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

The Zionist Attacks on Gordon Nardell QC, Labour’s newly appointed lawyer, demonstrate their contempt for the Idea of Innocent until Proven Guilty

If there’s one thing the Tories & Zionists can’t stand it is Natural Justice, Due Process and Fairness

Beware the rubber backbones of Corbyn and Formby – the pressure on Nardel to ‘resign’ will be immense

The appointment of Gordon Nardell QC has outraged the merchants of anti-Semitism

It must have sent the Israel lobby and the Tory press into apoplexy.  Having invested a small fortune in time and money in waging the false anti-Semitism campaign, having gathering ‘evidence’ that the Labour Party is ‘riddled with anti-Semitism’, having waged a bogus war from John O’Groats to Lands End on Jeremy Corbyn, having successfully intimidated Corbyn into confessing that there are non-existent ‘pockets’ of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, to say nothing of John McDonnell ‘weeping’ over non-existent anti-Semitism, what do they go and do?  They appoint a Jewish lawyer and QC who is not only of the Left (strange that in the Labour Party) but one who believes in justice!!  Even worse, the man isn’t a Zionist.  Oy vei some might say.

That well known anti-racist paper the Sun was apoplectic. In the neutral and unbiased tones for which it is justly famous, its headline ran ‘Leftie lawyer hired by Labour to oversee anti-Semitism cases is ‘friends with anti-Jewish activists’.  In the Sun’s eyes those who are accused of anti-Semitism must be guilty as charged.   The job of Labour’s lawyer is to ensure that the bogus charges stick not to pussy foot around with notions of due process and natural justice.  The Sun, lest anyone forget, is the paper which has employed the two most racist ‘journalists’ in Britain – Richard Littlejohn and Katy Hopkins.  However when it comes to ‘anti-Semitism’ the Sun is with the best of them.

Lucian Berger is worried that natural justice and due process may form a part of the disciplinary processes in Labour - the sooner this racist is deselected the better

Luciana would prefer a safe Tory pair of hands - a left wing lawyer is not to her taste

Luciana Berger, who was Director of Labour Friends of Israel for 3 years before becoming an MP, let it be known that she had ‘no faith’ in Nardell, which to most people must be a good thing. Berger, being a member of LFI, made no complaint about the tweet a month ago which blamed those who were murdered in Gaza by Israeli snipers for their own deaths.

Civil Liberties group Liberty have rejected the IHRA definition of antisemitism

What is even worse is that Nardell believes that you cannot use the discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism (which the civil liberties group Liberty has just rejected). Whereas the Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism takes just 6 words ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ the IHRA definition takes up some 450 words.  This is necessary in order to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

The Jewish Chronicle's take on Nardell's appointment

The Jewish Chronicle, never one to let a bogus allegation of ‘anti-Semitism’ pass by unnoticed, could barely constrain its anger. Not being a great believer in separating new and comment out, it led with a headline (as if British Jews have no other problems) ‘Gordon Nardell, lawyer dealing with Labour antisemitism, to adopt only part of broader Jew hate definition - Respected QC will not use IHRA definition of antisemitism.  

As the respected former Appeal Court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, who is himself Jewish, wrote in London Review of Books, [Defining Anti-Semitism] the purpose of the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is 

“to conflate the two [anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism] by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic’  Further  ‘what is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.’

The OED definition of antisemitism is just 6 words - the Zionists prefer a definition of 450 words 

 The appointment of Gordon Nardell throws a spanner in the works. Zionists are not interested in genuine Jew hate, on the contrary they spend much of their time these days demonstrating alongside anti-Semites and fascists. [see The Zionist – Fascist Alliance was Consummated at the Al Quds Demonstration].  When fascist groups from Britain First to the EDL, British National Party and Tommy Robinson fall over themselves to express their admiration for Israel and Zionism, as the only state which truly oppresses Muslims and Arabs, you might think that those concerned with anti-Semitism would turn their attention elsewhere. 

When every self-respecting fascist and anti-Semite, from Marine Le Pen of France to Geert Wilders of The Netherlands to Heinz Christian Strache of Austria say how much they love Israel then you might think that our Zionists might show some humility.  When the founder of the alt-Right in the USA, the movement that helped bring Trump to power, neo-Nazi Richard Spencer declares that he is a ‘White Zionist’ you would expect the Zionists to keep a low profile.

