But I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to prove anything against an individual.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned previously but Gary Glitter has again been charged with crimes of a sexual nature. What has made the alleged victims come forward now? I know the media have been saying that the Savile stuff has empowered more victims of sex abuse come forward but GG was done for noncing about 15 years ago in a well publicised case, why ony come forward now?

Equally it may well help the organisations involved realise where things went wrong previously, thus preventing it happening again.
It's pointless simply stating he was vile and did this that and the other unless we actually learn something from what we know now.

So how do you explain the ones that have not been charged and no further action will be taken? I give you Freddie Starr as a starter for 10.
I refer back to my earlier comments which explain IMHO the workings of the CPS. They are under severe pressure with this set of allegations to get it right. They have the entire case file in their possession. Not anyone on this forum (that bit I am simply assuming) and the base their decision on that file. It's not based on the name of the suspect.

"It's not based on the name of the suspect."

I understand that but I suspect that there is a small element of clawing in a "name" for publicity's sake, publicity for new "victims" (rightly or wrongly) to come forward and publicity for a government department that like all others is facing annual reviews of whether they are really necessary or not, what better response to a budget question than "Well we've convicted xxx publicly known sex offenders this year" and what worse response to the same question than "Well we lost every bloody sex offence case last year, especially the famous ones".

As a for instance one of Jimmy Saviles mates who acted as his driver and often procurer of "victims" was convicted of sex offences of his own a couple of years ago, did it get publicity, it got a mention on the news that night and then nothing else, have we had a huge enquiry into how many other "victims" this bloke procured, no, because he wasn't a "name" and the conviction was enough with no need to seek out other accusers or to take the matter any further.

So in that respect, yes, the "names" are being treated differently.

I am not sure about now, but in the past the CPS was always seen as the choice of last resort / desperation for those who couldn't get a training contract or pupillage anywhere else.

Which might say a lot about the quality of people making decisions there.

When Allison Saunders was appointed DPP, she spent the word 'pupillage' wrong on her profile on the CPS website.

I know it's not the same thing, but this did make me giggle.

Not as if you could make the same mistake.

Tie you down in jail Rolf, tie you down in jail.....

Absolutely gutted about Rolf. Thought he was one of the good guys.