Much of the new material was based on Channel 4 News interviews with 70 people working in Westminster. A third said they had suffered sexual harassment, which they saw as an abuse of power, and 40% of the men said they had received unwanted sexual advances.
There seems to be no joined-up policy either in life or in the Press with regard to this sort of behaviour. Sexual harassment in the workplace or anywhere else is supposed to be outlawed, but where do you draw the line between the offensive and the criminal?
Evans's defence was that his was on the "high-water mark of over-friendly inappopriate behaviour by a drunken man". But does the fact that the jury accepted this argument mean that the case should not have been brought? There has to be a high chance of conviction before the CPS goes ahead, but would we want to have a system with a 100% conviction rate?
It seems bonkers that the Mail should be splashing on "Sexual harassment rife in Commons" and then have an inside spread headlined "How did it ever get to court?" Unless it thinks the rife sexual harassment is ok.
Even more worrying, how can it run a panel entitled "Celebrities wrongly put through the wringer" and include Dave Lee Travis, who has been cleared of a number of sex offences, but faces a retrial on two counts and has since been charged with a further alleged offence?