Instead we have this utterly false and fake campaign of ‘anti-Semitism’ directed at the Labour Party.  It is to Corbyn’s eternal shame and McDonnell too, that instead of standing up to this campaign they have given in to it, almost oblivious to the fact that it is they, not me or Jackie Walker or Marc Wadsworth, who are the main targets. We are simply collateral damage.

The artificial campaign against Gordon Nardell is simply the latest instalment of the fake anti-Semitism campaign.  The Zionists characterised Chakrabarti’s Anti-Semitism Report as a whitewash not because it was hostile to Zionism, quite the contrary but because it argued for due process and natural justice in Labour Party disciplinary procedures.  Even though Chakrabarti herself abandoned this when she pushed for Livingtone to be expelled, the fact is that natural justice is the last thing the Zionists want. The whole basis of this false anti-Semitism campaign rests on people being expelled for artificial trumped up reasons.

Collier's outrage is a good reason to keep Nardell

David Collier with Brian Thomas, who has recently organised a 'Free Tommy Robinson' demonstration outside the British Embassy in Tel Aviv

Another person who is outraged is Tommy Robinson supporter David Collier. Collier, who is a far-Right Zionist, makes Netanyahu seem a moderate.  He denies that there is any such a thing as Palestinian refugees, who whom he refers in the third person as 'it'.  He is of course outraged by the appointment of Nardell.  He would prefer the appointment to be left in the hands of the Israeli Embassy.

It is of course understandable that Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth prefer Israel’s form of justice whereby political critics are simply locked up without trial, however so far in this country there is still a presumption of innocence.

Collier and Mad 'Mel P'

Collier with Britain First member Paul Besser (in blue anorak)

I was expelled for ‘abusing’ Louise Ellman – calling her a supporter of Palestinian child abuse was apparently an attempt to ‘shame her (not that she has any shame).  Marc Wadsworth offended  Ruth 'liar' Smeeth by pointing to her links with the Daily Telegraph.

If Labour's disciplinary processes are to be fair then the MPs who support LFI should have the whip withdrawn

This is what the campaign against Gordon Nardell is about and my great fear is that Corbyn will once again cave in just as he did with Christine Shawcroft, who Corbyn personally told to resign, and Ken Livingstone with whom he did likewise.  Together with Jenny Formby, Corbyn and McDonnell believe that if they appease the Zionists and Labour Friends of Israel,  they will be left alone.  They are mistaken.  Feeding sharks only increases their appetite. In the words of John Donne, ‘don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.’

By supporting Gordon Nardell we are, despite Corbyn, supporting Jeremy Corbyn.

Tony Greenstein

More Fake News – The Myth of Increasing Anti-semitism

All the evidence is that anti-Semitism is at a historic low in Britain

The Pew Research Centre's survey of racism in Europe - anti-semitism is low down on the list

Every year, in fact twice a year, the Community Security Trust, a Zionist charity, publishes a Report on Anti-Semitic Incidents.  Every year, regardless of the figures, there is one clear message.  Anti-Semitism is on the increase.  What is more important than the actual statistics is the spin put on them.  Unsurprisingly the CST has produced a 2017 Anti-Semitic Incidents Report with the same massaged figures and statistics.

The political methodology of the CST is clear from the above montage - it conflates all sorts of opposites into one melange - a pot pourri of sensationalist headlines meaning nothing at all other than that the CST has no analysis of what it is supposed to be analysing

The reason for this politically convenient narrative and it is why the government funds the CST so generously, is that the ‘anti-Semitism’ narrative is tied to opposition to Israel and support for the Palestinians.  It is a constant theme that ‘anti-Semitism’ is derived from opposition to the Israeli state, which in practice means opposition to a central plank of British Foreign Policy.  Support for Israel is support for our ‘special relationship’ with the United States.  Opposition to the alignment with the United State is thereby deemed ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘extremism’.

