Here's an unpleasant fact to start: at the time of writing, Harvey Weinstein has not been convicted of any crime. I say this not as any sort of a defence of Weinstein (as I have no interest in doing so - frankly, it's a disgrace that this didn't come to trial long ago). It's merely a statement of fact.
But... can you imagine the BBC giving Harvey Weinstein airtime to put his side of the story, with no right of reply for his accusers, and with the possibility of prejudicing not only a trial, but indeed any potential investigation?
Surely not! Weinstein has basically been persona non grata ever since the allegations came to light, with even people who once named him a friend taking pains to distance themselves from him. The notion of the BBC giving him that opportunity is crazy.
Here's another unpleasant fact: the allegations made against Prince Andrew are every bit as heinous as those made against Harvey Weinstein. I say that not as any comment on his innocence or guilt (I've never even been to the Pizza Express in Woking), but again merely as a statement of fact.
So what the hell were the BBC thinking, setting Prince Andrew up with a PR opportunity to get out there, set out his story, and play for the sympathy of the public? Surely this is a matter for the proper authorities - the police, and possibly the courts?
(And, yes, I know that the effect of this interview has been that the Prince has managed to dig himself even deeper into the mess. He strikes me as a profoundly stupid individual (which I again feel I must highlight is not the same as 'innocent' or 'guilty'). But the BBC couldn't know that at the time they commissioned the interview. They should not have taken that risk.)
Oh, one other thing. My view is two-fold. Firstly, when serious allegations are made, like those against both Weinstein and the Prince, they must be taken seriously, and must be investigated thoroughly. Both those who are victims of crimes and those who are falsely accused need that - justice for the former, but also a confident exoneration for the latter. The current situation, where too many such crimes just aren't properly investigated, fails far too many people.
However, I also believe that the Presumption of Innocence is an absolutely vital part of our legal framework and must be upheld. And that applies even in cases where it seems obvious that the accused is guilty. Because we don't know and don't have all the facts. I have no problem with punishing those found guilty of crimes, and those found guilty of serious crimes should face very serious punishments. But let's actually find them guilty first, please.
