Instead of confronting false accusations of anti-Semitism against its President, the National Union of Students have suspended her, appeasing supporters of Israeli apartheid

For over 40 years the Union of Jewish Students, has labelled critics of Israel ‘anti-Semites’ Last year it was Ken Loach today it is Shaima Dallali

The suspension of Shaima Dallali, by the National Union of Students, is a shameful and cowardly response to the attacks on a Black Muslim student leader by the apartheid supporting, Israeli funded Union of Jewish Students.

Faced with an attack on Shaima by the Conservative Government and the political establishment, for example the letter signed by 21 former NUS presidents, NUS simply caved in as Islamaphobic bigots like former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and Charles Clarke sought to oust Shaima.

After the ex-presidents’ letter, a letter in support of Dallali was circulated which called for there to be a simultaneous NUS investigations into Islamophobia and racism, as well as antisemitism. This was ignored.

Instead of setting up an ‘investigation’ into the bogus allegations, NUS should have gone on the offensive and called out the hypocrisy of a government that has demonised asylum seekers and is currently trying to send Black refugees (not white Ukrainians) to Rwanda whilst being concerned about 'antisemitism'.

Former Conservative Education Minister, the corrupt Nadhim Zahawi, warned about allegations of “systemic antisemitism” within NUS, threatening that the government may sever links with them. According to the Guardian Zahawi’s intervention followed ‘concerns raised by the Union of Jewish Students’.

Even more absurdly, James Wharton, Chair of the Office for Students, England’s higher education regulator, also cut off contact with NUS for ‘anti-Semitism’ in the same week as he addressed a political conference in Hungary that attracted far-right and antisemitic speakers. Wharton publicly endorsed the re-election of the openly anti-Semitic Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister! But then there is ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’. Hatred of Jews is fine.  Hatred of Israel and Zionism isn’t fine.

The pretext for the attack on Shaima was a tweet she made 10 years ago when 17. The comment read “Khaybar Khaybar O Jews … Muhammad’s army will return Gaza”, referencing an assault on Jews 1400 years ago. It is doubtful whether she even understood what this meant. Nonetheless Shaima has apologised for the tweet, saying she is not the same person she was then. That should be the end of it.

But of course for UJS an apology is merely grist to the Zionist mill because their concern is not anti-Semitism but her opposition to the fake IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and Zionism.

As Shaima observed, the Zionist backlash against her election was part of a pattern, first seen with Malia Bouattia, who in 2016 became the first black Muslim woman to become NUS President. Just as with Shaima UJS began a systematic campaign of denigration against someone who was an anti-Zionist. NUS, with all its ‘liberation strands’, has succumbed to an identity politics that equates the identity of privileged white racist Jewish students with that of a refugee like Malia and a Black Muslim Shaima. Shaima wrote:

“Unfortunately, as a black Muslim woman, it is something that I expected because I’ve seen it happen to other black Muslim women when they take up positions in the student union or the NUS, where they are attacked based on their political beliefs or their pro-Palestinian stance.”

She said she had received a lot of Islamaphobic, racist online abuse.

“I’ve had private messages of people calling me a raghead, people telling me to go and kill myself, calling me a Jew hater and an antisemite. That has been difficult to read.

“And so many threats as well – if I continue to do this then things will happen to me. I just try to delete, to block, I try not to let it get to my head. It’s something I receive every day and I’m continuing to receive. It’s affected me mentally and physically. Sometimes I don’t feel safe.”

As a result of the attacks by UJS and others Malia Bouattia also began getting the normal Zionist abuse, including death threats. This is the effect of UJS’s lying allegations. UJS is a threat to the safety of Black and Muslim students not them to Jewish students.

UJS are well aware of the effect that their scurrilous racist campaigns have and yet they never condemn it. Indeed it almost normal for Zionist campaigns like this to engender vile racist attacks. Only tonight in the second episode of Al Jazeera’s The Labour Files, we heard the voice of a Zionist in a phone message for Jenny Manson, Jewish Voice for Labour’s Chair, telling her he wishes that she die in a gas oven. I’ve had the same.  Prick a Zionist and you will find an anti-Semite lurking below.

