Francesca Albanese - False Allegations of Anti-Semitism Against UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine for Mentioning a ‘Jewish Lobby’

 When accusations of ‘anti-Semitism are used to Justify Israeli War Crimes then all you do is make anti-Semitism respectable

Death to the Arabs demonstration in Jerusalem - like the Nazis?

On 14 December The Times of Israel revealed that Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories had, on July 31 2014 published an open letter  on Facebook attacking the United States and Europe for criticising the victims of Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza. Israel murdered over 2,200 Palestinians, including 551 children, in Operation Protective Edge.

In her post Albanese said:

“America and Europe, one of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby, and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust, remain on the sidelines and continue to condemn the oppressed — the Palestinians — who defend themselves with the only means they have (deranged missiles), instead of making Israel face its international law responsibilities,”

Although it would have been more accurate to use the term ‘pro-Israel lobby’ there was nothing anti-Semitic about her post. Those who attack Albanese do such so with all the sincerity of righteous hypocrites. The hypocrisy of the Zionists is like the US government giving lectures on human rights to China or Hitler complaining of racial discrimination against the Sudeten Germans.

The Israeli Mission to the UN didn’t bother to hide its real agenda.

​Antisemitism is a persistent malice that has infected the United Nations Human Rights Council for far too long.

It would have been more honest if the Israeli Mission had simply said that talk of human rights for Palestinians was in itself anti-Semitic. After all Bezalel Smotrich, who is now in charge of the Civil (actually Military) Administration in the West Bank only recently declared that human rights organisations are an  ‘existential threat’ to Israel. This is the real agenda of those who are attacking Albanese.

Naturally Deborah Lipstadt, a junk holocaust historian and Biden’s ‘anti-Semitism’ envoy got into the act saying that

Such blatant antisemitic rhetoric — particularly when it’s an established pattern — is simply unacceptable.

Lipstadt is the same person who accused Jewish supporters of BDS of enabling anti-Semitism. She described anti-Zionism, which used to be the majority position of all Jews, as anti-Semitic in itself. It’s no wonder that Lipstadt has been so silent about Jewish neo-Nazis being Cabinet Ministers in the new Israeli government.

The fact is that the pro-Israel lobby, in particular the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), does sees itself as a Jewish  lobby. They are also seen by other Jewish organisations as a Jewish lobby.

For example AIPC engineered the defeat of Senator Charles Percy, a moderate Republican from Illinois, in his re-election campaign in 1984 after he had declined to support an AIPAC-sponsored letter and referring to Yasser Arafat as a “moderate”. AIPAC contributors raised more than a million dollars to help defeat Percy. Tom Dine, the Executive Director of AIPAC, boasted shortly after Percy’s defeat:

“all the Jews, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians —  those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire — got the message.”

Jews you notice, not Israel supporters or Zionists, celebrated. In 2005, Steven Rosen, then a senior official with AIPAC, told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker.

“You see this napkin?” Rosen asked Goldberg. “In twenty-four hours, [AIPAC] could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

When Senator Bernie Sanders said he would not attend AIPAC’s annual conference in Washington, DC, because he was

concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.

the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations [CPMAJO] called Sanders’ words “irresponsible and counterproductive,” saying, “AIPAC brings together a bipartisan diversity of all sectors of society from across the political spectrum.”

Why should these American Jewish groups feel the need to defend AIPAC if it is only a pro-Israel organisation? Clearly they see being Jewish and pro-Israel as one and the same thing.

Bear in mind that Donald Trump, the anti-Semitic President of the USA, who believes that Jews owe Israel their loyalty, was directly responsible for the largest massacre of Jews in the US’s history when 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh died. These groups kept silent about Trump’s responsibility then.

It is impossible to draw a line between AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby on the one hand and the Jewish community and Jewish organisations on the other. That is as true of the United States as Britain. Indeed it is worse in Britain.

The Greater Miami Jewish Federation lets the cat out of the bag with its explanation of who AIPAC was and where it had come from:

AIPAC was established in 1954 by leaders of the American Jewish community who recognized that Israel’s needs could not be satisfied by philanthropy alone. The economic, military and political support necessary for Israel’s survival could only come from the U.S. government. AIPAC’s mission ever since has been to nurture and advance the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In other words AIPAC, which is an openly pro-Israel lobby group, was founded by the leaders of America’s Jews. It is nothing but hypocrisy to then turn around and complain about the use of the words ‘Jewish Lobby’.

Likewise Alma, a Jewish Feminist group asked What are the different American Jewish organizations that focus on Israel? before listing AIPAC and the Zionist Organisation of America as Jewish groups. I have to confess I didn’t hear any complaints.

