10 November 2025

Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn from Jackie Walker & Tony Greenstein – Why We Don’t Support You Becoming Leader of Your Party

Corbyn Still Doesn’t Understand that There was NO ‘Anti-Semitism’ Problem in the Labour Party & that the EHRC Report was a Put Up Job

This Open Letter Can Be Downloaded Here





Corbyn's Car Crash Interview on BBC's London Politics Program 2 November 2025

Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein were the first Jewish members of the Labour Party to be expelled as part of the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign.

Jackie’s offence was to have talked, in a private conversation about the Jewish role in the slave trade, an undoubted fact.

My offence was to use ‘Zio’ as shorthand for ‘Zionist’. That was seen as anti-Semitic, the assumption being that Zionists are all Jews, itself an anti-Semitic assumption.


Corbyn's Full Interview on London Politics Show 2 November 25

My other offence was to call the racist Zionist MP for Liverpool Riverside, Louise Ellman, the MP for Tel Aviv South. The constituency eventually forced her to quit. I asked my expulsion hearing whether it had been racist to call the John Carlisle, the Tory MP for Luton, the MP for Bloemfontein West on account of his support for Apartheid in South Africa but I never got a response!

John Carlisle - the MP for Luton & Bloemfontein West


This is how it’s done - Clare Short Interview w/ Newsnight on Labours Antisemitism Scam w/ its Stupidest MP Siobhan McDonagh

It was therefore with something approaching horror that I listened to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview with the London Politics Programme on Sunday November 2 when he was challenged by Samantha Simmonds about the anti-Semitism smear campaign in the Labour Party.

Instead of responding robustly and saying that there wasn’t an anti-Semitism problem, that anti-Semitism was weaponised then and now by those who defend or deny the Genocide in Gaza, Corbyn demonstrated that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

It was beyond pathetic. It shows that although Corbyn has many talents and his honesty is beyond question he isn’t a political fighter. He is also proof that without having some theoretical background to your socialist politics you become in the end a political weathervane.


Bob Dylan - I Threw It All Away (

Let’s be honest Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party between 2015 and 2019 was nothing short of disastrous. Having won a fantastic victory at the 2017 General Election, the largest swing to Labour since 1945 he threw it all away as Bob Dylan once put it.

Corbyn allowed the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears to go unchallenged. He never fought back against his enemies in the Jewish Labour Movement which as Asa Winstanley showed had only been refounded to remove him. Asa was suspended as a result of his journalism and Corbyn didn’t lift a finger to help him. He was even denied credentials at the 2019 Labour Party conference.

Corbyn begged the JLM to stay in the Party (not that they were really thinking of leaving) for which they rewarded him with a vote of no confidence.

Corbyn himself proposed to expel people without a hearing

When Jennie Formby replaced the hated Crooked Iain McNicol as General Secretary the number of expulsions increased and Corbyn took pride in this. He even introduced a fast track expulsion mechanism. Now there were no hearings.

It was supposed to be only for ‘egregious’ cases but this too was a lie. It was used for everyone. My friend and comrade Anne Mitchell, an avowed socialist, anti-racist and the then Secretary of Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign fell victim. Her crime? Having posted criticism of Israel and Zionism. This was the horror show that Corbyn presided over. See Richard Kuper’s post on JVL ‘A Grave Miscarriage of Justice: the case of Anne Mitchell’.

The man who had been Secretary of Labour Against the Witchhunt in the 1980s now became the architect of a mass expulsion campaign. Corbyn thought the Zionists would pat him on the back for this but of course they didn’t. They hadn’t forgotten that he had once championed the Palestinian cause. On becoming Leader in 2015 he had tried to woo Labour Friends of Israel. Indeed he hardly mentioned Palestine in his first two years as Leader.

Instead of being satisfied with the increased rate of expulsions, the Zionists used the increased number of expulsions as proof that there was a problem with anti-Semitism. As I once said in a public meeting in Brighton and Hove with his strongest supporter, Chris Williamson MP, who he also betrayed, there were undoubtedly some paedophiles in the Labour Party but did that mean there was a paedophile problem?


Tony Greenstein & Anti Semitism in Labour - Labour in Exile Meeting circa March 2021-1

Yes there were undoubtedly a few anti-Semites in the Labour Party. So what? Far fewer than in a Tory Party whose leader, Boris Johnson, had written a book 72 Virgins full of anti-Semitic tropes.