If you repeat a lie long enough some people may come to believe it

Riding on the back of the CST’s Report are propaganda papers like Huff Post which was co-founded by the far-Right Jewish racist Andrew Breitbart of Steve Bannon fame.  In it Euan Philipps, of the non-existent Labour Against Anti-Semitism, which is no more than a group of Internet Trolls [Jessica Jacobs-Schiff, Saul Freeman, Euan Philipps. Emma Feltham, Denny Taylor] asserts that Labour Has A Massive Antisemitism Problem, It Isn't Going Away, And Only Action Will Tackle It.

 

If you repeat a lie often enough and big enough, as Goebbels observed, then people may believe you.  In fact very few people in the Labour Party believe this lie.  Philipps talks of a failure to win 3 London seats in what he called London’s ‘bagel belt’, surely an anti-Semitic trope if ever there was one!  Perhaps we should ask how many seats Labour could lose by becoming Islamophobic?  The whole talk of a Jewish vote, which has been pursued by racists such as Philipps is itself anti-Semitic.

Notice the contrast between the tabloids' opposition to 'antisemitism' and their racism towards asylum seekers

Other than the usual witch hunting nonsense, singling out people like Luke Cresswell or myself, Phillips has nothing to say apart from describing the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism’ as the ‘bedrock’ of Labours’ disciplinary processes. Since the only purpose of the IHRA is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism it is clear where Philipps and his trolls are coming from.

We have the irony that the most anti-Semitic groups in Britain and in Europe, the people who deny the Holocaust and believe in Jewish conspiracy theories are also the most pro-Zionist and pro-Israel.  Groups like the EDL, BNP and Britain First in Britain and Le Pen, Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party, Herr Strache’s far-Right Freedom Party and the neo-Nazi AfD Alternative for Germany love Zionism and Israel but don’t particularly like Jews. 

We see this in the support of the mass media for the fiction that the Labour Party is overrun by ‘anti-Semitism’.  What was interesting last week was that on the same day The Telegraph, Mail and Sun all led with anti-Semitic attacks against George Soros who, in the words of the Sun’s Hugo Gye was the ‘puppet master’.  This is the same Hugo Gye who asks why Labour’s hard left ‘has a problem with Jews.’  The idea of rich powerful Jews as ‘puppet masters’ has a direct lineage to Nazi stereotypes. 

Yair Netanyahu's anti-Semitic cartoon welcomed by neo-Nazis

The attacks on George Soros by Europe’s far-right, including Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban are reciprocated by Israel and Netanyahu who hates Soros for funding Israeli human rights groups.  Last year Netanyahu’s son posted an anti-Semitic cartoon of Soros as the puppet master which received acclaim from the neo-Nazi editor of the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin and David Duke, the Holocaust denying former KKK Grand Wizard.

In the year 2016/17 the CST received £13.4 million from the Home Office in grants.  This grant has been renewed for 2017/18.  It is meant for ‘UK Jewish community security measures’ but there is no reason to believe that British Jews are under any threat.  This grant and the expansion of the CST is about hyping up a non-existent threat.  It is about creating fear and tension, not least inside the Jewish community, a fear which is then linked to Palestinian supporters and the Left in the Labour Party.  Such is the seamless narrative of our rulers and their prostitute media.

This grant is about 4 times the equivalent given to the Muslim community despite the latter being about 8 times as large as the Jewish community.  Whereas anti-semitism in Britain is virtually non-existent although hyped up by groups like the CST, Islamaphobia and anti-Black racism is a real problem.

There are no examples of vehicles mounting the pavements to run over Jewish worshippers.  There are no examples of firebomb attacks on synagogues, unlike mosques.  Yet 'anti-Semitism' is prioritised and Islamaphobia is ignored for reasons of political convenience and policy considerations.

For the financial y/e 31.3.17 the CST made a net profit of over £3m.  The income for a 15 month period (the end of year date has changed) was £30m compared to £15m for the previous financial year.  As their Report states ‘fundraising during the period exceeded the target set by the Trustees.’ The CST is awash with money and it has a vested financial interest and lots of employees to pay to ensure that in future years too the level of ‘anti-Semitism’ is seen to increase in order that it can make a case for yet more cash.  It now has £16¾m in reserves.

