I mind the timing more than the acting thing. I mean, were these charities meant to stay without an acting patron indefinitely? Two years is long enough. And I do agree about Andrew's appalling judgment and the disastrous interview reflecting badly on the BRF.
The thing is, actions were taken immediately after the last court news and so it looks like the BP acted not on Andrew's actions but the court news which weren't Guilty. Guilty, Guilty, Off with His Head.
I mean, what did Andrew do in the interim between the news breaking out and the hour of the decision being announced? He conducted the behavior people object to literally years ago... and at the time, it wasn't considered bad enough to act on.
So forgive me if I see this as what we call "comrade's court". It was a thing real jurists sneered at. Basically, it was everyone saying whatever they wanted about anyone else and the accused only had the right to talk after the "comrade's court" (made up by no jurists) has already proclaimed them guilty in the presence of everyone who wanted to come and could jeer and insult all they wanted. They could talk but not to defend themselves, just do some good and sound self-critique. And yes, I know he was given the right to talk and he blundered very badly. But it wasn't considered bad enough for the BP then. Now, when he didn't do anything to make it worse, came this.
So yes, I'll keep thinking it's comrade's court and the BP bowing to public pressure, as well as being afraid to look like they were blaming a victim. And I'm saying it as someone who believes this should have been settled long ago and doesn't mind the action itself. How long were Andrew's charities supposed to be left without a patron? How long would they have been left without a patron if the court had arrived at a different decision?
