ALL OUT ON JUNE 19 - At 10.30 am 19 June at Kingston Crown Court, I will have a pre-trial hearing accused of ‘terrorism’

 My Alleged Crime is Support for a Proscribed Organisation, Hamas But Supporters of Syria’s HTS/ISIS/Al Qaeda Regime Have not Been Prosecuted

Tony Greenstein Speech At the Birmingham Palestine Solidarity March Sunday June 1^st

Please Donate to the Crowdfunder

https://www.chuffed.org/project/114730-stopping-the-police-persecuting-palestine-solidarity-activists

The charge sheet is deceptive.  I am charged with

‘Express(ing) an opinion or belief in support of (a) proscribed organisation that will encourage support of it (and that) on 7th October 2023 expressed an opinion or be1ief that was supportive of a proscribed organisation, namely Hamas, and the support is not, or is not restricted to, to the provision of money or other property.

This charge is a lie. The Crown Prosecution Service had to obtain the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute, but that wasn't difficult.

Attorney General, Richard Hermer,  although critical of Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank and its contempt for international law, is a liberal Zionist.

In a statement to the Jewish Chronicle he explained that:

As it happens, I am from a “Blue-Box” Jewish family, a former Jewish youth movement chanich/madrich (a movement that my kids are now actively involved in), a graduate of the Machon, a former active member of UJS, a former volunteer for Searchlight magazine and a current member of Alyth Gardens shul.  I actively support a range of Jewish and Israeli organisations.  

I have dear family members currently serving in the IDF.  I also happen to believe... that the continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank is unlawful, deeply damaging to the interests of Israel and wholly contrary to the values of tikkun olam that I grew up with and continue to guide me.

Hermer’s opposition to the occupation of the West Bank does not derive from the damage to the Palestinians (who he doesn’t mention) but the interest of Israel.

 Hermer was also a sabbatical officer for the Israeli Embassy funded, ardently pro-Zionist Union of Jewish Students.

The Solicitor General, Sarah Sackman is also the Deputy Attorney General. She is no liberal Zionist. She was the Vice-Chair of Labour Friends of Genocide aka the Jewish Labour Movement, which has mobilised support for continued arms sales to Israel. The JLM was behind the false anti-Semitism smear campaign which helped destroy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party.

My lawyers have, quite ludicrously, not been allowed to give me copies of the material in which I am alleged to have offered support to Hamas, even though I wrote it.

Sarah Sackman as part of the JLM Zoom Meeting with Kid Starver

Activist Sarah Wilkinson was reportedly asked to reveal the location of her contacts in Gaza when she was arrested by UK police earlier this week.

Wilkinson was taken from her home after a morning raid by Counter Terrorism Police on 29 August. According to her son, Jack: “They… pic.twitter.com/oSXvp54F5Y

— Middle East Monitor (@MiddleEastMnt) September 6, 2024

 

It is clear to anyone who isn’t blind that the charges against Sarah Wilkinson, Richard Medhurst, Natalie Strecker, the Filton 18 and myself have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with attacking Palestine solidarity activists.

The One Paper You Wouldn't Expect to Turn It Into a Free Speech Issue is the Conservative Jersey Evening Post

If the Police seriously believed that we were engaged in the commission of acts of terrorism they would charged us with commissioning acts of terrorism. They haven’t.  The charges against us are about expressing opinions or beliefs that they don’t like.

Alistair Campbell &  Rory Stewart Interview the Head of the Proscribed Organisation HTS, Ahmed al-Sharaa

However there are some supporters of proscribed organisations who aren’t prosecuted. Step forward Alistair Campbell, who wrote the ‘dodgy dossier’ which was a crucial document in fixing the evidence for going to war in Iraq in 2003 and ex-Tory MP Rory Stewart who interviewed the Al Quaeda/ISIS President of Syria, Mohammed al-Jolani, as part of the Establishment’s quest to rehabilitate someone who is presiding over the slaughter of Druze, Alawites & Christians. 