Malia Bouattia's Response to UJS accusations of 'antisemitism'

During the Zionist campaign against Malia, more than 50 heads of Jewish societies across the country wrote an open letter to her because of her anti-Zionism asking her to clarify her position on antisemitism, including comments in an article where she described the University of Birmingham – with its large Jewish society – as being “something of a Zionist outpost in British higher education”. This is only anti-Semitic if you conflate Zionism and being Jewish. Malia made it clear that:

I celebrate the ability of people and students of all backgrounds to get together and express their backgrounds and faith openly and positively, and will continue to do so

Despite its verbal opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ UJS has never taken part in anti-fascist campaigns directed against genuine anti-Semites on the far-Right. When I was on the Executive of Anti-Fascist Action, UJS attacked AFA because it was seen as anti-Zionist. In the 70s with the Anti-Nazi League they did exactly the same.

The Board of Deputies was even worse. When the ANL was formed in 1977 the Board launched vehement attacks on it, not the National Front, because of the presence of anti-Zionists in it. Even Searchlight anti-fascist magazine, which under the late Maurice Ludmer was scrupulous in avoiding the question of Zionism, wrote in an editorial

In the face of mounting attacks against the Jewish community both ideologically and physically, we have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching an attack on the Anti Nazi League with all the fervour of Kamikaze pilots... It was as though they were watching a time capsule rerun of the 1930's, in the form of a flickering old movie, with a grim determination to repeat every mistake of that era. [Searchlight 41, November 1978].

Zionism begins where the fight against anti-Semitism ends. Zionism accepts the anti-Semitic argument that Jews don’t belong living among non-Jews.  In 1895, during the Dreyfus Affair, the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote in his Diaries that

In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism.

The Zionist belief that Jews should ‘return’ to Palestine chimed in with what the anti-Semites demanded. In a speech by Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Avner to Conservative Friends of Israel at the 1983 Tory Party Conference, Zionism was described as a movement of ‘self-repatriation’. [JC 21.10.83] 

Herzl understood this well when he wrote in his Diaries on June 12 1895:

The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. 

Today it is anti-Semites, from Christian Zionists to Viktor Orban, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon who are the most ardent Zionists. As Israeli historian, Yigal Elam wrote:

Zionism did not consider anti-Semitism an abnormal, absurd, perverse or marginal phenomenon. Zionism considered anti-Semitism a fact of nature, a standard constant, the norm in the relationship of the non-Jews to the presence of Jews in their midst… a normal, almost rational reaction of the gentiles to the abnormal, absurd and perverse situation of the Jewish people in the Diaspora. [Zionism and its Scarecrows, Khamsin 6]

UJS has a long history of attacking anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’. UJS is not a Jewish but a Zionist organisation. It is not open to anti-Zionist Jews nor would they want to be members. Section 2.1.1. of UJS’s constitution commits the organisation to:

Creating meaningful Jewish campus experiences and inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to their Jewish identity, Israel, and the community. 

When Shaima was elected as NUS President UJS got to work attacking her. In what was a repeat of the playbook tested out during the Corbyn era, UJS spoke of attacks on the Jewish community. And what were these attacks?  Not supporting Israel.

Shaima is just one more victim of UJS’s witchhunting. Victims have included George Johannes of the ANC, Ken Loach, Professor David Miller, Shahd Abusalama of Sheffield Hallam University and Jewish opponents of Zionism, myself included, though most of their recent victims are Black and Palestinian students.

In my blog I described how in 1986 UJS attempted to stop me speaking at the London School of Economics by making false accusations of, yes you’ve guessed it, anti-Semitism! When LSE’s Labour Club investigated the allegations they were found wanting. The Labour Club were then accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘fascism’!

UJS is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation. The WZO is a funder and co-ordinator of the settlements in the West Bank. It even has a ‘land theft division’. Of this UJS says nothing. Indeed at no time has UJS ever criticised or condemned Israel for its flagrant breach of Palestinian human rights. Nothing perturbs it, be it torture of children, demolition of Palestine homes, imprisonment without trial. Its only concern is ‘anti-Semitism’, which it defines as opposition to Zionism.

If Jewish students in Britain were subject to a fraction of what Palestinian students face under occupation, including invasions of campuses, beatings, checkpoints and torture, then they would have just cause to complain of anti-Semitism.  As it is we should treat members of UJS for what they are - spoilt White Jewish racists.

