It's an unsavory matter but it deserves a thread.

Other than total embarrassment for being an entitled isolated git of the first order, which we can take as a previously known uncontested fact.

What aspect of this story which has dragged on for weeks suggests any criminality on the part of the Prince?

I can nowhere see any indication that he paid her, which would absolutely have been advanced if it had happened. Neither is there any suggestion that the Prince coerced or threatened her, or that he had any reason to believe the alleged incident was other than consensual. While Americans may be confused, the heterosexual age of consent on UK territory has been 16 since Victorian times.

The complainant may well have been trafficked, coerced or paid but none of this appears to be due to the Prince's behavior or to his knowledge - I've not even seen any of those three things implied or suggested. Perhaps I read the wrong papers.

That doesn't mean the chap should ever show his face in public again. I'm merely asking why he is being pressured by the media to cooperate with the authorities. Who is alleged to have broken anyone's law? He's guilty of being socially catastrophic and newsworthy, he may also have lied to reporters, but those are not matters of legal concern and yet he's being castigated as if he were the reincarnation of Jimmy Savile.

And I managed to write the whole of that without mentioning the Mirror Group pension fund even once.