Amid the blaze of memes mocking the royal on social media, serious questions have been raised about how one of the most sordid stories in the recent history on the British establishment may have abruptly come to an end.

News that the Duke of York agreed to make a “substantial donation” to Virginia Giuffre in an out-of-court settlement in her civil sex claim against him, triggered an outpour of reaction.

LFF takes a look at how progressives reacted to one of the biggest royal scandals of recent times.

Who will fund the settlement?

One of the most pressing questions about the settlement that will mean there will be no jury trial for the sexual abuse claims, is who will pay for the arrangement, which is reported to be around £10m to £12m.

Calls were immediately made that taxpayers should in no way foot the bill.

As Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East, and former shadow justice secretary, told the Mirror:

“It must urgently be clarified that not a single penny of public money will go towards Prince Andrew settling the sexual assault civil case.

“Given the very serious nature of that case, neither money from the public grant given to the Royal Family nor any other funds they receive as a result of the public positions they hold should be used.”

Guardian columnist, Owen Jones flagged up similar concerns, tweeting:

“Prince Andrew faces a bill of over £10 million for something he absolutely completely denies ever happened.

“Where is this £10 million coming from?”

Campaigners also warned that the multi-million-pound sum must not be paid for out of the public purse.

In a report in the Morning Star, Graham Smith from the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said that taxpayers deserve to know where the money is coming from.

Sisters Uncut, the feminist direct action group that opposes cuts to government services for victims of domestic violence, said: “We cannot accept a situation where ‘our money’ is used to allow Prince Andrew to hide from court and protect his reputation.

“We refuse to consent to a system that enables and protects abusers.”

‘Buy your way out of accountability’

Novara Media raised the issue of how powerful people can buy their way out of accountability. Michael Walker, host of the network’s TyskySour news and political live streams on its YouTube channel, alluded to the discrepancy between the wording of the statement that Prince Andrew “commends the bravery of Ms Giuffre” and the arguments made by his lawyers at a hearing last month, who had said that Giuffre may have suffered from “false memories.” Walker speaks of similar anomaly with the statement that says Prince Andrew “regrets his association with Epstein” and the comments made by the Duke during the infamous Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis that he didn’t regret his friendship with Epstein.

In the live news stream, Walker spoke to Dalia Gebrial, an editor at Novara Media, who said “powerful people can become very ugly when their reputation is under threat.” For Gebrial, it is a disappointment that Prince Andrew won’t have to see his day in court and the story sends a message that you can “buy your way out of accountability,” even in a case that is this serious.

Nicholas Witchell under fire

The BBC’s royal correspondent came under fire for suggesting the route back for Prince Andrew to a possible public role is to become a campaigner against sex trafficking. Nicholas Witchell’s comments about the Duke of York’s future were immediately criticised.

Viewers took to social media to label the remarks “unbearable”, a “sick suggestion,” and that there was “no way back” for the Duke.

Much of the progressive media was quick to report on the ‘insensitivity’ of the BBC’s royal correspondent’s comments. The Canary, for example, described the BBC as “disgracing” itself over Prince Andrew.

Sun hypocrisy

Of course, it’s not just been campaigners and the progressive media shouting their views on the injustice of the out-of-court settlement.   

The right-wing media were quick to retort their ‘disgust’ and ‘outrage’ about the ‘Fallen Prince’, as was the headline in the Sun.

Instead of making the focus of the story about Prince Andrew and the settlement, the Byline Times wrote about the hypocrisy of the Sun, which wrote: ‘A man truly determined to clear his name of such heinous allegations would have fought tooth and nail . . . and then, if he won, tried to rebuild his life. That is all over.’

Writing for the Byline Times, Brian Cathcart, a professor of journalism at Kingston University London and author of ‘The Case of Stephen Lawrence’, speaks of the Sun’s treatment of Sienna Miller and the phone hacking scandal, noting the “flagrant hypocrisy of Sun outrage on the subject of ‘buying off’ victims.”  

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward

Comments are closed.