Al Jazeera’s documentary ‘The Lobby’ showed Adam Schapira, a candidate for UJS President, openly admitting that UJS was funded by the Israeli Embassy.

From Vetting in Practice

The Experiences of Emma Clyne

Emma become Chair of the Jewish society at SOAS in 2006-7 despite not being a Zionist. Emma described the ‘intense pressure’ from UJS:

Before she became the chair of the SOAS Jewish Society, she had found it was like an Israel Society…. She took over the chair on condition that there was to be a clear distinction between the Jewish Society and the Israel Society. This led to a furious reaction from UJS which told her: “That’s not what the Jewish Society does. You can’t separate Israeli politics from Jewish identity. It is all the same.”

The antagonism reached a peak after she went to the launch of Independent Jewish Voices in 2007 and found the speakers “honest articulate and inspirational.” When she invited some of the speakers [like Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC] to a meeting at SOAS to discuss “the impact of nationalism on Jewish identity” the pressure on her increased, and she was told that UJS and the Israeli Embassy were very concerned about the meeting.

In an article for the Guardian’s Comment is Free [before anti-Zionists were banned] I described what happened next:

According to... Emma Clyne, posters for a meeting the society put on were repeatedly torn down. Ms Clyne told a meeting of Independent Jewish Voices on May 15 that she had to put new ones up every day.

A clue as to the reason for its silence might lie in an article in the Jewish Chronicle of April 27 ("Students in censorship row over IJV debate").

From Vetting in Practice

The then Chair of UJS, Mitch Simmons, stated

‘"It is the view of the UJS that certain views are not acceptable under free speech."

Netanyahu's comments are clearly racist and they describe Israel as it is.   Yet to call it racist is 'antisemitic' according to the IHRA even though it is true!

Imagine if a White South African student group had described certain views opposing Apartheid as ‘not acceptable’. Yet NUS Executive has granted UJS their wishes.  All of course under the guise of  defending poor Jewish students who are too fragile to withstand criticism of their favourite racist state.

In Vetting in Practice I described UJS as

“an organisation whose primary purpose is defence of Israel, right or wrong. It has consistently sought to portray opponents, especially Jewish anti-Zionists, as anti-semites. That is why it receives, according to the Jewish Chronicle (May 11) hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Silencing opponents of Zionism and supporters of the Palestinians is its stock-in-trade. I have personally spoken on most major university campuses in Britain and I cannot remember an occasion when the UJS didn't try to prevent the meeting going ahead.

Ken Loach

Another target of UJS was the veteran left-wing film-maker, Ken Loach. He was invited by his alma mater, St. Peter’s College, Oxford to speak. All hell broke out and UJS was at the centre of this McCarthyist witchhunt.  Loach was accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ although no one seemed able to produce a single statement of his that was anti-Semitic.

UJS does its best to have Ken Loach banned - they failed

Oxford J-Soc tweeted:

“Oxford University Jewish Society is deeply disappointed by the decision of Professor Judith Buchanan, Master of St Peter’s College, to host an event with filmmaker Ken Loach. On numerous occasions, Loach has made remarks that are antisemitic under the IHRA definition,

Calling Israel a racist state, or saying you don’t believe in a Jewish state or comparing Zionism to Nazism is ‘anti-Semitic’ under the IHRA. That’s why the Zionists fought so hard to have it adopted.  The IHRA conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Its sole concern is with anti-Zionism not the genuine anti-Semitism of the far-Right.

UJS issued a statement along similar lines:

St Peter’s College, University of Oxford, should not be platforming a person who has repeatedly been accused of and has been an apologist for antisemitism.

Strangely enough neither group quoted what Loach had actually said. For UJS it’s enough to be accused of anti-Semitism to be guilty.  And what does an ‘apologist for anti-Semitism’ mean? Again no quotes.