Despite an alleged increase of 34% in violent anti-semitic incidents there wasn't one injury - which raises questions to what constitutes a violent incident

The CST’s 2017 Anti-Semitic Incidents Report recorded a total of 1,382 incidents, an increase of 3%, itself statistically meaningless. The CST reported 1382 incidents for 2017 which is only 3% up on their revised 2016 figure of 1346  (despite a  much publicised 30% increase for first 6 months of 2017).  It did though record a 34% increase in assaults, which on the surface should be worrying.  But here is the strange thing.  Not one of these incidents was what they called ‘extreme violence’ i.e. at least Actual Bodily Harm. In fact there were four incidents of extreme violence in 2015 and one in 2014.  

For 2 successive years there were no serious anti-Semitic physical attacks on Jews causing injury.

What is even more strange is that assaults or violence in general were, on average, 33% of all hate crimes, so around 26 500 assaults in total and 20 500 related to race to end March 2017. One quarter of these resulted in injury.  Yet the number of assaults in the CST figures and this is allowing for the most trivial of assaults is 145 or 10.5%.  This is a massive disparity suggesting that the number of anti-Semitic ‘incidents’ is either vastly overinflated or what is termed an ‘anti-Semitic incident’ differs dramatically from other incidents of hate crime. 

Even more startling is that whereas some 8% of all hate crimes result in an injury, this is not the case with violent anti-Semitic incidents where there were zero examples of injury.

By its own admission, ‘there is a wide spectrum of what is classed as an Assault by CST.’  One suspects much of this is extremely trivial and minor even if an anti-Semitic motivation can be shown.

In fact, as the CST Report shows, there has throughout the year been a decline in anti-Semitic incidents, with December recording half (78) of the January figures. 

On page 5 of the Report there is what one can only call tendentious and mischievious political commentary.  Scrabbling around for an explanation of the increase in anti-Semitic incidents, the CST puts forward the hypothesis that

Speculation and an underlying political bias runs through the Report

‘there was unprecedented publicity regarding controversies about alleged and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. As would be the case for any form of hate crime, both issues are likely to have emboldened offenders, whilst also causing victims to be more aware of the need to report incidents.’

If this is to be believed then the false anti-Semitism campaign of the Jewish Labour Movement and other groups has engendered actual anti-Semitism!  If that is true then it is a damning indictment of the Zionist organisations whose activity has resulted in self-fulfilling prophecies.

In London, where most British Jews live, there was a 7% decrease in anti-Semitic incidents from 835 to 773 in 2017, whereas the in Manchester there was a 27% increase from 206 to 261.

The bulk of the anti-Semitic incidents consisted of 1038 incidents of ‘abusive behaviour’ ranging from social media to hate mail and verbal abuse.  None of this is particularly serious. 

18% of the anti-Semitic incidents (247) occurred on social media.  Since one person can post a million tweets this is statistically absurd.  Social media should be stripped out of any such report.  No one has died from an anti-Semitic Facebook post or a Tweet.  This is just trivia.

An indication of the bias of the CST is that in reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem announcement the CST sought fit to talk about 

‘street protests in major cities across the UK including Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield. Whilst protesting against Israel is not automatically anti-Semitic and is not recorded as an antisemitic incident by CST, some of the rhetoric involved in these protests was targeted towards Jewish people.  Specifically, on Friday 8th December, during a protest outside the United States Embassy in London, some of the protesters chanted, “Jews, remember the Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning.” This references the battle of Khaybar in the year 628, in which Jews were killed and expelled from a town of the same name.’

What is noticeable about this is that the clear inference is that although not automatically anti-Semitic protests against Israel are usually anti-Semitic.  In fact all it could do to muster up some proof is the reference to a long forgotten battle some 1,500 years ago!  Given that Israel calls itself a Jewish state it is surprising that this is all the CST could find!

Of course some of the 145 incidents of assault are extremely unpleasant.  One example given is that where a group of Jewish school children were trapped on a bus and attacked and chased but there are no reports of any  injuries and all the perpetrators were caught and punished.  Other incidents include stones being thrown.  Again not very nice.

But compare this with what the Communal organisations of the Jewish community, the Board of Deputies and other Zionist organisations support in Israel and Palestine.  If Jews in this country were treated like Israel, the Jewish state, treats its non-Jewish citizens then there would be good cause for complaint.

Today Ha’aretz reported Settlers Caught on Film Throwing Stones at Left-wing Activists in West Bank. 

