Revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold. If so, JK Rowling’s evisceration of Emma Watson this week came straight out of the fridge. A near-freezing denunciation delivered with icy accuracy and a frosty, razor’s edge. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything like it, and couldn’t help feeling slightly sorry for Watson, made famous (and very rich) after playing Hermione Granger in JK’s Harry Potter movies. But such are the wages of ingratitude.

Ungratefulness on the level shown by Watson to the woman who gave her everything – a multi-million pound fortune that set her up for life, global fame, near-bottomless opportunities to live a life exactly of her choosing (Watson hasn’t acted since 2019 and is currently studying at Oxford for a Master’s degree in creative writing) ... well, it’s off the scale, really, isn’t it?

JK had, of course, mentored the young Emma as she wrestled with the responsibility of playing Hermione. The two became exceptionally close over the decade it took to complete the blockbuster film series. And then Watson turned on her.

The betrayal came after Rowling first spoke out about trans-gender issues five years ago. In a typically ironic tweet, she wrote: “People who menstruate. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

The backlash from the trans lobby was savage and instant, and JK’s former protégé wasn’t slow in joining in. After her mentor wrote a lengthy blog, voicing fears that trans rights can affect women’s safety, Watson piously posted: “I want my trans followers to know... I see you, respect you, and love you for who you are.’

Later, appearing at the BAFTAs, she said: “I’m here for ALL the witches,” (a term sometimes used for trans people) before being seen to apparently mouth: “Bar ONE”.

This, JK says, was publicly pouring petrol on the flames (the writer was already facing death threats from the extreme wing of the trans lobby) and a fine reward for everything she’d done for Watson. So this week she finally struck back.

“Like others who’ve never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she’s ignorant of how ignorant she is... she’ll never need a homeless shelter... she’s never going to be placed in a mixed-sex public hospital ward... I’d be astounded if she’s been in a high street changing room since childhood... is she ever likely to find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who’s identified into a women’s prison?” Ouch.

“I wasn’t a multi-millionaire at 14. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women’s rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.” OUCH.

There has been scant sympathy for Watson this week. I’m not surprised. Wherever people stand on trans rights, most abhor an ingrate.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't often quote that old cliche “the unacceptable face of capitalism” but my God, it certainly applied this week to Joseph Wheeler, boss of a repellant-sounding company called Knife Warehouse.

It was Knife Warehouse that sold child-killer Axel Rudakubana a “fearsome” machete just months before he used another blade bought online to slaughter three little girls at their Southport dance class last year.

This week Wheeler told the public inquiry into the horrific attack that he paid no attention to who was buying his weapons. The machete Rudakubana bought was, he said, “just another product”.

When asked by inquiry chairman Sir Adrian Fulford: “When it comes to it, you don’t actually really have any curiosity about who you are selling these to Wheeler replied: “I suppose not.”

So it was just business, right? Selling a matt-black kukri machete with a massive 16.5in blade to a mentalist like Rudakubana?

Yup. Just business. I hope you sleep well at night, Wheeler.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another grisly week for Andrew and Sarah. All of their own making, of course, so it’s hard to feel even a glimmer of sympathy for either of them. The Duchess of York, we learn, could have the honorary freedom of the City of York stripped from her. This follows her email dating from 2011 revealing that she called paedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein her “supreme friend” and expressed doubts about his guilt.

Now York City Council says “consideration” will be given next month over removing the duchess’s honorary privileges. This follows signals from sources close to King Charles that Andrew and Sarah “will not be welcome” at the Royal Family’s Christmas celebrations at Sandringham.

Indeed, the King is said to want the pair to stay “out of sight, out of mind” at all future family occasions. Back door in, back door out, etc.

He’ll be lucky. Judging by Andrew’s excruciating behaviour at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month, sidling up to anyone who couldn’t get away in time, his sheer nervelessness knows no bounds.

Partial bans don’t work with Ands. Charles must completely pull the rug.