The President of the Board of Deputies Marie van der Zyl issued a statement telling Professor Judith Buchanan, Master of St Peter’s College that

‘the decision to invite him [Loach] to speak at the college [was] ‘entirely unacceptable’ and calling for the event to be cancelled. That an Oxford college would not conduct its due diligence and allow Ken Loach to address students is entirely unacceptable. Higher education institutions have a duty of care to their students

Let us dissect that.  By inviting Ken Loach, an 85 year old man, to address a group of students these poor Jewish snowflakes might suffer irreparable harm!  It’s as if words don’t mean anything to these died-in-the-wool racists.

What was Ken Loach’s real offence? That he produced the play Perdition 35 years ago. The play was a fictional account of the Kasztner trial in Israel which the Zionists never refer to today.

Kasztner was the leader of Hungarian Zionism. The Jerusalem District Court upheld the allegations of collaboration against him. In the words of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Kasztner ‘sold his soul to Satan.’ Although the conviction was overturned  4-1 by the Supreme Court this was patently political and used dubious legal technicalities.

In fact on one charge of collaboration, giving testimony at Nuremberg in support of a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Becher, the allegation of collaboration was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court didn’t know that Kasztner had also given testimony in support of Eichmann’s deputy, Hermann Krumey and another mass murderer Dieter Wisliceny. Krumey lived out his life in Germany, until Rudolf Vrba gave evidence against him.  Wisliceny was executed by the Czechs. See “Anti-Semitism” accusations used in attempt to prevent Ken Loach speaking at Oxford University

The Kasztner trial is covered in my forthcoming book  Zionism During the Holocaust.  Kasztner made an agreement with Eichmann for 600, increased to 1,684, of the Zionist and Jewish elite escaping deportation in a train out of Hungary. In return  Kasztner suppressed the Auschwitz Protocols, which 2 escapees from Auschwitz, Vrba and Wetzler had written exposing Auschwitz as an extermination camp.

The result was that Hungarian Jewry were kept in the dark as to where they were being ‘resettled’ and were told by Kasztner’s Zionist friends, that they were merely being taken to a safer place in Hungary.

It is to be hoped that after the investigation concludes that NUS will defend its President Shaima Dallali against any further attacks by racists, UJS included.

The NHS is dying before our eyes and all we are doing is watching and waiting

 Dr Bob Gill explains how privatisation is destroying the NHS as Starmer & Streeting support its takeover by vulture capital

If you want to understand why it is that the NHS was so unprepared for the COVID pandemic and why it is that we have unprecedented waiting lists, then watch this 20 minute video of Dr Bob Gill who explains it all quite succinctly.

The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Attlee government. Gone were the days when if you couldn’t afford to see a doctor or pay for drugs you simply had to suffer in silence or hope that a charity cottage hospital would treat you.

We live in the age of neo-liberalism, which is another way of saying that everything public is bad (except the Police/Army and Monarchy of course) and everything private is good.

Dr Bob Gill

Yet we cannot rely on the Labour Party under Starmer to oppose privatisation. His shadow Health Secretary West Streeting openly supports the involvement of private companies on the pretext that it will help cut waiting lists.

Yet this is a lie. The way to cut waiting lists is to train more doctors and nurses, build more hospitals and transfer the money from our increasing ‘defence’ (i.e. war) budget to health care. Private firms are interested in one thing only – profit.  And where does that come from?  Money that would otherwise go into the NHS (and also further exploitation of NHS workers).

Streeting is a brazen liar. Why else would John Armitage, a hedge fund founder and manager, who has given over £3 million to the Tories, give £15,000 to Streeting? The Electoral Commission’s register of donations shows that Streeting reported receiving this donation in January 2022.

Armitage, number 138 on the 2021 Times ‘rich list’, is co-founder and director of the Egerton Capital hedge fund. Among its almost £19bn of investments, Armitage’s fund owns shares worth almost £834m in UnitedHealth (UH), a vast US private health corporation that has spent millions lobbying US politicians for its interests.

UH has played a key role in the ‘americanisation’ of the NHS that began under New Labour and continued apace under the Tories. See Shadow Health Sec Streeting takes large sum from Tory donor with huge private health interests.

Not only Streeting but Starmer himself has received £12,500 from Armitage. Now why would this be? The answer is clear. Starmer intends to continue from where the Tories left off. Nothing could better illustrate the political bankruptcy of the Labour Party today and yet the ‘Socialist’ Campaign Group says next to nothing. It refuses to call for Starmer to stand down whereas the Labour Right had no such problems when Corbyn was the leader.

