Mob Justice

What are we to make of the former Prince, Andrew, being stripped of all his titles and his fall from grace?  It would seem that the majority of people, perhaps rightly, believe that he deserves the censure he has been receiving.  But, given our uncertainty as to what actually happened, how can we, with integrity, demand such life-shattering consequences?

This is not to excuse Andrew’s behaviour, which, on any assessment, appears to have been distinctly sleazy – as has, on occasion, been the behaviour of other members of the Royal family – but on the facts as we have them, he has not committed any crime under UK law.  It is alleged that he had sex three times with Virginia Guiffre, at the time aged 17 – but this, under English law, would not have been an offence, because Ms Guiffre would have been over the age of consent.  And let us not forget that Andrew denies even having known her, while the famous photo, presented as evidence of their relationship, appears to have been none too skilfully doctored, which raises undeniable questions.

For her part, Ms Guiffre claimed that she was sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and ‘forced’ to have sex with influential men – who possibly, but possibly not, paid for the privilege.  Technically, however, it is perhaps worth pointing out that she appears to have been pimped by Epstein, rather than trafficked.  Yes, it would seem she had been manipulated into choosing the life style as a teenager, lured with the offer of training to become a professional massage therapist; but, as far as one can make out, she was not kept under any kind of constraint, and was free to leave at any time.

Clearly, the world inhabited by Andrew, Epstein and Guiffre was extremely unsavoury – they seem to have been enthusiastic participants in behaviours that many would class as both abhorrent and perverted – and there was an undeniable serious imbalance between them in terms of age, status, and experience; but this does not mean that Guiffre, in the strict sense of the term, was ever ‘trafficked’.  Rather, it would seem she choose to work as a sex worker, and, while one has every sympathy with her expressing disgust and regret for the work, once the reality became clear, she seems to have entered into it in full knowledge of what was required, in exchange for a lavish life-style that would otherwise have been beyond her reach.

Did Andrew pay for services rendered?  We don’t know, but, again under UK law, it is not an offence to pay for sexual services between consenting adults in private.  Yet now, in response to public outrage at a member of the Royal family being embroiled in sexual misconduct, Andrew has received a far worse penalty than if he had been found guilty of any such offence in a court of law.

It is a fundamental principle of English law, for the protection of all of us, that a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty.  Where an offence is alleged, we say there must be proper investigation of the facts, in order to establish whether or not the accused is at fault.  If evidence is not forthcoming and the accused appears innocent, he or she must be acquitted.  It would seem, however, that that principle is now under threat, and that whenever and wherever a complaint is made, ‘justice’ can be obtained only if followed by conviction.

All men are equal under the law, whatever their status – this too has been a hallowed principle of British justice, and no one should be made subject to an apparently never-ending series of penalties.  Yet this is what seems to be happening to Andrew and to our shame, as a society, we are giving in to the pressure and throwing him to the wolves.

This is not right.  Let us be clear, VfJUK does not and will not condone any form of sexual impropriety or misconduct, and we would agree that trading in sexual services is always wrong. We would also agree that women driven to sex work both need and deserve due sympathy and practical help.  In her defence, Virginia Guiffre was very young when she embarked on the path she did, and it is entirely understandable that she may rapidly have become disillusioned and wanted out.  It is also understandable that she would have felt intense anger towards those who had used her for their own gain. But that cannot justify the relentless chase and slavering lust for blood now unfolding before our eyes.

By all accounts it would seem that Andrew has not behaved well, but there are many in society guilty of similar misconduct.  Indeed, if stories are to be believed, there are some currently in positions of power whose behaviour would also not bear close scrutiny.  But it is a hallmark of our society that no one should be condemned without benefit of an impartial trial.

The dogs, and those inclined to sympathise with them, may well not be satisfied till they have blood, and Andrew’s Royal background and character make him a prime target.  But he is simply the latest in a series of prominent individuals subjected to public campaigns to bring them down.  Let us not forget, for instance, the vicious campaign against Leon Brittan, who died in shame, only to be fully exonerated after death.

Where there has been wrongdoing, it needs without doubt to be properly identified and appropriately sanctioned.  But no one deserves to be hunted down in this fashion.   Nor should we allow ourselves to be drawn into judgment of persons against whom unsubstantiated accusations have been made.

If we allow mob justice to prevail in this way, none of us will be safe.  Anyone who steps out of line, or who simply fails to go along with the prevailing Weltanschauung, will be liable to sanction, and their lives may well be destroyed.  We should beware.  The tide of totalitarianism is lapping at our feet.

 ***********************