All these cases predate Saville.
The media attention on child abuse cases is such that the Judiciary are imposing far more severe sentences (& rightly so) for them, particularly those where there has been grooming beforehand-the act itself has been prepared & built up to over a period of time in most cases-usually via social media/internet.
It will ultimately depend on the gory details of the actual sexual contact & whether he is convicted of the offences he denies, but it remains child abuse where he has groomed his victim & likely abused his fame & fortune to achieve this.
I agree with the general principle that acquisitive crime has historically been treated far more seriously than offences of violence or abuse, but I think you'll find that there is a groundswell of public disgust at these offences & their perpetrators that the Judiciary are responding to.
I don't know. Why should they sentence a man, like Glitter, because at the time of his offences Sex acts against children were not as harshly treated. Why was the climate different to paedophiles then?
Historically some crimes were treated with harsher sentences, but they don't give you the same harsh sentence if you get nicked 10 years after.
For Instance if you got nicked for a burglary you did 10 years ago after having your prints taken you may be sentenced leniently or harshly depending on the current climate towards burglars. Not on how the average burglar would have been sentenced in 2005.
here's one example of many:
Just last March a man from Bradford, Mohammed Ahmed was sentenced for having unlawful sex with a 14 yr old.
He was cleared of rape with violence as he produced witnesses, a Mr Khan, who said they heard the dad beating the girl after he was caught in the house by the father and ran off. He had claimed he did not touch her, the father did the injuries.
So, plead not guilty to rape and unlawful sex with a child. He was found guilty of Unlawful sex with a child of 14yrs of age.
The Judge said in summing up:
"You knew her age and took advantage of her vulnerability. She was easy prey and you encouraged her advances.
"Her mother warned you off but you went on to fulfil your sexual desires.
"You pleaded not guilty and came across to me as an arrogant and self-centred young man who has shown no real remorse.
"I don't think you will respond to a long custodial sentence in any meaningful way, but anyone who takes sexual advantage of a child must expect prison."
He was jailed for 2 years, 2 fucking years after pleading not guilty and having the front to mitigate he was sorry and made a mistake and please give me a sex offender programme after found guilty.
The climate towards such offences was the same then. He still got Bail too. Some wouldn't for lesser offences.
12 month and he'll be out.
Well, he's probably out next month.