Instead Corbyn’s response during the BBC interview was that of Tom Watson, an avid supporter of Apartheid Israel:  ‘One anti-Semite is one too many.’ Utterly facile and trite remark. Parties aren’t there to purify their membership. A mass party will contain all sorts of people, including racists. A serious socialist party will seek to educate and win over people to anti-racism not expel them unless they are dedicated fascists.


Tony Greenstein & Anti Semitism in Labour - Labour in Exile Meeting circa March 2021-2

If Your Party is serious about destroying Nigel Farage’s Reform Party then it will admit all sorts of people with racist nonsense in their heads. What is it to do? Expel them as soon as they join? One thing is for sure, we are not going to have a party like the Labour Party which has genocidal racists like Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy and David Lammy at its head.

The EHRC Inquiry Into Henderson Never Reported

And then Corbyn was tackled about the EHRC Report on ‘Anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party and it got worse. Instead of saying the EHRC was a put up job by the Establishment he accepted its conclusions at face value. He said nothing about the Commissioner who wrote the Report, Alisdair Henderson, who was a racist, homophobic, anti-trans, far-right, Christian bigot who ‘liked’ or retweeted social media posts criticising Black Lives Matters protesters.

The EHRC itself was institutionally racist but Corbyn didn't think to challenge them

Corbyn simply accepted the EHRC Report without criticism in the interview. He just had minor quibbles about how much he had done to tackle the non-existent anti-Semitism. This was truly pathetic.

Alasdair Henderson, who led the EHRC inquiry into Labour party antisemitism liked a tweet decrying “offence-taking zealots” who accused fascist philosopher Roger Scruton of antisemitism, Islamophobia and homophobia, and one by Douglas Murray, who once called for Muslim immigration to Europe to be banned.


Murray is the author of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. Murray argued that Europe “is committing suicide” by allowing non-European immigration into its borders and losing its “faith in its beliefs”. In other words he is a supporter of the anti-Semitic White Replacement Theory which holds that Jews are masterminding this immigration!

Douglas Murray

Murray, an Associate Director of the Islamophobic Henry Jackson Society, is an Islamophobe par excellence. In a February 2006 speech to the Dutch Parliament, Murray said

conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.

and that "All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop.” This did not stop Suella Braverman as Home Secretary endorsing Murray.

Under Cameron the Conservative Party frontbench severed formal relations with Murray and his Centre for Social Cohesion. Today the Tory Party welcomes anyone who is a racist. That’s what comes from having a Coconut like Kemi Badenoch as leader.

Tom Watson's  Concerns About Antisemitism Didn't Extend to Other Forms of Racism - He Defended Phil Woolas Attempt to Harness a White Racist Vote


On 3 September 2020, Henderson liked a tweet which read:

“It’s amazing to me that Tory ministers still flounder and flub when some media moron incants the magic words ‘misogynist’ and ‘homophobe’, as if those are empirical statements about reality, not highly ideological propaganda terms.”

On 1 July, he retweeted a comment which said:

All the anti-fascists in Europe protesting against America, an actually free country, are too cowardly to do the same for Hong Kong, which is virtually a dictatorship now.

But then the EHRC was a repository for racists and bigots. Henderson was in his element. The Guardian revealed that David Goodhart and Jessica Butcher were going to be appointed to the EHRC board by Liz Truss, the laughable equalities minister. Goodhart had previously praised the government’s “hostile environment” policy which had seen hundreds of Black people with a right to be in this country deported while Butcher urged women who have been discriminated against at work not to “go cry to someone” but to “take the onus to circumvent the situation”.

See EHRC board member under scrutiny over social media use. What makes this worse is that Corbyn himself had previously accused the EHRC of being “part of the government machine”.

And what of the EHRC Report itself?  Well it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. It was flawed from the start. It was shallow beyond belief. It found no anti-Semitism and conjured up political statements opposing the fake anti-Semitism smear campaign as anti-Semitic in themselves. It was the equivalent of a 3 card trick.