Ha’aretz reports about how ‘10 Israelis, members of the left-wing anti-occupation group Ta’ayush, along with international activists, were touring the area when they were assaulted’ and quote one activist Guy Batavia as saying that “The area there is very violent.  In recent months there have been a number of assaults on activists and on [Palestinian] farmers and shepherds. Yesterday there were two more assaults. We had gone to one of the villages where [settlers] had gone in during the week and made a mess – and a few teens came out toward us, three of them masked, and threw really big stones at us. It was really dangerous.”  The activists did not file a police complaint, saying the police “don’t really want to do anything.”

It’s a good job that the Jewish schoolchildren in Britain didn’t face the British equivalent of the Israeli police – who protect the racists and ignore the victims.  The article goes on to explain that ‘Last year a Haaretz investigative report revealed that although the police were aware of at least nine instances of assault by settlers against Palestinians, left-wing activists and soldiers over a period of two and a half months, all of which were filmed or witnessed by soldiers, no one was indicted, even though the unmasked faces could clearly be seen. In other cases, soldiers were very close to the stone-throwers, but did nothing to stop them.’

Unfortunately bogus and inflated accounts of ‘anti-Semitism’ in Britain, not least by the CST and the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism are used in order to prevent solidarity in Britain with the Palestinian victims of genuine violence in Israel/Palestine. That is what the false anti-Semitism campaign in the Labour Party is about.  Preventing solidarity.

If Jews in Britain faced even a fraction of the racism, violence and discrimination that Palestinians face in Israel then they would have real grounds for complaint about anti-Semitism.

Below are some comments on Home Office and Police statistics of hate crimes in general.  I must thank Dr Alan Maddison with help in compiling this.

Number and share of Hate Crimes

Note the growth of 29% overall and for individual threads, the police say this growth was both real and  combined with  improved reporting, (around only one in three are reported on average).

The Home Office do not usually provide the data for a breakdown of religious or racial hate crimes, but a freedom of information” request gave the number of anti-Semitic  hate crimes reported to police  in 2016 as 1078.  This is lower than the CST incidents figure of  1309 given in  their 2016 report; now in their recent report CST say this 2016 figure is 1346.

The distribution of hate crimes reported to police is shown in the pie chart below using the 1078 antisemitic hate crime figure.

Hate Crime Assaults

When you look at police data for assaults for each category below, you’ll see it varies from around 30% for Race and Religion and up to 45% for Disability. And the Grey section of “Violence with injury” (one quarter of assaults on average) is highest for Sexual Orientation.

The violence with injury for the Religion group looks to only  about 17% of violent incidents .  But of the 5949 religious hate crimes we know the 1078 for antisemitism may have pulled this down. The biggest group here are Muslims, and they are the most hated.  There is no reason why their injuries should be less than the average.

The CST reports of 107 assaults for 2016, if we assume they were all passed on to the police then that gives only 10 % (107/ 1078). No comment is made by the CST on injury, except to say no serious injury occurred and no GBH.

The shares of the hate crime assaults are given below, (for anti-Semitism, 107 over  26 500 = 0.4%)

The New CST Data

The CST now report 145 assaults for 2017 (again no serious injuries) but a growth of 34%. We can’t give the new share, but my guess is that total hate crime assaults will increase at around the same rate as shown below, and that the 0.4% share for antisemitic assaults will not change much.

We don’t have police data for either anti-Semitism or other hate crimes to end 2017, but projecting the 29% increase to March 2017, including assaults, then I guess the antisemitism assault share of all hate crime assaults will not change much from the previous 0.4%.

Just to give a context, whilst there were 145  antisemitic assaults reported to the CST in 2017, an increase of 40 events, we anticipate racist hate crime assaults alone  will rise to 22 500, an increase of  3500 events.

To take account of the small Jewish population the pro rata risks for assault are estimated below for 2016.

The recent 34% increase in anti-Semitic assaults reported by the CST, may be higher than that anticipated for other hate crimes ( we don’t know yet) which may probably increase between 20 and 30%. This would not lead to much of a change in the relative risk as depicted in the illustration.

Given this new CST data it will still be true that a Jewish person  will be around 40 times  more likely to be a victim to a general assault ( if carrying the same risk as the rest of us) than one motivated by anti-Semitism.