Poor Prince Andrew is in a spot of bother, isn't he?
He's had to resign from his "public duties" as a Duke, which generally consist of doing charitable things to encourage the public to go along with the fact that you and your family are head of state, and own just about everything, entitled by birth.
But the public isn't going along so well with allegations Andrew entitled himself to a 17-year-old girl in circumstances of, shall we say, dubious consent.
Sex trafficking is another way people say it, at the hands of Andrew's mate Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and pedophile who died in August in a New York prison while on charges of trafficking teenage girls.
Andrew denied all wrongdoing, and says he couldn't have done it because he was at a pizza restaurant, or at home, and can't sweat, unlike the man described in the encounter. But after a "trainwreck" BBC interview, he's stepping down.
Some groups have cancelled their arrangements with Andrew's entrepreneur booster Pitch@Palace in Australia.
Bond University ended its association with P@P, saying " in light of recent events, the university does not intend to seek any further involvement".
RMIT said its arrangement with P@P was over, saying "we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring RMIT is a safe and inclusive place to work and study".
But UOW was coy. Given the opportunity to make a statement about the university stands for, it delivered an air swing.
It said the scheme was being reviewed, but this was a simple "annual review" that would have happened anyway.
Nothing to see here.
Don't mention the sex scandal.
"The University will reach a considered decision about its future involvement with Pitch@Palace based on [UOW's] strategic objectives, institutional values and the program's potential for success," UOW said.
Six weeks ago, UOW was standing by its man. Asked about Andrew, UOW said the allegations hadn't been proven in court, and it was committed to entrepreneurs.
The allegations still haven't been proven in court - now, as in October, there is the accusation from the then 17-year-old alleged victim, and there is Andrew's denial.
What's changed? The optics - how it looks.
In that case, one wonders, why take a weak position, as if the review is unrelated to the scandal, when no-one believes that?
Why fudge it instead of using the opportunity to make an honest, strong, positive statement - standing up for respect, consent, inclusion, and empowerment?
UOW's latest marketing slogan says it "stands for purpose". But in the absence of positive evidence here, one might ask just what it stands for at all.