The EHRC report stated that: “The Labour party failed to investigate antisemitism complaints based on likes, retweets and shares on social media.” Yet if Corbyn had bothered to read the EHRC Report (& remember what he had read) he would have learnt that the two cases of ‘anti-Semitism’ that amounted to anti-Semitic conduct involved Rossendale councillor, Pam Bromley, who had posted on Facebook:

‘Had Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party pulled up the drawbridge and nipped the bogus AS [antisemitism] accusations in the bud in the first place we would not be where we are now and the fifth column in the LP [Labour Party] would not have managed to get such a foothold ... the Lobby has miscalculated ... The witch hunt has created brand new fightback networks ... The Lobby will then melt back into its own cesspit.’

This isn’t harassment it is political speech.  Bromley was arguing that the ‘anti-Semitism problem’ in the Labour Party was nothing of the sort. What was Henderson’s finding?

Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents [Bromley and Livingstone] denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up anti-Semitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party.

But there were many Jews who opposed the anti-Semitism smear campaign. That's why Jewish Voice for Labour was set up. The anti-Semitism smear campaign was driven by non-Jewish groups like Labour Against Anti-Semitism who were led by two non-Jews Euan Philips and Emma Picken. To disguise the fact that he wasn’t Jewish Philips took to calling himself David Gordstein, a Jewish sounding name as the Al Jazeera documentary series The Labour Files revealed .

This was the racism that the 'antisemitism' smear campaign aimed to defend

Philipps is not Jewish, and the name "Gordstein" was used in thousands of complaints submitted to the party. This was done to make the complaints appear as if they were coming from a Jew. The whole anti-Semitic scam was the product of non-Jewish racists which another non-Jewish racist Alisdair Henderson endorsed.

This flawed EHRC Report went on to say that Ken Livngstone, who was on Labour’s National Executive Committee at the time,

made reference to social media posts made by Naz Shah MP. Naz Shah’s posts included a graphic suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States, with the comment ‘problem solved’, and a post in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler.

Can anyone say today that Israel’s behaviour in Gaza is not similar to that of the Nazis? There is nothing anti-Semitic about this at all. The EHRC Report said that Livingstone

‘sought to minimise their offensive nature. In his denial, Ken Livingstone alleged that scrutiny of Naz Shah’s conduct was part of a smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatise critics of Israel as antisemitic, and was intended to undermine and disrupt the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn MP.’

And this was anti-Semitic harassment. Of course it was nothing of the kind. It was political speech yet Corbyn didn’t have the bottle or the intelligence to see that this was an attack on free speech. Corbyn had been so tamed by the Zionist lobby at this time that he was prone to saying that denial of ‘anti-Semitism’ was anti-Semitic in itself.

Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ was when, in April 2019, Pam Bromley posted on Facebook: ‘Looks like fake accusations of AS [antisemitism] to undermine Labour just aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated’. And on 15 December 2019, she posted on Facebook about Jeremy Corbyn:

‘My major criticism of him – his failure to repel the fake accusations of antisemitism in the LP [Labour Party] – may not be repeated as the accusations may probably now magically disappear, now capitalism has got what it wanted’.

Henderson pompously concluded that:

‘we were satisfied that the antisemitic conduct had the effect of contributing to violating the dignity of a member or prospective member, or contributing to creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.’

But the racist Henderson could not point to which Jewish members had been offended which is what you have to do in an employment discrimination case. This was bogus law by a racist barrister. Yet Corbyn did not get it. After all he had appointed Keir Starmer to the Shadow Cabinet without the slightest due diligence and when he retired as Labour leader he nominated Tom Watson to the Lords!

This racist meme about male Muslims appeared in a report from the Campaign Against Antisemitism - one of two groups which referred the Labour Party to the EHRC for 'antisemitism'

Defenders of Zionism (and Corbyn still hasn’t come out clearly and said that he opposes this racist and genocidal ideology) have repeatedly accused opponents of Israel’s genocide of anti-Semitism. It is Netanyahu’s only defence to the charge of being a war criminal.

I despair of Corbyn’s inability to think on his feet, his submissiveness and refusal to condemn Zionism. What is clear is that in the event of the ‘anti-Semitism’ card being deployed again he will flounder. Under no circumstances should Jeremy Corbyn be leader of Your Party.

Instead my proposal is that Corbyn become the Honorary President of Your Party which will enable him to traverse the country speaking but that Zarah Sultana and Andrew Feinstein are the co-leaders.

People rightly admire and love Corbyn for sticking it out this long, for his honesty and support for the oppressed. However we have to face it, Jeremy Corbyn is not a leader.