But the NHS trade unions have also been pathetic. UNISON and GMB have stayed silent. Indeed it is difficult to know whether or not the GMB is even concerned about the effect of privatisation on its members.  UNITE has called out Streeting over his receipt of Armitage’s donations but it has not done much else.

If anyone is in any doubt about what a catastrophe a private insurance health system is they should look to the United States where some 46 million adults don’t have private health care insurance.That is almost  1 in 5 adults. What that means is that if you are seriously ill you cannot get treated until it is classified as an emergency and then you can be admitted via an A&E.

Yet even if you do have private health insurance you often end up having to pay for extras, things like drugs and other extra charges. The insurance companies, mindful of their own profits, haggle over the nature of the treatment and sometimes simply refuse to pay out if, for example you don’t get their permission for treatment in advance or if you go to a hospital that isn’t on their list. These are the benefits of privatisation.

Contrast this with Cuba, 50+ years under a blockade from the United States. Despite its lack of resources child mortality rates (under 5 years, infant and neonatal) in Cuba have been lower than in the USA for many years. WHO figures for 2016 for under 5 child mortality (U5M) show that Cuba has a U5M rate of 5.5 per 1000 live births, whereas the USA has a U5M rate of 6.5 and Costa Rica has a rate of 9.7.¹ Cuba has the second-lowest U5M in the Americas behind Canada with a rate of 4.9.

Despite the fact that one-fifth of its population are excluded from coverage, the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other country. Why?  Because each stage of the insurance process sucks up money, the process of billing, accountants etc. add to the cost plus of course the mega profits at each stage.

So privatisation not only costs more but it is less efficient all round yet Starmer and Streeting want to increase the privatisation of the NHS and the trade unions that NHS workers belong say and do next to nothing.

That the GMB says nothing is not surprising.  They have been found by the Report they themselves commissioned to be institutionally sexist (and it implied institutionally racist too). A corrupt, right-wing union, the main concern of Gary Smith, its General Secretary and those around him is their own perks and privileges. And defending the apartheid State of Israel.

We can already see what the future holds for the NHS from the crisis in dentistry.  9/10 dentists cannot offer appointments to adults on the NHS and 8/10 can’t do the same for children. The BBC has revealed that we are at tipping point. The British Dental Association has said that the BBC’s research is ‘the most comprehensive and granular assessment of patient access in the history of the service’.

People are resorting to pulling out their own teeth without anaesthesia yet our so-called  Opposition says nothing about this because it’s more concerned with rooting out a non-existent anti-Semitism.

I recommend watching Bob Gill’s video because what it shows is frightening.

Charles III is not our King – he is the King of Truss, Starmer and the British Establishment

 Charles is Booed in Cardiff and Celtic Fans Chant ‘If you hate the Royal Family Clap your Hands’ as the Wheels Begin to Come Off the Royal Pantomime

UPDATE

A loyal tribute to Elizabeth Windsor by British singer song writer Leon Rosselson

If you hate the Royal Family clap your hands – Glasgow Celtic fans

It is often said of the Queen that she did a good job. And in one sense that is true.  She did do a good job but the question is for whom did she work? Certainly no one who lived in the colonies benefited and it is difficult to see how anyone who is poor, on the streets or working class is any the richer.

On the other hand there is no doubt, judging by the million or so fools who spent 24 hours or more to see her coffin, that the late Queen performed a very useful function for the class that she came from. A role not dissimilar to that of religion.

Marx didn’t simply describe religion as the opium of the masses but also as the heart of a heartless world, the soul of a soulless world. Royalty performs a vital political and social function in binding the poor and oppressed to their oppressors in a sham show of national unity that is underpinned by the honours system.

The honours system itself is divided into ordinary and common OBEs, CBEs and MBEs (all of which refer to the Empire) up to the the Most Nobel Order of the Garter, of which there are only 34 at any one time, all of whom are chosen personally by the sovereign. In this way, however rich or poor you are you can identify with the monarch.

That is why virtually every business of any size adorned itself with the image of Elizabeth Windsor. The Monarchy provides social stability as well as a back stop against revolution.

