The article in Spiked contains this sentence:
"Only a court of law can rule on whether Andrew is innocent or guilty, but given the tsunami of media coverage you would have thought that one or two of the journalists assigned to this story might have been asked to investigate whether Andrew’s alibi was true." [Given that Andrew is a member of the royal family, I'm not sure whether a journalist would have the authority to demand the disclosure of security logs and other information that may throw a light on Andrew's whereabouts at crucial times - surely that is the job of the police? And a journalist would not have the authority to interview under caution uncooperative possible key witnesses.]
My understanding is that the US authorities wish to interview Andrew because a woman has made serious allegations about him and because he may have vital information about an alleged illegal sex trafficking network directed by Epstein. If the same allegations were being made in this country, the police would be expected to interview him . Taking his, and other witness statements into account, plus any further evidence that the police possess, a decision would then be made as to whether there was enough evidence to charge him of any criminal offence. In any event, given that he appeared to be a great pal of Epstein, he could give them information as to his friends and contacts.
The point is, unless he submits himself to questioning, he can't be either charged or cleared of an offence, so saying it's unfair because people are condemning him without a trial, is, in my view, a misrepresentation. Andrew chose to be interviewed for TV at his home in this country, rather than go to the US and cooperate with the authorities there.