It may be that Albanese misspoke but anti-Semitism it is not. It’s like suggesting that associating the Mafia with Italians is racist.

The hypocrisy of these attacks on Albanese is even more nauseating when you consider that Zionists, when discussing amongst themselves, make no distinction between being Jewish and Zionist.

That is why if you are anti-Zionist you are called anti-Semitic or worse (Kapos, self hater etc.). But occasionally the mask slips. The Zionists themselves talk about a Jewish Lobby.

Alex Brummer, a Jewish Chronicle columnist and City Editor of the Daily Mail referred  to the Jewish Lobby in the Jewish Chronicle of 5 December 2003 without any protest.  In an article Straws in the Wind or More Hot Air  Brummer described AIPAC as ‘one of the more right-wing and effective of the Jewish lobby groups’. I don’t recall any protests about anti-Semitism but of course Brummer was a right-wing Zionist.

Similarly the then Prince Charles referred in a private letter to Lauren van der Post to the 'Jewish Lobby':

“Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” 

In the Jewish Chronicle of 11 April 2008 Nathan Guttman, in an article 'Alternative' US Lobby prepares to launch’ referred to 'attempts to create an alternative Jewish lobby'.  Again I don't recall any howling about anti-Semitism from the usual suspects.

The fact is that the Zionist lobby considers itself a Jewish lobby and then criticises anyone who calls them out. It’s much like the IHRA so-called definition of anti-Semitism which states that

‘Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.’

Yet the IHRA also states that ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ is also anti-Semitic!  In other words anti-Semitism can mean anything the Zionists want it to mean. All that matters, as Humpty Dumpty observed, is ‘which is to be master.’

There was a similar outbreak of political hypocrisy when Gerald Kaufman, the former Jewish Labour MP, referred to ‘Jewish money’. The Zionists howled about anti-Semitism yet I found nearly 600 references to Jewish money in the Jewish Chronicle. The Witchhunt of Gerald Kaufman - Crucified for Supporting the Palestinians.

Even worse, Albanese compared Israel and its works to Nazi Germany! According to the ToI in 2015 she shared a picture of a Nazi trooper and a Jewish man side by side with an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian. Even worse in an interview with Italian media compared the Nakba, the Zionist mass expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians, to the Holocaust.

The Times of Israel solemnly informed us that ‘comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is considered antisemitic’ according to the IHRA. To compound her crimes ‘Albanese has recently spoken out against the IHRA definition.’ Clearly the woman is shameless and beyond help!!

Let us put to one side that Israeli leaders have regularly compared Palestinian or Arab opponents to the Nazis and Hitler since Zionist leaders have a free pass when it comes to such comparisons. The policy of the Nazis when they came to power in 1933 was to expel not to murder its Jewish citizens. That came later in 1941 onwards.

Ben-Gvir, Israel's new Security Minister led the mobs chanting Death to the Arabs

The most popular slogan amongst anti-Semites in 1930s Europe was ‘Death to the Jews’. Is it really anti-Semitic to point out that in Israel today, the favourite chant of Jewish mobs is ‘death to the Arabs’? The third largest political bloc in the Knesset today is led by the political representatives of those who cry for the murder of all Palestinians.

There are many comparisons between pre-1939 Nazi Germany and Israel. Israel, like Nazi Germany, is an ethno nationalist state. The French Revolution established for the first time the idea of a separation between church and state. The Israeli state is a throwback to the feudal era in the age of imperialism.

Geoffrey Alderman, a devoted Zionist and the historian of British Jewry poured scorn on the IHRA and its equating comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany as anti-Semitic. Alderman noted that many countries have been accused of behaving like Nazis. Tom Segev, an Israeli historian observed:

All Israeli governments have used the Holocaust as a political argument. Every Arab leader since 1948 has been compared at least once to Hitler. All Arab countries have compared Israel to the Nazis.

Netanyahu even claimed that Hitler would never have perpetrated the holocaust but for the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem.

In my book Zionism During the Holocaust I quote Israeli historian, Professor Idith Zertal as describing how, in Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, how Israel has exploited the holocaust:

‘The transference of the holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality… not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the holocaust, dwarfed the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the victims and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders.[1]

Zertal also described how, during the Nakba in 1948, Yosef Nahmani, a senior officer of Haganah, was stunned by the cruelty of Israeli troops. He described how in Safsaf, the villagers raised the white flag but 60-70 men and women were massacred and asked: ‘Where did they learn cruel conduct such as that of the Nazis?’ According to one officer, ‘The most eager were those who had come from the [concentration] camps…’ According to Zertal

there hasn’t been a war involving Israel ‘that has not been perceived, defined, and conceptualized in terms of the Holocaust.’ Israel has mobilised the Holocaust ‘in the service of Israeli politics’.