For the first and last time I agree with the former Jewish Chronicle Editor, Jake Wallis Simons when he says ‘Shame on Rory Stewart and Alistair Cambell’.

Kingston Crown Court

Whenever the word ‘terrorism’ is mentioned the Judiciary go weak at the knees. I wanted the trial to be held in Brighton or Lewes Crown Court which are near where I live, since I have a responsibility under a Court of Protection Order for an autistic son. However because this is a ‘terrorism’ trial there are only 3 courts in the South-East that can hear it – the Old Bailey, Woolwich and Kingston Crown Court.

‘Terrorism’ legislation is being used, not to combat genuine terrorism but as a blunt weapon to silence supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of genocide. It is an abuse of the law which our judges are happy to endorse.

As John Dugard, a Professor of International law and an ad-hoc judge of the International Court of Justice observed,

‘‘The label of ‘terrorist’ is ‘a bid to discredit and silence opponents”. 

In the 1980s Thatcher and Reagan called the ANC a terrorist organisation and Nelson Mandela remained on the United States terrorist watch list until 2008. 

Gaza is a post-apocalyptic killing zone: UNRWA chief - Philippe Lazzarini

The accusation of ‘terrorism’ is being used to close down free speech on Palestine and Hamas is the pretext. Previously it was the PLO which was demonised. If proscription had been in operation 50 or 60 years ago then support for any national liberation or anti-colonial movement, from the Vietcong to the ANC, would have been a criminal offence.

What has been done, with the willing complicity and support of Starmer, Hermer and Lammy is to criminalise political opposition to the British government’s support of genocide.

Hamas is not a terrorist but a resistance group. It hasn’t blindly killed thousands of babies and children and then tried to turn October 7 into a second holocaust by engaging in the propogation of atrocity propaganda such as the story of 40 Beheaded Babies.

You might expect the ‘free press’ to take up this abuse of the anti-terrorist laws but instead they are its main cheerleaders. As George Orwell remarked in an essay The Freedom of the Press

‘The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.’

Except today the British press is dishonest on virtually every topic that impinges on the interests of their billionaire owners.  Included in that dishonesty is the broadcast media – not merely GB News and LBC but the BBC and Sky News.

In the United States we are seeing the destruction of even the most basic forms of democratic rights as Donald Trump sets loose the Marines and National Guard at those protesting at the activities of the ICE immigration squads.

It may not be as bad here but when you have a dozen police knocking at your door at 7 a.m. in the morning over a tweet which I posted a month before, you realise that the police state is not far away. When the police officer in my case, Chris Beckford, was asked to explain why he needed to keep possession of my digital devices, he stated when there was copious amounts of evidence in the public domain already:

However, that evidence only shows what Mr Greenstein presents publically. It is important to the investigation that we fully understand Mr Greenstein’s mind set and ideology. This not only comes from public sources, ie his blog and social media, but from his internet search history and communication with others. How, and indeed if, he talks about Hamas with others away from the public domain provides highly relevant insight into Mr Greenstein.

This is the language of the thought police who want to get into your mind. PC Beckford was not an ogre, quite the contrary. A quite affable guy but his mentality was that of Orwell’s 1984. The desire to get inside your mind is the stuff of which nightmares are made.

What is the prosecution based on?  Two things. Firstly a tweet on 15 November 2023 and secondly my blog of October 7 Full Support for the Gaza Ghetto Uprising.

In my blog I say virtually nothing about Hamas but I make it clear that I support the Uprising and that is the real reason for my prosecution. Support for the oppressed and colonial peoples is now a crime.

We cannot expect the British press to support free speech because it is in bed with the political class.

The reporting of my case in the Brighton Argus ‘Brighton man charged with terror offences over Hamas comments’ was par for the course in a paper which, under its present Editor Aaron Hendy, has gone from bad to oblivion.

Contrast the even more abysmal Jo Wadsworth, Editor of Brighton & Hove News whose innovative headline was ‘Tony Greenstein charged with terror offences’.

