This man's arrest is not part of the Savile investigation, but Savile's case has surely prompted others to speak out now they know, for the first time, that they will be heard and something will be done.
The complaint is that these cases can't be proved because it's one person's word against another's. Now, this does not stop other prosecutions. One police officer's word has convicted many a criminal; the jury had no trouble deciding who was lying. And the same applies when the sole material witness is an ordinary citizen.
But, years ago, any case of a sexual nature required the evidence of the complainant to be corroborated, in a material particular, by some evidence which was independent of the complainant's. Virtually no other cases had that requirement; curiously, speeding required corroboration; but in sexual assaults it was considered essential and many a rapist, many a sexual assailant, went free because of it. Had the rapist or sexual attacker contented himself with ordinary assault, the woman's testimony alone would have been sufficient. That's one reason why men got away with such behaviour.