10ClarionSt - Your defence of the prince does not bear scrutiny -
// He has never faced a jury or been convicted of anything. //
No-one is suggesting that he has. His demotion from royal duties was to protect the image of the monarchy from damage, not as a punishment for something of which he has not been convicted.
// He served this country in a war zone. //
Indeed he did, and no-one should diminish his personal bravery in that situation.
But bravery is not a deposit in the image bank which you can draw on later when things go wrong. His service does not excuse his behaviour, and while he was not convicted in court, his appalling approach to the entire situation demonstrates his utter inability to see the world through any eyes other than his own, and that makes him unsuitable as a working royal, which is why he is no longer in that position.
// How much of the media coverage about him does anyone believe? //
My view is based on his interview on Newsnight where he condemned himself out of his own mouth with his crass assessment of his advantageous relationship with a convicted sex offender, and his 'no sweating' nonsense.
// DLT should never have been convicted. He was found guilty on just one charge after being found not guilty of all other charges. And that one was a complete farce. //
Being found guilty of 'just one charge' makes DLT guilty, you don't get a swerve for the rest on a sliding scale - 'Mr Travis, you were only guilty on one charge, and someone who has not heard the evidence or been in court believes the media stories of your innocence, while scoffing at media stories about Prince Andrew's offences, so we'll let you off ...'
That's not how the law works.