Below are the relevant sections of the malevolent EHRC Report that Corbyn failed to criticise.

Tony Greenstein

The relevant sections of the EHRC Report

6 November 2025

Andrew Was The Tip Of A Royal Iceberg – The Question is Why Hasn’t He Been Prosecuted for Rape & Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice?

 Charles Too Covered for a Child Abuser - The Crown & the Monarchy is the Human Face of a Corrupt Establishment

VIDEO: Leaked ABC News Insider Recording EXPOSES #EpsteinCoverup "We had Clinton, We had Everything"

On 16 November 2019 an interview with Andrew Windsor by Emily Maitlis, was broadcast. I blogged on it at the time and thought that Maitlis had been too deferential. Nonetheless the interview proved a disaster. It was the snowball that triggered the avalanche.

Why did he do it?  Sheer arrogance. Andrew wanted to clear his name of the allegations that had surrounded his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He denied the allegations of abuse made by Virginia Giuffre and even denied having met her, despite a photograph that was widely circulated. We now know that he asked his police bodyguard to dig up dirt on Giuffre.

He asked us to believe in his ‘honour’ and thought that that was the best strategy to put an end to all the rumours and gossip. He was advised against doing the interview by his press adviser Jason Stein and his media lawyer Paul Tweed but his arrogance and stupidity carried the day.

Andrew was overconfident in his ability to handle the interrogation despite being unable to explain his four day stay with Epstein after he had been convicted. He even thought the interview went well. Aides noted his "lack of understanding of what had just happened was pretty profound". Andrew ‘was so pleased with how things had gone that he gave the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards.’

In my blog I wrote that ‘It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an interview under arrest which is required’. It is clear that having sex with a girl of 17 who is being trafficked and unable to give consent is rape. To date however the Metropolitan Police prefer to arrest elderly ‘terrorists’ than royal rapists. However that too may have to change.

If you were to listen to the ever loyal BBC then you might be fooled into thinking that King Charles was straining at the leash to put clear blue water between him and his younger brother. Prince William, we are told,  would have Andrew carted off to the Tower.

But as the video above makes clear the Palace made strenuous efforts to kill the story including pressurising ABC News to spike an interview with Virginia Giuffre.

"Nobody's Girl": Virginia Giuffre's Memoir Details Sex Abuse by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew

One result of his interview was that in August 2021 Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew, alleging he sexually abused her on three occasions in the early 2000s when she was 17, a minor under US law, after being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In January 2022, after a US judge ruled the case could proceed to trial, Andrew was stripped of his honorary military affiliations and royal patronages, and he ceased using the style "His Royal Highness" in any official capacity.

In February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre reached an out-of-court settlement , reported to be around £12m. He made no admission of liability but acknowledged that Giuffre had suffered as a victim of abuse. It was clear to most people that if he had nothing to hide then Giuffre would not have been paid off.

Andrew was previously an arms salesman to all the world’s most unsavoury regimes. However his friendship with Epstein led to his role ending. He was also criticised for his use of private jets and helicopters rather than scheduled flights and for his close links with foreign dictators and businessmen.

Andrew has now been stripped of his Dukedom and ‘prince' title and will move out of Royal Lodge, albeit not for some months. However it would be a mistake to see the behaviour of Andrew Windsor as anything  out of the ordinary.

He will also move to lodgings at Sandringham in Norfolk and receive a stipend from his brother Charles, which is in effect a subsidy from the public. Andrew is not  the  only one with skeletons to hide.

Lord Mountbatten, Charles’ great uncle and a man whom he called his ‘honorary grandfather’ was an active paedophile. He preyed on boys in the infamous Kincora children’s home in Belfast which was run by MI5 in conjunction with Ulster loyalists as a honey trap.

The Belfast Telegraph carried a story ‘I was raped by Mountbatten in Kincora at age 11; he wasn’t a lord… to me he was king of the paedophiles.’ A former BBC journalist, Chris Moore, described in his book Kincora: Britain’s Shame

a detective, contacted by concerned social workers, secretly photographed VIPs visiting Kincora and logged their car registrations.... The visitors included NIO officials who worked for MI5, lay magistrates, police officers and businessmen.

