Well the whole Jimmy Savile kiddie fiddler (alleged at the moment) story seems to continue to be big news, and pretty much every seventies television/radio star is stepping out of the shadows to claim that they either heard rumours about it, or suspected it, but the one thing they all have in common is that none of them did anything about it.
Unsurprisingly here we are in 2012 and the backlash against their silence is building up rapidly.
So rapidly that every discussion about the specific allegations has to have Esther Rantzen, Paul Gambaccini, and the rest, considered as co-conspirators to the alleged abuse.
Is that very fair on them though?
My first thoughts were that it was the seventies.
The era of The Sweeney and Love thy neighbour.
When men were men, and women were to be good housewives and enjoy their second class citizenship.
That's not to excuse the behaviour of sexual predators who preyed on children though.
Far from it.
All I am doing is pointing out that this alleged abuse happened to the backdrop of an era when sexist, and even racist behaviour, was pretty much the norm, and that does make a difference.
An era when women were still finding their feet and fighting for real emancipation.
A time when the battle to be considered as equal to males in society was barely out of the gates.
It's a bald fact that allegations of abuse against females, regardless of age, were not given the credence that they would be given now.
This was decades before the war cry was zero tolerance.
In the seventies men could in general do as they damn well pleased, and rich men who enjoyed a famous profile could manage to go a step further again and be virtually untouchable.
Taken in the context of the era I'm not surprised that the people who heard whispers didn't speak out.
Especially as they claim it was rumours that reached their ears. Not that they had actually witnessed the abuse.
It's all so very easy to point the finger at these individuals safe from the comfort of the couch, and claim that we would all do different, but how many really would?
How many people see things on a daily basis that they should have a moral obligation to question yet don't?
Not even hearing idle gossip, but situations that we see happening?
Not necessarily child abuse of course.
Maybe we should cut these celebrities of the seventies - a woman and a gay man - some slack.
Without definitive proof they were never going to get anywhere.
Maybe instead we should be happy that off the back of the allegations from the actual victims that they are willing to now voice their concerns rather than maintain the silence that so many others probably are.
Of course it shouldn't really need to be said, but if anyone actually seen a child being abused then if they remained silent they are morally on very shaky ground.
I personally wouldn't feel the need to make any argument on their behalf to absolve them of their responsibilities.
They are in fact co-conspirators by proxy.
The people who are more deserving of our loathing are those who worked in the care homes and were told directly by the young girls what had happened.
They had a duty to act, and didn't
These are the people who chose to ignore abuse claims from the victims to maintain the flow of cash and the patronage of a famous man.
Their refusal to act at the time sickens me far more than the silence of the celebrities who had only heard rumours.