Andrew is a right royal pain

THE BBC reports that with the publication of the new biography of Victoria Giuffre this week “more days of pain” lie ahead for the Royal Family.

The use of the word “more”  tells us that the Buck House crew are already suffering pain over the decision to stop Prince Andrew from using his royal titles (but allowing him to keep them in case the day may come when the public doesn’t view trafficking minors with quite the same distaste).

Victoria committed suicide in April after the trauma of a childhood and adolescence being passed around to be raped and abused by rich and powerful men proved too much. No doubt ‘Randy Andy’, as he used to be affectionately called by the British tabloids, thought the £12 million that he cadged off his late mother to get her to keep quiet would do the trick. After all, if living a life of gilded luxury helped him to cope with the trauma of being a child abuser, why wouldn’t lots of money help one of his victims to forget about that nasty Paedo Island and Lolita Express business?

But what’s this extra “pain” that the Addams Family, sorry, the Royal Family, expect to endure as more revelations emerge with the publication of the book? A certain frostiness at the breakfast table as the rashers and kidneys are consumed?

Might there be added pain on the deer-stalk at Balmoral as members of the family lie in the heather in their brogues and tweeds knowing Angry Andy is out there somewhere with a high-powered rifled and telescopic sight?

At the traditional Christmas morning service in Crathie Kirk, could King Charles and Queen Camilla feel the pain of embarrassment as more mischievous members of the congregation sing ‘Nonce in Royal David’s City’?

But wait. Could it be that the Royal Family are sad because there’s more pain ahead for the victims of Epstein and Andrew? Could it be that they have finally been able to see the world beyond the bonnet ornaments of their Rolls Royces and Bentleys and understand who the real victims are in this revolting tableau?

One’s having a laugh, isn’t one?

Getting it right about getting wrong  a hard ask

SKY News issued a “clarification” on Monday of their coverage of the West Midlands police decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from an upcoming Europa League clash against Aston Villa in Birmingham.

The dictionary says a clarification is the act of making something clear, but as the Sky presenter made clear – clarified, you might say – the 20-second segment was actually putting right a mistake that Sky News made.

“In our breakfast programme on Friday morning when discussing criticism of this decision… we incorrectly said the decision was based solely on the inability of authorities to guarantee the safety of those (Maccabi) fans. But we should have also reflected concerns referenced by the Safety Advisory Group about previous violent clashes involving Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters which were also considered by the group.”

So, a correction rather than a clarification, but let’s face it – who thinks any UK news outlet is going to come clean and admit that it got something wrong about Israel? If they started doing that they’d be broadcasting corrections and nothing else until Christmas.
And so perhaps we should just be grateful for what we get. Bob Vylan was monstered by the UK media for chanting ‘Death to the IDF’, even though last time Squinter checked the IDF had guns, tanks and body armour and were involved in a conflict. The Maccabi fans are in the habit not only of fighting on their travels, but  of inciting rape and chanting ‘Death to Arabs!’, without any qualification of whether said Arabs are combatants or kids. And Sky News didn’t even deem that  chant ­worthy of a mention in their correction.
Sorry, their clarification.