William McGrath

Moore said it was possible MI5 planted Kincora housemaster William McGrath, an Ulster Loyalist who founded the far-right Tara, in the children’s home as part of an intelligence-gathering operation. Either way McGrath raped an 11 year old boy Arthur Smyth and then introduced him to Mountbatten who also raped him at least twice. McGrath was later was gaoled for four years in 1981

The government has decreed that the files on Kincora and MI5’s involvement will remain under lock and key until 2085. Clearly they wish to protect MI5 and not for reasons of national security.

But Charles too has not behaved very differently himself from Andrew. He too covered up for a paedophile, Peter Ball, the Bishop of Lewes and subsequently Gloucester.

Kincora Boy's Home

Ball boasted of his role as “counsellor to royalty” according to Cliff James, one of his victims. Ball was friends with Thatcher, peers, senior judges and headmasters of leading public schools.

Ball was investigated by police in the early 1990s resulting in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of sexual offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32 months. He was released in February 2017 after serving half his sentence.

Charles and Ball had a long-standing friendship and Charles supported Ball for many years, believing him to be the victim of a malicious campaign. 

Ball was the local diocesan bishop when the prince lived in Highgrove. Ball was described by the prince as a "loyal friend".

In a 2018 written submission to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), Charles stated he was "misled" by Ball, who claimed to have engaged in a minor "indiscretion" that prompted his 1993 resignation as Bishop of Gloucester. Ball presented himself as a victim of a "malicious campaign".

In letters read to the inquiry, the prince expressed strong sympathy for Ball. In a 1995 letter, he wrote:

I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It’s appalling that the archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some kind of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right — it is due to fear of the media.

 In another letter, he described an accuser as a "ghastly man" and said he would "see this horrid man off if he tries anything"

When questioned as part of the inquiry, Prince Charles played down the significance of their correspondence, saying he answered Mr. Ball’s letters, “believing it the polite thing to do.”

Investigators, who pored over a large file of correspondence between the two men, said “the replies are suggestive of cordiality rather than mere politeness.”

They noted that Charles’s private secretary had made inquiries about Ball’s reinstatement with a top aide to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Within six weeks of his resignation, the Archbishop publicly said that he hoped to see Mr. Ball returned to the ministry.

The inquiry concluded that Ball’s supporters failed to consider that someone they knew and liked might also be an abuser. They found:

It is likely that they genuinely believed in Peter Ball’s innocence. These individuals could not conceive of the possibility that someone like Peter Ball could be guilty of such offending behaviour (they) thought they knew more than they did and, in fact, knew nothing about the extent of the allegations faced by Peter Ball,”

Ball’s victims, many of them teenagers, described approaching him for spiritual guidance and being asked to strip naked, take cold showers while he watched, masturbate him, submit to beatings, or sleep naked with him.

One cleric, who had asked Ball to support his ordination, said he refused to remove his clothing at Ball’s request. Ball subsequently withdrew his recommendation for ordination. The cleric was later rejected for ordination, told that there was “a big black mark against him in the Church of England.”

Ball was eventually arrested as a result of a complaint by Neil Todd, who began to visit Ball at the age of 17, and became fearful when the bishop began speaking of beating or whipping him as part of their religious practice. Neil Todd attempted suicide at age 19, and subsequently made reports of Ball’s behavior.

Neil Todd killed himself in 2012, days before the case was officially reopened.

Lord Carey, the former archbishop, has since said that he and other church officials underplayed Ball’s conduct because it did not involve penetration.

“I think all of us at the time were saying, ‘Well, he wasn’t raping anybody, there was no penetrative sex,’” he said.

He acknowledged that he attached more importance to Ball’s testimony than to Neil Todd’s.

“I actually believed him for quite a time, because who else were complaining about him? I didn’t know these people,” he told the inquiry.

The Telegraph reported that Charles refused to provide a formal witness statement to the child sex abuse inquiry.’  His lawyers used human rights law to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement, instead sending a signed letter. 

Fiona Scolding, lead counsel to the investigation, said that his lawyers argued that compelling him to give evidence was outside its powers. 

Despite Ball’s caution in 1992 he was later allowed to officiate at events including at schools and confirmations. 

"Despite lengthy correspondence, including assertions from the Prince’s solicitors that the Inquiry’s requests for evidence were outside its powers, i.e. 'ultra vires', there was never any suggestion at any point that the statement would be provided by letter," she said. 

The inquiry made several attempts to compel the lawyers to provide a witness statement with a formal statement of truth, which is essentially equivalent to swearing on oath. Charles’s lawyers argued that asking for a witness statement was "unfair", and constituted a request for "intensely private and confidential" personal data. 