Republican demonstrators greet Charles in Cardiff

Despite all this there is a growing mood of republicanism amongst the young in particular who are almost equally divided on whether or not to have a republic. However much the BBC rams the idea of an unelected monarchy down our throats it offends against democratic instincts and reeks of class snobbery and contempt.

The Monarchy is depicted as the ideal family, just like you and me however there is nothing ordinary about the monarchy from the past-times they indulge in (hunting, shooting) to the company they keep.

Despite being told that the Monarchy has no influence politically this is not true. The royals vetted at least 1,062 laws during Elizabeth’s reign in order to ensure that they didn’t hurt her interests.

Whereas it is well known that Royal Assent is needed when a bill becomes law very few people know that the Monarch’s consent is needed before legislation can be approved by parliament. The website of the royal family describes it as “a long established convention”. 

Documents in the National Archives suggest that the Consent Process enabled Elizabeth Windsor to lobby for changes before legislation was tabled. Thomas Adams, a constitutional law expert at Oxford University said that these documents revealed “the kind of influence over legislation that lobbyists would only dream of”. It gave Liz “substantial influence” over draft laws that could affect her. See Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

We can see their results. The Queen’s Estate will pay no Inheritance Tax unlike ordinary mortals, saving them hundreds of millions of pounds.  But there is more to this than mere corruption although there is that too.

The Monarchy in the form of Prince Charles played a large part in the canonisation of Jimmy Savile.  He was also knighted. In a memo addressed to the royals in 1989, and titled ‘Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs’, Savile claimed he was “in the palaces on a regular basis”.

Under  ‘personal observations’, Savile stated that he was ‘well-placed’ to make observations and comment on the Royal Family’s image due to the access he had inside their residences writing:

“Because I get into St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace on a regular basis, one thing is becoming quite obvious. There is a strong movement now towards some members of the family and their staff towards an… attitude.”

The Netflix documentary Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story showed how  

Charles had gone out of his way to seek out Savile’s advice and help in repairing the monarchy’s image and reputation. Because if there is one thing the ‘firm’ is careful about is its image.

A British horror story

In Imposed Insanity – Royalty, Propaganda And The Coming Catastrophe Media Lens remind us that

‘wherever there is royalty, there is militarism, organised religion, bipartisan political agreement, patriotism and, of course, concentrated wealth.’

The Monarchy is the symbol of all that is rotten in society. Its function being to hide the nexus of power in pageantry, pomp and mystique. It’s secret weapon is its insincerity.

A leaky pen

As Walter Bagehot argued the monarchy needed mystique. “Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” Charles has done quite the opposite. He allowed cameras into the accession council, where he made his oaths. He has already had two public hissy fits involving malfunctioning pens, which have gone viral. Charles finds it difficult, unlike his mother, to keep his mouth shut.

Power is exercised most effectively behind closed doors not in public. As Media Lens pointed out we are quick to ridicule countries where there is a cult of the personality –

‘those poor lost souls who glorify leaders with hagiographic portraits and statues; and militarised patriotic festivals and grand commemorative events’.

This type of thing happens in Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and Kim Jong-un’s North Korea not in Britain. Yet how does one describe hundreds of thousands of people queuing for over a day to catch a glimpse of the coffin of a woman they never knew?

The BBC naturally was determined not to be outdone in its servile, sycophantic prose. Royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wittered:

‘This is the moment history stops; for a minute, an hour, for a day or a week; this is the moment history stops.

If history stopped, then time itself must have stopped! A quite remarkable feat, even for a monarch.

The Leaky Pen and why Charles is angry with his manservant

Newspapers ran full, front-page portraits with forelock-tugging headlines:

• ‘A life in service’ (The Times)
• ‘Our hearts are broken’ (Daily Mail)
• ‘Grief is the price we pay for love’ (Daily Telegraph)
• ‘Thank you’ (Daily Mirror’)
• ‘Our beloved Queen is dead’ (Daily Express)
• ‘We loved you Ma’am’ (The Sun)

As Media Lens asked ‘Does The Sun have any idea what the word ‘love’ means?’ This is the paper that marked the death of 96 football fans at the Hillsborough Stadium with the headline ‘The Truth’ alleging that fans picked the pockets of the victims whilst urinating on the ‘brave cops’.

