PRINCE ANDREW ON THE MORNING AFTER

THE INTERVIEW OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, PRINCE ANDREW DUKE OF YORK WITH EMILY MAITLIS
I hate prejudice. I prefer to go along the route of examining the evidence and then making a judgement. Sounds simple doesn't it? But where prejudice, subliminal or otherwise, is involved then listening can become a lost art and the tongue starts flapping and anything can come out. That's my stance? Why now and why this morning?

Yesterday evening BBC Two screened the interview with Emily Maitlis and his Royal Highness Prince Andrew, Duke of York. I know that it would not be everyone's idea of a good Saturday viewing and after Strickly it could be viewed as very bland.

We've had headlines to suck us into a segment of the truth or just to draw us in or even drag us away from a comment. Indeed reading the headlines this morning those ‘journos’ dug in and hammered in their comments. Well they have to make a living.

I watched the interview as dispassionately as I possibly could. Andrew Marr on his Sunday morning programme said that he squirmed. I did not. I wanted evidence if we were to get any or something that I could believe one way or the other. Yes, evidence works for both sides and that alas, will depend upon what we want to hear.

The Sunday papers are loaded with comment and it is essential that the nation gets to know as much as possible. Camilla Long in a lengthy article gets ‘stuck in’. Her headline includes ‘Poor St Andrew’. That's a cheap shot isn't it? In a side comment she says “Why do we speak of ‘standards’ when he appeared to have none”. Okay, he may not but neither may she! Her words are emotive and pathetic when she mentions ‘Brashest unrepentant carpet in the world’ when referring to the room where the interview took place. I think that she is showing her own prejudice here and I will watch out for her on TV.

Was there any evidence to absorb and take away for examination? Well, not much. There was the photo in Central Park. It looked like a long shot to me and it would not have been a close up as there would have been security to shoo them away. Was it intended for someone’s benefit? Then there is the photo with a smiling Prince and a young girl. Fake or real, but we will have to wait for that too. Then something unusual in that it was said that Prince Andrew was soaked in sweat in Tramps. Not possible, he says, since his experiences in the Falklands. The adrenaline stopped him sweating. Medical fact or not and that is something that can be proved or otherwise. Again we will have to wait.

The interview was good. Emily Maitlis examined and persisted. He answered and I thought he did well. I don't think we are nearer the truth than we were. It was a gamble for him and such an interview has not been done before.

One thing sticks out ‘like a sore thumb’ which is why did he need to visit Epstein just to tell him that their friendship was over. I find that strange and a poor decision. I met friends for lunch and they were not on the Prince’s side. The truth could come out and I am considering the point that Maitlis did not ask is what can his security people tells. Again we wait.