The inquiry was forced to treat the letter as equivalent to a witness statement. The Prince refused to give evidence in person. His statement was read out at the hearing. 

Richard Scorer who was representing victims and survivors, expressed "surprise and concern" at the decision, saying. 

This will inevitably raise concerns that the letter may be less than entirely frank about his relationship with Peter Ball and that it contains matters to which he s reluctant to attach a formal statement of truth

Ball was first reported to Gloucester Police by Neil Todd and others in 1992. But no charges were brought against him after police received supportive telephone calls from "many dozens of people- including MPs, former public school headmasters, JPs and the Lord Chief Justice", the court heard.

It was also revealed that there had been "two thousand letters of support...including letters from cabinet ministers and Royal Family". The member of the Royal family was not named by Ball's barrister. Anthony Lloyd, who was then Lord Justice, described Ball as a "saint"

A Freedom of Information request by the Telegraph has led to the release of the letters written by some high profile figures in his support, they include former Lord Justice Anthony Lloyd, former Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan and David Cameron's late godfather Tory MP Tim Rathbone, who gave Cameron his first work experience in the House of Commons.

Rathbone wrote that he found it "literally inconceivable" that Ball would ever become involved with anyone in the way described. You can see how the Establishment protects its own here.

                Alan Dershowitz - Zionist lawyer and friend of Epstein

In what the New York Times described as ‘an unusually tough rebuke of the future king’ the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay, concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”

He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace

Mr. Ball, 87, was close with the archbishop, George Carey, and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, an appeals court judge. But the most powerful of his friends was Charles, the Prince of Wales. After Ball's resignation, Charles arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house that was then rented to Ball and his twin brother from the late 1990s — after he had been forced to step down — until 2011, and preached at the funeral of the prince’s second father-in-law, Bruce Shand.

Wayne Murdock, a police detective assigned to the investigation in 1993, anticipated early on that the suspect’s powerful friends would try to quash it.

“The jungle drums will start going and the phone calls will start,” he said, according to the report.

The report quotes correspondence suggesting that, after Ball was forced to step down as bishop of Gloucester, the prince lobbied for him to be returned to the ministry.

Charles denied attempting to influence police investigations and stated he ceased contact with Ball after his conviction in 2015.

The prince conveyed his "deep personal regret" that he was among many who were deceived by Ball over a long period, and his heart went out to the victims of the abuse. The inquiry ultimately found that the Church of England prioritized its reputation over the needs of victims and that the support from high-profile figures, including the Prince, was a factor in the decades-long cover-up that allowed Ball to evade justice.

The argument against the Monarchy and the Crown is not about the failings of individual members of the Royal Family.  It is about the fact that a hereditary monarchy is inherently undemocratic. They are unelected and yet have enormous reserve powers. The monarch interferes with legislation and at a time of constitutional crisis has enormous powers.

If there was ever an army coup then it would be legitimised by the Crown.  The Monarchy is, as Shelley saidthe string that ties the robbers’ bundle.’ They personify class oppression with their palaces, unearned income and way of life. They symbolise the idea that merely because of an accident of birth you are destined to rule.

There is no more logic in having a hereditary ruler than having a hereditary historian or mathematician.  Today they symbolise nothing so much as a dysfunctional family that nonetheless absorbs hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy. They are the icing on a very rancid cake.

There is also a very good blogpost by Craig Murray. The Four Mentors of King Charles Craig mentions a fourth paedophile in Charles' life, his 'spiritual mentor' Laurens van der Post. Craig makes this point:

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not know any paedophiles – but none of us can be absolutely certain we do not. Of one thing, however, I feel extremely confident. The four most-valued advisers in my life, the people whose advice I have most craved and to whom I have turned in times of crisis, are not all paedophiles. I should be astonished if any of them were.

You just can’t have your four closest non-official life guides as paedophiles by accident. You just can’t. It has been put to me that Charles, by nature of his role, knows vastly more people than ordinary folk. That may or may not be true (there is a counter-argument about privilege and protection). But it if were true, it does not improve things. If there is a much larger-than-normal pool from whom Charles could have chosen, it makes it even weirder he chose four prolific paedophiles.

To be clear, prolific paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour.

Tony Greenstein