Jimmy Savile's ability to commit hundreds of serious sexual offences inside public institutions, "hiding in plain sight" as Friday's police and NSPCC report on his crimes puts it, seems almost incredible.
And for his victims, it is indeed credibility which is the issue at the heart of this scandal.
The simple fact that most prisoners come out of jail and reoffend is the government's central justification for dismantling the state-provided probation service in England and Wales. The hard part is putting something else in its place that will work better.
The Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is determined to cut recidivism but he wants to save money at the same time. His answer is, effectively, to privatise probation. All but the highest risk offenders will be managed by non-state providers.
Here's my report into the Pollard review which showed there was "chaos and confusion" at the BBC over a shelved report into sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile, but there had been no cover-up, an inquiry has found.
The report dismissed claims the Newsnight probe was dropped to protect tribute shows to the late TV presenter.
What do current news stories about the Leveson report, Starbucks, nursing and the Scouts have in common? They all have an underlying theme - what it means to do one's duty.
As a young cub with the First Glasgow Scouts in the 1960s, I remember feeling a profound sense of solemnity and significance as I saluted and intoned the promise, on my honour, "to do my duty to God and to the Queen".
Government plans to change the way social housing tenants pay their rent, could have serious consequences for some of the poorest people in Britain - and their landlords. So why are they being kept secret from the public?
Government ministers talk a lot about the importance of transparency and openness in the way the state operates. So it is surprising and disappointing that on an issue that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Britain they are being so secretive.
And so the inquest begins. Why were the people of England and Wales so emphatically indifferent to being given the power to elect their police and crime commissioners (PCC)?
There will be arguments about the wisdom of holding an election in November, the lack of information, the fact that many details were only available online, concerns about politicisation of the police, the vast constituencies, the shortage of high-profile candidates and on and on.
Politicians have complained of an ambush, after David Cameron was surprised on ITV's This Morning by a list of people named online as paedophiles. Is our democracy moving into cyberspace, and should we be worried in case the values of the internet prevail?
Facebook and Twitter campaigns, it seems, are replacing the old-fashioned demo or sit-in.
One begins to lose track of how many inquiries and investigations the Jimmy Savile scandal has spawned. Amid the soul-searching that follows such revelations, there are always demands that lessons be learned so nothing like it "can ever happen again".
That, indeed, was the line from the prime minister on Wednesday when he called for a rethink in the way sex abuse cases are dealt with.
To the general public, there may be something almost bizarre about the editor of one of BBC journalism's flagships - Panorama - commissioning an investigation into why the editor of another of BBC journalism's flagships - Newsnight - decommissioned an investigation.
Tonight I heard one correspondent on a rival channel describe it as "corporate cannibalism".
Here's my report on fears of a low tour-out for the first-ever elections for police commissioners. My question to would-be voters: "Are you excited about the PCC vote?"
With less than a month to go before the first ever elections for police commissioners in England and Wales, there is still some concern that poor publicity will lead to a low turnout. They will be elected on 15 November and replace police authorities in each force area in England and Wales, making police directly accountable to voters.
When I was a cub reporter on my local newspaper in the late 1970s, I returned from the magistrates court with what I thought was a front page story. A councillor had appeared on charges of sexual assault on young girls, an alleged abuse of power that had left me shocked.
But my disgust turned to outrage when the news editor told me they wouldn't be running the story. "Our readers don't want to hear about that kind of thing," he said. I remember he used the word "paedophilia" - a term I hadn't heard before. Whatever it meant, it was not a subject deemed worthy of space in that evening's paper.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.