason for these varying sentences relates to the time of offending. Harris's offending was a long time ago, Clifford's more recent, and the respective judges were obliged to consider the prevailing values when the offences occurred.
Maggie Barry would have been laughed at had she protested to the police in the early 1980s at Harris's groping her. Harris might have been labelled a creep, or at worst, a dirty old man, but criminality - no way, just a bloke having a go in age-old fashion. But that was then. Thus, I suspect Clifford is bewildered at his fate, his offending largely amounting to traditional casting couch opportunism. Many famous film stars, mostly recently Susan Sarandon, have either confessed to succumbing or been outed for "sleeping" their way to the top. If always frowned on, it was never viewed as criminal, but values have changed.
Judges are fond of talking about offences against public morals, or immoral behaviour and such-like. They're talking nonsense when they do. An accused may have committed a crime in terms of the law but that doesn't make his conduct immoral. Morality is a personal judgment, and so-called public morality is simply the coincidence of a commonality of values, which are forever changing, but are never right or wrong in any absolute sense.
Throughout the 1000 years of Greek and Roman civilisations, Harris, Clifford and company's offences were acceptable behaviour, so too were the priests' and scoutmasters' paedophilia.
I would pay serious money for the pleasure of lighting the faggots and burning every child molester to death. Indeed, given the numbers, it would become a full-time career. To me, it's the most heinous of crimes but, had I been born 2000 years ago, I wouldn't have held that view. Last week, Sydney judge Gary Neilson made these same observations and incurred the wrath of the mob, but he was right.
One can read libraries on the subject of morality. Don't. A delightfully funny, acclaimed 1997 novella called Gents will tell you all you need to know about ever-shifting morality. Its author, Warwick Collins, who died last year, never received due acknowledgement for the book despite its rave reviews and large sales. Most libraries will have a copy. Briefly, it recounts the changing morality regarding homosexual behaviour with three West Indian cleaners in charge of a London underground men's public toilet which was a hot location for homosexual trysts. Typically the West Indians were appalled by this, thus they leap to the task with gusto once the council awakened to what was happening and told them to do something about it.
Unfortunately, their amusing harassment campaign was so successful in driving away the homosexuals, the takings fell, leading to the council advising that one of them must go. The subsequent full-circle denouncement is hilarious. Read it for a true understanding of the elasticity of supposed moral absolutes, often to match one's changing self-interests. As the Times wrote, it's a modern-day classic.
