Pat - I am not making a comparison, neither is naomi, it is the logic of her argument that gives rise to my use of Savile to make my point.
If you are going to set up a judgement of behaviour, which naomi has, then it should stand up to testing.
That means that it can stand a comparison - even an unpleasant one.
And if it doesn't, and the Savile example shows that it doesn't, then Boris doesn't get let off.
That's the point I am making.
It has nothing to do with Johnson or Savile, it's about testing a position, and seeing if it stands up.
And in my view, it does not.
So let's not get emotional about the example I am using, that's not the point.
It's about being rational and fair in all cases, not simply allowing one because it fits, and not the other because of the circumstances.