As I see it the common strand to these sex offences whether Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savill, Max Clifford, Cyril Smith or a teacher or a priest is that the perpetrators took advantage of their position either of authority or trust or "celebrity status" and abused not only the boys or girls/women in question but that position itself. That they escaped criminal proceedings on account of their position was appalling and something that is only now being rectified. We have for too long not listened to the victims of abuse, trusting (however wrongly) the word of the people whom they also trusted. Contrition (genuine - not pretend) on the part of the offenders might have been the least one could have expected - not arrogant self-aggrandisement. I have no reason to doubt that the judge in each case will have applied the sentencing guidelines in the proper way and the jury having listened to both prosecution and defence will have arrived at their verdict equally in the proper way. What on earth is the point of saying "Oh they did not hear the truth" or "Oh the judge was biased"? We have a judicial system which (to my way of thinking) perhaps too often errs on the side of leniency, but this week has at last brought verdicts against people who were in a position to know better and act ethically, including MC and Constance Briscoe. (If anybody is unaware of who she is, I am talking about the barrister and judge who lied to the police in the Vicky Pryce/Chris Huhne speeding points business.)