This is honestly really pissing me right off. I might've got this horribly wrong and this might finish me on tattle but I want to say it anyway. There is a huge difference between men going about pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children. Andrew is not a paedophile. At most an ephebophile. 17/18 year old girls have more say over their bodies than 2 year olds (in my own experience). I don't think Andrew acted rightly, or morally, but for goodness' sake he's not a paedophile and I am sick of this word being bandied as a cosh all over the place.
The criminality in the Epstein case and subsequent Andrew connection is a)global human trafficking, b) of underage girls - while Guiffre was NOT underage in the UK where the age of consent is 16 when he was alleged to have had sex with her, she was definitely in the USA when Andrew had sex with her, albeit only a year. Then there is the element of coercion regarding the sexual activities girls in Epstein's employ were groomed to undertake. There are also highly irregular financial and illegal activities between Epstein and Deutsches Bank that one can look up where the bank broke their own rules to handle his monies - this stuff doesn't get the big headlines because it's not sexy enough, so to speak. People prefer sex scandals to financial ones. In fact the financial scandal is the most interesting to me. How Epstein, a former unqualified maths teacher, got his millions is a VERY shady area, involving the Wes Lexner, the owner of Victori'a Secret, his foundation of a trading fund that never made a trade, and god knows what else.
Beyond that, there's the simple moral rather than criminal sphere. Andrew was photographed meeting Epstein and walking in the park discussing who knows what years after his release from his joke sentence for human trafficking in 2011. That association even without a sexual connection is utterly unbecoming for ANY royal whatsoever. Bad optics. REALLY bad optics to be seen hanging with a convicted, 'disgraced' type like him after the fact.
There's not actual pedophilia involved with the Andrew case as you say (pedophilies are interested in children BEFORE PUBERTY, not borderline legal teens) and it's just to my mind another of those words that has got ludicrously diluted from its original meaning or used completely wrongly, like 'allergies' or 'migraine'. It doesn't mean there wasn't wrongdoing on his part. Taking sexual favours from one's human trafficking friend via proxy is still partaking in sexual exploitation.
It's just easier to yell pedalo! as a convenient shorthand to express disapproval of the obvious unpleasant exploitative nastiness of a 40-something male pursuing a 17 year-old (trafficked or not) or thereabouts for commodified sex than actually express it longhand.
Andrew is definitely a fucking disgrace who never left his shagger days behind, anyway. But using him to try to prohibit legitimate critiques of the behavior and motives of Meghan and Harry is just a desperate tactical move.