Andrew's alleged actions would be, in my view, unpardonable if proven. MPs with expenses scandals, Partygate survivors, and Boris defenders kicking him while he's down are hypocrites. Both are wrong.

It is, in my view, an unedifying spectacle, the sight of this country's MPs taking such delight in kicking a man so plainly defenceless and utterly destroyed. There can have been very little reward for them other than the approbation of the very few remaining amongst us merciless enough to take any more pleasure from this unpleasant event. But then for politicians these days, any vote is a good vote.

The alleged actions Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is accused of would, I believe, if proven, be unconscionable and unpardonable. And for us mere mortals, really rather difficult to comprehend. But they extremely publicly expose what I believe is the difference between culpability and deserved punishment, and forgiveness. The two being far from mutually exclusive. In the run up to Easter, it is perhaps opportune to remind ourselves of Saint Dismas, the so-called "good thief" crucified alongside Jesus' who confessed and was rewarded with forgiveness.

Andrew has without doubt been put through the wringer. His fall from grace has been spectacular. He has lost his titles, his home, every last shred of his Royal war hero reputation and dignity and self-evidently any hope of reconciliation with his family. A police investigation is under way and the full process of law is transparently in full swing. Whatever outcome the legal process determines is certainly in the pipeline. But in my view, the greatest punishment of all has been applied. And will likely continue for the rest of the erstwhile Prince's natural life. God forbid this public kicking has consequences which the kickers have not bothered to consider.

Andrew's handling of the allegations is compounded by his failure to furnish those who suffered in the Epstein case, his family and his country with an appropriately courageous apology. It is, I believe, yet another bad decision from the former Prince. But one can imagine, in the context of the looming risk of legal proceedings, his advisers and lawyers praying for him to do no such thing.

The "Andrew case", much more than the linked "Mandelson case", also exposes what I see as the undignified pleasure this country nowadays takes in the public vilification of others. Often long after any conceivable advantage can be gained from the process. Sir Chris Philp took great delight in Parliament recently in reminding us all, as if there were really any need, that Andrew was "a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle, a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest."

One can only imagine the wise and weary nods of members of the house, MPs accustomed to upholding the highest standards of integrity demanded of high public office. MPs whose documented integrity issues over the years might mean a greater inclination to hold their tongues on subjects like these. From the illegal actions of a transparently dishonest Prime Minister in the form of Boris Johnson through to the rigging of expense claims and lobbying scandals time without number, they are hardly a body in a position to criticise.

"Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone." And that includes the rest of us happily enjoying the titillating scandal. The dignified thing, the example our politicians should set to the rest of us, would be in my view to focus on the issue at hand: the release of important files, the bringing of justice for those who suffered in the Epstein case, and avoid taking such indecent distasteful pleasure in kicking a man when he is firmly, unequivocally, down.