It’s been a few days since BBC’s train wreck of an interview with Prince Andrew regarding his friendship with the late Jeffrey Epstein. In case you missed it, here’s a few moments from the highlight reel:

“Unbecoming conduct” becomes a “polite” way to describe a sex offender? Okay. Prince Andrew also claimed to stay at Epstein’s mansion in New York out of sheer convenience:

It was a convenient place to stay. I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that’s just the way it is.-Prince Andrew

Eighth in line for the throne, Prince Andrew shacks up with Epstein because his home was “a convenient place to stay”? You mean to tell us that he could not afford a suite at a top New York hotel? Nope, the prince did this because he was doing the “honorable” thing by allowing the friendship a period of a four-day breakup. If you think this is bad, in come the socialites. This from British socialite and author of a best-selling biography of Princess Diana, Lady Colin Campbell:

You all seem to have forgotten that Jeffrey Epstein, the offense with which he was charged and for which he was imprisoned, was soliciting prostitution from minors. That is not the same thing as pedophilia.”-Lady Colin Campbell, Good Morning Britain

Tell that to Jane Doe, who was 15 at the time Jeffrey Epstein allegedly sought her out and flew her to his New Mexico ranch under the guise of “helping girls from poorer backgrounds”. The trip came complete with a $5,000 check in return for Jane Doe losing her innocence.

Let’s take a guess, Lady Colin, should we call ol’ Jeff a “good samaritan” because he wanted to “help out” young girls? I mean, it was not too much to ask these unassuming young women for a massage now, was it? Why pay for a massage from a professional when he could get one for free from a 16 year-old? Hey, he had plenty to choose from on his private island. Lady Colin Campbell continued to argue the point that a “minor” is not a “child”.

If we define the word “minor”, according to our friends at Merriam-Webster, we will see it is defined as a person who is not yet old enough to have the rights of an adult. So, a minor is a child because at some juncture, a minor has an adult making decisions for him or her. Granted, pedophilia may have a clinical definition that differs from that of an individual who likes to solicit prostitutes to psychological scholars but the fact remains that Jeffrey Epstein was a sexual deviant who took advantage of minors on both counts. To say that Epstein was not a pedophile is to suggest that all young women he took advantage of were not pre-pubescent. Does Lady Colin know this for a fact? Still, there are people who will argue semantics:

Technically, she’s correct. Look up the what prepubescence is, as opposed to pubescence and post pubescence.

— Chessbandit (@Chessbandit1) November 19, 2019

Point taken. But technically, these girls were all still children at the time. The “honorable”, Prince Andrew threw excuses at Emily Maitlis during his interview, stating that most of Epstein’s shady dealings were “going on in the United States” and he “wasn’t a party to it and knew nothing about it.” Because elite Brits never do corruption, right? At least not the Royals. They can’t sully themselves by being associated with acts of depravity from across the pond. But they can certainly bunk up with the person committing the disgusting acts for a few days out of “sympathy” and “convenience”.

The matter is, we are not talking about random citizens here. We are talking about individuals who have power and influence over political decision-makers and leaders by means of wealth. We are talking about people who are, like Prince Andrew, immune to real-world consequences. We are talking about individuals defending them and in some cases, their explaining away bad behavior. The scary concept behind all of this is the twisting of language. These elites are actually arguing semantics over deplorable acts involving children. It becomes “honorable” to stay in the home of someone who molests teenage girls and throws them into prostitution rings because you’re a “nice guy” and don’t want to hurt the poor scumbag’s feelings? Soliciting kids for sexual acts is not defined as deviant, it’s just “unbecoming conduct”? And, heavens, no, uneducated peasants of the world! Don’t dare confuse soliciting prostitution from minors with pedophilia.

Photo Credit:
WikiMedia Commons/Chatham House [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Welcome Instapundit Readers!