Wadsworth, who is to journalism what Harold Shipman was to care for the elderly. She once threatened to report me to the Police after I accused her of wallowing in the blood of Palestinian children. These people can get very precious.

BREAKING: Palestine Action are on a roof above Elbit's Israeli drone maker in Shenstone, Staffordshire.

From here, actionists are able to dismantle the factory and halt the production of weaponry. pic.twitter.com/CiivraNDTi

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) November 28, 2024 

The Police in this country have prioritised the defence of War Criminal Arms Factories like Elbit even whilst ‘ordinary’ crime like rape and burglary has soared. Rape has effectively been decriminalised as conviction rates have fallen to 1%.

There are a number of reasons for this. It isn’t just the attitudes of the Police but also the fact that the Police  prefer to spend their time harassing Palestine protests and activists to doing the boring work of tracking down rapists and violent criminals. Its so much more enjoyable persecuting political opponents than doing the hard work tackling rape. 

Many police officers don’t even accept that there is such a crime as rape. The murderer of Sarah Everard, Wayne Couzens was known by the nickname of ‘the rapist’.  Apparently this was considered to be quite a joke.

Please come and support me on June 19^th because it’s not me who is on trial but the right to freedom of speech and the right to support the Palestinians. See also

How to fight illegal police raids and win, with Asa Winstanley

Illegal police raid on my home won’t stop me covering Gaza – Asa Winstanley

Defend the Right to Protest & Defend the Right to a Fair Trial Public Meeting

From 1670 Onwards Juries Had the Right to Decide Cases According to their Own Conscience & Conviction – That is What is Now at Stake in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Colston

The right to acquit on conscience

As people may know, together with 3 others, I was convicted recently at Wolverhampton Crown Court of the heinous offence of ‘intending without lawful excuse to destroy or damage property belonging to UAV Engines Ltd.’ which is owned by Elbit Systems Ltd, the Israeli arms company.

The British state and its Judiciary, have always put a higher premium on the protection of property than the protection of people from that property, in the case of arms factories. Likewise those who pour effluent into the rivers and pollute the seas around us are immune from criminal prosecution unlike those who protest against the pollution.

As capitalism lurches from economic to environmental crisis, it lashes out like a wild animal. We see that in the nuclear poker game that is being played out in Ukraine as NATO wages a proxy war against Russia.

At home the Tory government, riddled with corruption and nepotism, of which Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list is only the latest example, passes repeated legislation – the Police, Crime & Sentencing Act, the Spycops (Covert Human Intelligence) Act, the Anti-Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Bill, and now the Public Order Act 2023 curtailing our liberties and giving state immunity to its operatives as they bug, abuse, murder and torture.

The POA allows police to pre-emptively arrest demonstrators is a new low but nothing is too low for the supine Labour ‘Opposition’ under Starmer, the Zionist without qualification. Labour MPs were ordered to abstain on the 3^rd reading and Starmer has promised to allow the Act to ‘bed in’.

Meanwhile the Judiciary, after a relatively liberal spell under Lady Hale and before her Lord Neuberger, as President of the Supreme Court, has reverted to type as the enemy of civil liberties. Epitomising this is the Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoH8AXgFCIw&t=32s

Contempt For Justice

The political establishment – from Cruella Colston Starmer, Braverman to Keir Starmer – reacted with horror at the decision of a Bristol jury to acquit the 4 demonstrators who rolled mass murderer and slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour. Braverman’s reaction was to be expected but it spoke volumes about Starmer’s taking the knee during the Black Lives Matter ‘moment’ as he called it. Racism and Starmer go together like Tom and Jerry.

The Colston verdict or rather the judge’s directions that the defence could employ human rights defences in a case involving criminal damages was overturned at the end of last year by the Court of Appeal in a referral from Braverman in Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 2022.

According to Judge Chambers Rosa Parks was wrong to break the segregation laws in the Deep South of America

Here is how Henry Hill of Conservative Home saw it:

It was easily missed,… but the Court of Appeal yesterday afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.

