I've covered evidence and so-called 'hard evidence' above.There either is or is not sufficient evidence to offer a realistic chance of prosecution.


I'm afraid if 'old skool' believe that now, or did between 56 and 2003 then they are incorrect now, and were incorrect during, and indeed before that time period as well.

changed times. If someone is accused of committing a crime say in 1975, then they are prosecuted under the law which prevailed then , not now.So the implication by some that it's retrospective using current law to prosecute past events is simply not correct

The prism of celebrity. As said already these are a tiny number of cases, but yet are often those because of media coverage which focus the attention of some, beyond what their small numbers would justify.

If the people/bands haven't been dragged through the courts as you mention then perhaps there aren't those of certain intent some would want to believe.

Depends what you mean by pursued.The deceased can't really be prosecuted


I'm sure times have changed as you say, but it's the law applicable at that time that is used to prosecute. Arguably some change is for better, some not so.It was possible to put ads saying 'no B*****, no I****, and no dogs.Some may mourn that time and that 'freedom' personally in certain respects at least, I don't

Are males currently afraid to wolf whistle? - I can't say I've noticed fear, perhaps they just think it may not be the coolest approach available and belongs to another era. But Ive heard in the NW some are terrified of small Irish women, so who knows