Every war has been an ‘existential’ one. The Green Line between Israel and the West Bank was called the ‘Auschwitz borders’ by Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban .

Yehuda Elkana, a child survivor of Auschwitz and Rector of the Central European University in Budapest, before Netanyahu’s anti-Semitic friend Viktor Orban shut it down, wrote that

a profound existential "Angst" fed by a particular interpretation of the lessons of the Holocaust and the readiness to believe that the whole world is against us, and that we are the eternal victim. In this ancient belief, shared by so many today, I see the tragic and paradoxical victory of Hitler. Two nations, metaphorically speaking, emerged from the ashes of Auschwitz: a minority who assert, "this must never happen again," and a frightened and haunted majority who assert, "this must never happen to us again.

So when we read the statement of Michèle Taylor, U.S. ambassador to the UNHRC that ‘We are appalled,” about Albanese’s comments we should recognise the doublethink of US imperialism. Not once has the US condemned the racism of the apartheid state that it funds.

In the West Bank there are 2 legal systems for 2 different peoples – Palestinians and Jewish settlers, yet the US has the effrontery to condemn Albanese whilst funding Israeli apartheid. Such is the hypocrisy of imperialism and its condemnation of ‘anti-Semitism’.

This was before the Ukrainian War - now the Azov Battalion is kosher

Whitewashing neo-Nazis: The CPMAJO & the ADL 

Among the numerous  Zionist groups, who are members of the CPMAJO is the Anti-Defamation League. It describes itself as an anti-hate group though Black Lives Matter repeatedly called it a racist pro-cop organisation. 

Up till the war in Ukraine the ADL hadn't hesitated to call the Azov Battalion a neo-Nazi group. But once the war had started ADL began to white wash it. On November 9 the ADL issued an email stating that it “does not” consider Azov as the “far right group it once was.” 

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)

On 17 March Electronic Intifada published an extraordinary interview by Andrew Srulevitch, ADL's director of European affairs with David Fishman, of the academic committee of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

“We’ve seen torchlit marches in the middle of [Kiev] with the red and black flags of UPA … and pictures of Stepan Bandera, who allied with the Nazis during WWII,” Srulevitch asked. “Isn’t that evidence of Nazism in Ukraine?”

Fishman replied that:

“For Ukrainian nationalists, UPA and Bandera are symbols of the Ukrainian fight for Ukrainian independence. The UPA allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union for tactical – not ideological – reasons,” 

“For Jews, however, not only is allying with the Nazis unforgivable under any circumstance, but historians have documented that Ukrainian nationalists participated together with Germans in the murder of many thousands of Jews in Ukraine,” 

As Ali Abunimah noted, Fishman’s lie that Bandera and other Nazi collaborators are “symbols” of the “fight for Ukrainian independence” mirrored the claims from American white supremacists that their display of the Confederate battle flag is merely to honor their “heritage”.

Fishman is an Academic Prostitute willing to harness his academic reputation to the political needs of Zionism. Daniel Lazare, in Who Was Stepan Bandera? wrote that Bandera’s OUN [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists]

had played a leading role in the anti-Jewish pogroms that broke out in Lviv and dozens of other Ukrainian cities on the heels of the German invasion, and now they served the Nazis by patrolling the ghettoes and assisting in deportations, raids, and shootings. 

Beginning in early 1943, OUN members formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Their first major act was an ethnic cleansing campaign aimed at driving Poles out of eastern Galicia and Volhynia.

“When it comes to the Polish question, this is not a military but a minority question,” a Polish underground source quoted a UPA leader as saying. “We will solve it as Hitler solved the Jewish question.”

Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe in Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, wrote that UPA killed 100,000 Poles between 1943 and 1945 and that Orthodox priests blessed the axes, pitchforks, scythes, sickles, knives, and sticks that the peasants it mobilized used to finish them off.

Simultaneously, UPA mounted attacks on Jews that were so ferocious that Jews actually sought the protection of the Germans. “The Banderite bands and the local nationalists raided every night, decimating the Jews,” a survivor testified in 1948. “Jews sheltered in the camps where Germans were stationed, fearing an attack by Banderites. Some German soldiers were brought to protect the camps and thereby also the Jews.”

Yet CPMAJO has no problem  with one of its constituent organisations, ADL, whitewashing and justifying Bandera and his OUN/UPA which participated in the murder of 1.5 million Jews with the Nazis.

Tony Greenstein

See History of Fascism in Ukraine Part II: The OUN during World War 2, 1941-1945   

---

[1]        Zertal, p. 100.

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