Let's be honest, a lot of the Yewtree thing is a witchhunt- it's very telling that of the 14 charges DLT was on trial for, they could only get one to stick (and even that one had to go to a retrial).
The one charge he was finally convicted on was a fresh one that wasn't part of his first trial. At some point after the first trial, somebody made the police aware that a woman had, some years earlier, given a public media interview during which she chatted in a light-hearted and humorous manner about DLT
having once touched her breasts.
The police then contacted the woman to ask her to give evidence. At no stage had she ever made a complaint to the police about it. Obviously it would be illegal for me to name her on here, but it is not illegal to listen to the interview that she willingly put into the public domain, and to form one's own opinions about it. In my view there is no indication in that interview that she experienced anything more than mild surprise and annoyance as a result of DLT touching her breasts through her clothes (it must also be stressed that she was an adult when it happened). Of course, that's not to say that it wasn't sexual assault, but for DLT to be tarnished with the Savile brush for that one single offence is utterly ludicrous.
It's worth also noting that DLT lost his house in order to pay for his legal defence fees – and I'm talking here about the defence of the numerous charges he was acquitted on in the first trial (under new legal rules you can't reclaim your defence costs even when you're found not guilty - Michael Le Vell and William Roache have both lost a fortune accordingly).
So, without wishing to condone the clearly illegal act of groping a part of someone's body without their consent, I do think the overall price paid by DLT has been disproportionate to his wrongdoing.