Nor was the Guardian any better. The day after Windsor’s death it led with 19 pages on the Queen plus a 20-page supplement. Columnist, Gaby Hinsliff, wrote a piece referring to Elizabeth Windsor’s ‘grandmotherly manner’, ‘female power’, ‘rare trick for a woman’, ‘a woman in charge’, ‘“ultimate feminist”’, ‘a legacy for women’, etc.

Hinsliff’s unctuous prose managed 14 retweets and 72 likes.

Not to be outdone Sir Keir Starmer, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath and Leader of the ‘Opposition’, declared:

‘For seventy years, Queen Elizabeth II stood as the head of our country. But in spirit, she stood amongst us.’

One wonders just how many homeless people felt her spirit as they bedded down for the night. Perhaps those weighing up how to heat their home immediately felt her presence besides them?

Not content with this nonsense Starmer told us that:

‘as the world changed around her, this dedication became the still point of our turning world.’

How many of you felt that your world revolved around Liz Windsor?

But all this servile nonsense aims to enable the new King to emerge, as if by magic, like a butterfly from its chrysalis. And history therefore has to be rewritten. It is no accident that the BBC Panorama Interview with Princess Diana has been suppressed. 

The BBC have pretended that Diana was tricked into the interview, even though she herself declared at the time that she was happy with it. The BBC is asserting its copyright to prevent it being shown anywhere. There is nothing like censorship to help change the narrative. However you can still see it on my blog, at least for the moment!

As Andrew Morton, whose 1992 book Diana: Her True Story exposed Charles adultery with ‘Queen’ Camilla said:

"It is a supreme irony that it is her son who has led the calls to posthumously muzzle Diana, to silence her, to prevent her from being heard, from saying what she spent her life trying to articulate"

As the BBCs former Director-General Tony Hall admitted:

The first investigation we did before Christmas under Tim Gardam talked to all the people concerned and produced a letter where she said very clearly that she had been shown no documents by Martin Bashir, she was not made aware of anything by Martin Bashir that she didn’t already know and she had no regrets, underlined, by the interview. It is quite interesting that Lord Dyson himself says that an interview of some sort would probably have taken place anyway. At that point in our inquiries, in our investigations with Tim Gardam, we came to an end that there was no case to answer.

In now trying to silence what her mother wanted to reveal, Prince William is acting with contempt for her. But that too is part of the price to be paid for keeping the royal show going.

See The reason the BBC wants to bury Diana’s Panorama Interview has nothing to do with fake bank statements – it’s about protecting Charles

As for Andrew, the death of Elizabeth Windsor has been quite fortuitous in his attempt to achieve rehabilitation. Instead of mourning in private, Andrew was one of the 4 royals who formed the vigil around her coffin. In full military uniform it might be added.

Expunged from memory are the stories of Prince Charles with carrier bags full of notes donated by a kind Qatari politician. And why, in this age of Internet banking, did Charles not have the money sent electronically?  Guess it was his addiction to all things old-fashioned!

Also forgotten is how Charles protected the serial child abuser Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, who eventually served half of a 32 month prison sentence after the Police originally let him off with a Caution. Charles wrote to him after he had been cautioned saying that

“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.”

There is no record of Charles having expressed any sympathy for Neil Todd, one of Ball’s victims, who killed himself in 2012.

In classic Establishment understatement, the Official Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse described Charles’ support for Ball and the Duchy  of Cornwall buying a house for him to rent as ‘misguided’.

Why are you strangling me?

Charles maintained a correspondence with Ball for more than two decades after Ball’s 1992 caution for gross indecency. Charles told the inquiry that he did not realise the truth behind allegations against Ball. Most people understand that accepting a Caution means accepting one is guilty. But not Charles. That child abuse offences were dealt with by a Caution suggests Police complicity and cover up.

Charles explanation as to why he corresponded with Ball was that it was the “polite” thing to do but the inquiry found the replies were “suggestive of cordiality rather than mere politeness”. Charles explanation, that he did not know the exact details of the allegations, was not believed by the inquiry which found that he did not try to find out.

All this however will be hushed up and forgotten because it’s now a case of ‘God Save the King’ and the Establishment of which he is such an integral part.

Or as the old saying goes ‘Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.’

Tony Greenstein