Prince Andrew, the Duke Of York, is most unlikely to ever inherit the throne. Other than his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, he has rarely done little that has had any lasting impact on the public consciousness. Until now.
Connecting him to the ongoing and highly questionable furore about the abuse of women, children and, for all I know, sheep, goats, dogs, and all other mammalian species, is a wonderful piece of journalistic bollocks. If the Prince did have dodgy friends, does it really matter ? If he did have a "relationship" with some nubile Californian (or Texan or whatever she was) does anyone really care ? There doesn't seem to have been any damage done to either party although one, the nubile one, is now looking to make her fortune by claiming that there was, the best part of 20 years later.
The "Me Too" campaign has brought allsorts out of the woodwork claiming all manner of abuse, mostly from individuals of whom no one has ever heard - it's basically become a route to easy publicity and a potential gravy train. The attack on Prince Andrew may have merit or it may not - either way the first question is to ask why it's taken so long for such accusations to be made. Years after the supposed events, people are gaining publicity by claiming to have been abused. I don't defend the abusers, if indeed that's what they were, but I do not like the general atmosphere of victimhood that's been created and the suggestion that anyone who is accused is automatically guilty. This has horrible echoes of the claims of the jailed paedophile, Carl Beech.
The published photograph of Prince Andrew with the claimed "victim" does not suggest she was unhappy to be where she was. Beyond that, what evidence is there that she and the Prince had any further contact ? Yes, the Prince did have ill-advised contacts but is that evidence of guilt or just the actions of a man who has been largely ostracized by his family ?
If this isn't trial by media, and a gold digging exercise, what else is it ?
No comments:
Post a Comment