If people think that the question I raised about a victim sueing a previous victim because they didn't report their "attack", isn't that similar to people now thinking of sueing the BBC (in both the Savile and Hall cases) because the "attacks" occurred in their time/space?

They might think they're on a better wicket with the BBC because the Corporation is likely to look at the amount being claimed, offer a lower figure to settle out of Court and then claim (a victory?) that they've done well to settle????