As Attorney General, she asked it to review the judgement in the ‘Colston Four’ trial, which saw four vandals acquitted on the grounds that tearing down a public artwork was protected under human rights legislation. 

Hill is quite right. The Court of Appeal under Sir Ian Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, ‘afforded an important victory to Suella Braverman.’

The decision negated the decision of the Supreme Court in Ziegler that obstruction of the road was protected by the European Convention of Human Rights.

In our case under Judge Michael Chambers KC, all defences of ‘lawful excuse’ were ruled out, despite the factory we targeted manufacturing engines for drones which kill civilians.

The tortured ‘logic’ of Chambers and Debbie ‘ghoul’ Gould, the Prosecutor, was that it was necessary to identify which engine goes into which drone and which child it has murdered It is not enough to show that Elbit drones comprise 85% of Israeli drones nor that they manufacture 80% of Israel’s ammunition.

Acts ancillary to war crimes committed in other countries are treated as committed in this country under Section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. But Judges have effectively rewritten the law to grant immunity to those who profit by the death of others.

Judge Chambers is very hot on drug dealers who convey their wares down Britain’s motorways yet their crimes pale into insignificance compared to the death and destruction of Elbi.

The twisted and artificial ‘logic’ of the judiciary is that drones manufactured in Britain is ‘too remote’ from the war crimes they inflict to be prosecuted. This is a racist rationale for the crimes of British imperialism and its Israeli allies.

No such principle was espoused in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and the prosecution of IG Farben which manufactured Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide, which was used to exterminate millions of people. No doubt if today’s judges had participated in the Nuremberg war crimes trials they would have argued that it was necessary to link each crystal of Zyklon B with each person who was gassed.

The reality is that whenever democratic rights and freedoms have been under attack – whether it be the Taff Vale Judgment which overturned trade union protections for the right to strike, or the attacks on the Suffragettes or the Official Secrets prosecution of Clive Ponting – judges have always been the nodding dogs of a reactionary Tory Establishment.

With at least 3 Insulate Britain activists have been gaoled for contempt of court for having the gall to explain to the jury why they had taken the action they did, we are seeing judges like Silas Reid and others in the forefront of the attack on civil liberties.

Whilst rogues like Boris Johnson and Lady Mone have immunity from prosecution over the Jennifer Arcuri and COVID frauds, because the Met Police refuse to investigate the crimes of fraud and embezzlement that have marked the Covid contracts, those of us who take direct action against the participation of Elbit in war crimes are prosecuted with the full force of the law.

That is why tomorrow there will be a Right to Protest meeting in Brighton at the BMECP Centre, 10 Fleet Street Brighton.

There will also be a Zoom meeting on Saturday 24 June with a host of speakers including Huda Ammori from Palestine Action, Tim Crosland, Deepa Driver from the Defend Julian Assange campaign and Tony Greenstein, one of 4 convicted Defendants.

To register for the meeting click here

The deportation of Julian Assange looms ever closer after the decision of a single High Court judge last week to reject his attempt to stop his extradition to the United States for the ‘crime’ of having exposed US war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere. The hypocrisy of British judges who deliberately turn a blind eye to the war crimes of the US and British governments is nothing new. The millions who died under the British Empire did so under the knowing gaze of Britain’s judges.

As always when confronted with challenges to state authority the judicial system seeks to criminalise political protesters. In 1912 the Prosecuting barrister in the trial of Emmeline Pankhurst said that:

Suffrage is not the issue, it is the criminal behaviour of the suffragettes and their incitement to partake in militant activity at which 54 windows were broken

None of this is new. All challenges to the British state are met with attempts to criminalise the protesters. But in ruling out all defences of lawful excuse and in particular gaoling protesters for explaining their motives to juries, there is an arguable case under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights:which states:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

How can a trial be fair when the Defendant can’t explain his/her motives to the jury? Craig Murray described how

The current legal establishment will adapt themselves to the legal framework of whatever sort is ordained by the rulers. Anybody expecting judges to defend liberties is likely to be sorely disappointed. They will happily remove the ability of juries to defend liberty too.

