 With Dan Woodton as a host, we knew that GB News would spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Now, this has been born out in its first 48 hours. On Tuesday night, writer and TV personality Lady Colin Campbell appeared on the station to have a dig at the couple. I think she was invited precisely for that reason. However, when Dan Woodton asked Lady Campbell whether or not the public should be more concerned about Prince Andrew than Meghan and Harry, I think he was trying to portray a semblance of balance. The show's producers may have got more than they bargained for. You say, though, to Lady C, to all of those folk who say, actually, it's Prince Andrew who has damaged the royal brand far more than Harry and Meghan, with his association with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Well, first of all, may I say, pedophile is a medical term, so is heberphile, and so is effibophile. And Jeffrey Epstein was an effibophile because he was a pedophile. No, pedophile is pre-pubescent, heberphile is transitional into adolescence, and post-pubescent is effibophile. So he was an effibophile. But Lady C, you must accept he was a bad man, a dodgy character, not someone who Prince Andrew should have been associated with. So what do you say to those people who think, actually, Prince Andrew's behaviour has done far more damage than anything Meghan and Harry could do? Well, I hear what you're saying, and I see where you're coming from with it, and I see where they're coming from with it. But you know, as with these things, everything is layered and measured, and everything should be viewed proportionately. And let's remember that President Bill Clinton, who is a far bigger name and a far heavier hitter on the world stage than Prince Andrew, was a far greater friend and for far longer than Prince Andrew. So, you know, I think just to put things in proportion, the New York Attorney General has been going after Prince Andrew because they are effectively political appointees in America. It's not like here where an attorney general is a legal entity, in there it's not, and they're playing politics. And Prince Andrew is, to a large extent, a distraction so that Bill Clinton will actually be kept out of the frame. I mean, we've talked about some bad defences of Prince Andrew on this show before, but that was probably the worst. It was also one of the weirdest. Well, actually, it is. I think I've ever seen on national TV. So the question is it more embarrassing for the royals that Andrew hung out with a pedophile than them having a prince and a princess who moved to Hollywood. The guest says, well, actually, he's not a pedophile. Her argument is that Epstein is a febophile, which means an adult sexually attracted to adolescence. So she's saying that the medical term pedophile means attracted to pre-pubescent children. I didn't think I'd have to be explaining the difference between those two things on this show, but there you are. Now, you might say, weird thing to say, but she wasn't defending Epstein. She was just saying point of clarification, a pedophile and a febophile are different things. That would be the wrong response, though, because she is obviously making this point to try and downplay the significance of Prince Andrew's relationship to Epstein, his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. And that's because when she follows that point up by saying, oh, the only reason they're coming after Prince Andrew is because of weird political points scoring because the attorney general in New York wants to distract from Bill Clinton. One, I'm not sure this is distracting from Bill Clinton. And two, whatever the motivations of the American prosecutors, this is a guy who has admitted visiting Epstein after he was convicted of gruesome, brutal sex crimes against children. Pre-pubescent, who cares? This was sex crimes against children. He was found guilty of it. Prince Andrew went to visit him afterwards. We know he's subject to allegations himself, which he denies. But what did you make of that incredibly bizarre piece of television? I mean, just so much going on there. First of all, why are we nitpicking on what stage of pubescence the girls that a grown man is sexually exploiting? Like, oh, it's pre or transitional pubescent. How about no pubescence? How about extremely far beyond pubescence by two decades or something? Just like, ew. But also, proportion. Are you seriously? This woman, I have the unfortunate due to having to know something about this woman. I had the unfortunate experience of researching her. This is a woman who, when Meghan Markle named her daughter after the queen's nickname, i.e., named her daughter after her daughter's grandmother, deeply uncontroversial. This woman, this particular woman, described Meghan Markle as a very disturbing individual. And yet, Jeffrey Epstein, oh, no, no, no, let's not besmirch his reputation. Actually, he was attracted to girls who were like leaving pubescent, leaving puberty and into adolescence, like, gross. But it's all, you know, yeah, it's all like dulcet tones and technicalities when it comes to, you know, not only like allegations against Prince Andrew, which he is refusing to go before a judge, but also, you know, as you say, his very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after we knew for a fact that he was engaging in the sexual exploitation of children after that was, you know, a conviction. And it's like the sort of nonchalance with which he kind of brushes it off, like these massive institutions from the monarchy to the church, you know, religious institutions, the media, the state, how kind of, you know, the embeddedness of a culture of sexual exploitation of minors is sort of within our society, and particularly when it's done by people who are very powerful and who are, you know, very protected. And it's important that we don't just keep this to the conversations around individuals who are presented as sort of uniquely perverted or abusive, but we have to understand what is the kind of the institution and the network that exists around these individuals that, you know, whether it's the music industry or the media industry, and all of these sort of, like, very big spaces where, you know, especially after the new two movement, we sort of know the scale of harassment and abuse that has been ongoing. You know, it's all about actually those institutions of silence and facilitation that occurs around it. That's what's really concerning. And, you know, I think this is how the way that kind of like she, you know, has all of this vim for Meghan Markle doing something non, that's like really a non-story, but such nonchalance when it comes to the harm imposed by, you know, someone who she seizes and titles to the amount of power that he has, it kind of like, it kind of makes me think about the brushing off of violence by institutions, particularly when you think about the purpose of GB news, which isn't to sort of persuade outsiders, it's designed to sort of embolden and fortify and strengthen the base that already exists. And it's basically that base needs a way of brushing off the violence that is perpetrated by the institutions it endorses, whether it's, you know, the police, the monarchy, the church, it needs a way of understanding why it cares so much about sexual violence when it's done by particular, particularly, you know, especially racialized communities. And yet has to find a way to accept or minimize the sexual violence of those who they seem themselves as aligned with. It makes me think about, you know, how Donald Trump's first speech when he was announcing his presidency was centered around this figure of, you know, protection against the Mexican rapist, all while knowing that he himself talks about, you know, how he's so powerful and he's so rich that he can grab women by their genitals and, you know, kiss them whenever he wants. And, you know, you might wonder, like, how do those two things coexist? And this segment, like, really speaks to actually the kind of way that that contradiction is resolved. But what gets lost in all of this conversation is the actual harm that is done to young people, boys and girls, as a result of this culture and as a result of sort of institutionalized misogyny, particularly in these, you know, institutions that are seen as too big to hold to account. And what also gets lost is the essential and urgent conversation that we need to have about how to actually change that culture so that we don't continue to live in a world where this seems to happen so frequently.