I'm watching and being somewhat appalled by the BBC's interview with Prince Andrew.
I'm only a few minutes into the programme and already I've heard:
1. Jeffrey Epstein described as a convicted paedophile - although it's impossible to be convicted of paedophilia as paedophilia is not a crime: it's a sexual preference. One might as well use the expression "a convicted heterosexual" to describe somebody convicted of sexual offences against someone of the opposite sex.
The law is entirely unconcerned with sexual preference: it takes an interest in a person with a particular preference only if that person commits a sexual offence - and sexual offences are unlawful regardless of the presence or absence of a particular sexual preference in the mind of the offender.
2. The age of 18 described as "the age of consent in the US": that's blatantly false as the age of consent in the US varies between 16 to 18 years depending on state. Not only is the statement false but, much much worse, it effectively states that Andrew is accused of having sex with an underage girl.
The girl at the centre of the allegations against Andrew freely admits she was 17 when she met him. The sex allegedly took place in London where the age of consent is 16 and in New York where the age of consent is 17.
Having watched the entire interview, it appears that nobody in the world is alleging that Andrew did anything unlawful - or even immoral - during his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
The allegations are that he (a single man) had consensual sex on three occasions with a girl who was over the age of consent and who, unknown to Andrew, was paid $15,000 for her services to the prince on the first of those occasions. She has not revealed the financial arrangements pertaining to the subsequent occasions.
Andrew denies the allegations and says he can account his whereabouts at the relevant times but, even if they're true he's done nothing wrong as far as I can see.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that Andrew knew anything about Epstein's unlawful activities, including the alleged "trafficking" of the highly paid girl making the allegations.
So why all the fuss?
He might be lying his socks off, or he might not, but if we're going to condemn him on the basis of what he might have known, we're on very dangerous ground because if criminals were convicted in the absence of any evidence simply on the basis of what they might (but might not) have done, we'd all be hanged.