And to cap it all, despite what Judge Michael Chambers said viz. that:

“It’s a serious contempt to invite jurors to return outcomes which are not in accordance with the facts, but in accordance with their conscience.

The fact is that this is the common law of Britain as evidenced by the plaque to Edward Bushells on the Old Bailey.

Tony Greenstein

Andrew Windsor – The Real Question is Why he hasn’t Been Questioned by the Met – has Rape been Decriminalised?

The time has come for this dysfunctional family to be retired and Britain to become a Democratic Republic

It beggars belief that Andrew Windsor is innocent of the allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. Allegations which he strenuously denied in his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019. A child could work out that you don’t pay £10m+ to someone you don’t know.

Rape is having sex without consent.  A 17 year old girl who is being trafficked, i.e. not free to go, is not in a position to give meaningful consent. The question is why the Metropolitan Police haven’t interviewed her. It appears that the Met has a policy for the rich and powerful and another for us.

As I wrote at the time, the interview with Emily Maitlis was in the traditions of the BBC’s sycophantic coverage of all things Royal. It was a soft softball interview. Yet despite the reluctance of Maitlis to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, such as why he had spent 4 days with Jeffrey Epstein at his New York mansion and what he had done during that time, or why he didn’t avail himself of the hospitality of the British Embassy, it was a car crash interview.

The only mitigating factor for Andrew Windsor is that he must be incredibly stupid, even by Royal standards. How could he have ever thought that this interview would clear him? His own press spokesman resigned at the time after his advice had been disregarded. And yet the Queen, who had the power to prohibit the interview, did nothing. Clearly stupidity is a Windsor characteristic. Too much inbreeding!

Windsor’s explanations, his inability to sweat or the outing to the Woking Pizza Express, were widely derided at the time. Clearly his decision to settle, despite his bravado that he was looking forward to giving evidence, reflected the fact that these were brazen and pathetic lies. His assertion that he had benefited from being associated with Epstein caused widespread revulsion but we should bear in mind that standards in the Royal Family are not those of most people nor was it the only time that the Windsors have supported Establishment paedophiles.

Charles Windsor consistently supported Peter Ball, the ex-bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two young men. Ball, was sentenced to 32 months in October 2015 for charges relating to 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s. He admitted one count of misconduct in public office and two counts of indecent assault relating to two young men.

The first police investigation into Ball, who died in June, was launched in 1992.  Despite there being an abundance of evidence to bring the case to trial, it was decided that Ball would get a "police caution" for gross indecency instead. The report found that one of the detectives working on the case was worried about the case going to trial due to Ball's mental state and the "devastating effect" it could have on the Church of England.

There was also an understanding that Ball would resign from his post, which he did. But just four months later, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, wrote to Ball about planning his "cautious return to ministry." Less than two years later, he was back to work with "no restrictions" — and was even allowed to be around children and young people unsupervised.

In June 2017 George Carey resigned from his last formal role in the church after Dame Moira Gibb's independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball. In 2019 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [ICSA] confirmed Carey had discredited credible allegations of child sex abuse within the Church and failing to accompany disciplinary action with adding to the church's own safeguarding watchlist.

IICSA said Carey showed compassion to Peter Ball that was not extended to his victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. The church’s response was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting crimes.

The report spoke of “The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised” in the Diocese of Chichester. Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people.

Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”. Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said:

‘For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.’

Carey told the inquiry that he was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters. William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.” Ball had been able to call upon the

George Carey - a nasty racist, Zionist and homophobe 

‘willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent.’

Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.

A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period. Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells said:

‘The report states that the CoE should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this.... the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.’

In order to demonstrate how much it had learnt its lessons in February 2018 Carey was granted permission to officiate by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches. This was revoked on 17 June 2020 as the church found Carey could have done more to pass to police allegations of historic beatings at schools and evangelical children's camps, by John Smyth. Permission was restored to Carey seven months later. 

As a result of publicity a second police investigation was launched in 2012, which resulted in Ball pleading guilty three years later to misconduct in public office and indecent assault and abusing a total of 18 teens and young men over a period of 15 years. He was released from prison in February 2017, after serving half of his 32-month sentence.

The scandal involving Charles Windsor arose as a result of his relationship with Ball between the first police investigation and Ball being reinstated in the church.

Windsor was among the many influential people in the UK that Ball formed friendships with, including Margaret Thatcher, senior judges, and headmasters at private schools, according to The Guardian.

He also is said to have often preached at Sandringham, one of the royal family's private estates.

In August 1994, Charles Windsor sent his private secretary to Lambeth Palace to inquire about Ball's status to the Archbishop's top aide. When he learned that Ball had still not been cleared to return to ministry in February 1995, he wrote to Ball saying "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,"

Charles wrote, in one of the many letters exchanged during their two-decade correspondence.

He even bought Ball a house to live in, using the Duchy of Cornwall (our money!) to purchase the property and then renting it out to Ball and his twin brother from 1995 to 2011.

An independent inquiry criticizes the Prince of Wales

After Ball's conviction, an independent inquiry into child abuse was launched into how the case was handled.

When the panel published their report they said "the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided". In other words a slap on the wrist.

His actions, and those of his staff, could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales' future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the Church,

while Windsor said he

took no position on Peter Ball's return to ministry, he and his private secretary enquired about Peter Ball within Lambeth Palace. He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,"

But this should not be any surprise. The Queen herself has maintained close relations with the most abominable of her relations abroad such as King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain. As the Guardian reported in May 2019

The king regularly attends the prestigious five-day Royal Windsor horse show, which is a highlight in the Queen’s year. Pictures on Friday showed him meeting the British monarch and Prince Andrew, with the two heads of state laughing together as they watched the event.

Such is the closeness of the two monarchs that they have gifted each other horses from their respective stables; the king providing two to the Queen in 2013. The British monarch responded in 2017, giving him a horse in return.

The King maintains a veritable dictatorship in Bahrain which Britain has supplied with over £100 million of arms since 2011. Bahrain is a Sunni dictatorship ruling over a majority Shia population. The Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were met with murderous repression including Saudi Arabia despatching troops to put it down.

Doctors and nurse tending the wounded were themselves tortured. A report here gives further details on the unsavoury relations of the Queen

Elizabeth Windsor and the Sultan of Brunei

In May 2012 the Queen hosted a gathering of her unsavoury relations such as the Sultan of Brunei who introduced a law that included stoning to death for gays and those who commit adultery. It was only under heavy pressure that he was forced not to implement them (though one can never be sure).

So Andrew is not the Black Sheep of his family. Far from it. He is just the most stupid and brazen of the Windsors, a dysfunctional and parasitic family.

It is not however a question of the personal inadequacies of this inbred family. It is a question of democracy. No one would ever suggest that we should appoint hereditary mathematicians or poets. Why then do we still have hereditary heads of state?

The slavish loyalty of the BBC and unprincipled politicians like Starmer and Johnson to the monarchy has nothing to do with the ‘good’ job that Elizabeth Windsor performs. It has everything to do with the important political role that the monarchy plays in legitimising the British state. They are the symbol of the British state and the armed forces swear their allegiance, not to the people of Britain but the Queen in state.

As such the monarchy is a perpetual threat to democracy. If Corbyn had become Prime Minister, despite the hostility of the British Establishment and the threats of unnamed Generals, then it is quite feasible that a coup would have been launched, as it has in other countries, in the name of the Monarch.

The political function of the Royals is to serve as the icing on a poisonous cake. They represent the heart of an undemocratic state, with its unelected Lords. They are the face of privilege and perform the role of binding together the nation in obeisance to a myth. However rich or poor you are you can always identify with the ‘Royals’. The slavish and gushing coverage in the tabloid press aims at making them appear ‘human’ and one of us.

I prefer the advice of the revolutionary poet Percy Shelley who wrote in his Philosophical View of Reform (1820) that ‘Monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle.’  It is as true now as it was 200 years ago.

Tony Greenstein