This is the fourth part of a five part series of articles in which I examine Zionist efforts to manipulate statistics of hate crimes against the Jews. The result of this is that it appears - from official statistics -  that Jews are more likely victims of hate crime than anybody else per head of population. In part 3, I analyzed official statistics and showed that - properly interpreted - they do not show that Jews were more likely than “people of colour” to be victims of hate crime. In this article, I examine the extent to which our confidence in the data on hate crime is further undermined by making the following hypotheses about the extent to which:

1. Political lobby groups were able to define the way in which hate crime against the Jews was counted in a manner which was systematically biased and had the result that hate crime against the Jews was artificially inflated by activities that can not legitimately be said to amount to “hate crime”.
2. Organizations dealing with the reporting and analysis of hate crime against Jews have close relations with senior police and military officers, and are both funded by, and advisers to, the government;
3. There is a well funded campaign to encourage reporting of “hate crime” against the Jews;
4. That the CST operationalises an extremely wide and biased conception of “antisemitism”, which deliberately and dishonestly claims that pro-Palestine activism expresses “antisemitism”.
5. Political actors, such as government ministers, attempted to pressure the police to target pro-Palestine demonstrators with the bogus definition of hate crime against the Jews noted above;
6. There is evidence that the police have acceded to this pressure.

My argument depends on showing that the collection of “hate crime” statistics in relation to the Jews has been fundamentally distorted. In fact, so distorted, that it renders them wholly inaccurate and indeed meaningless. Let’s examine each of the first four hypotheses in turn here and we will turn to five and six in the concluding part of this series.

Systemic bias in the definition of hate crime?

First of all, we can note that in recent years, at least, the definition of “antisemitism” by all UK police forces is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.  The UK government adopted it in December 2016 (and thus the Home Office uses it in relation to hate crime statistics). This also meant it was adopted in the Crown Prosecution Service and in the College of Policing. In March 2023 the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, piled on the pressure by pledging to:

write to all Home Office public bodies and every chief constable and police and crime commissioner, as well as the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service, to reaffirm the government’s support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and encourage its further adoption.

As is well known the IHRA is a definition created and put in place by the Zionist regime (directed, at the beginning at least, by Mossad) and serving the foreign policy interests of the regime by focusing mainly on anti-Zionist sentiment as the “new antisemitism” a phrase given a new lease of life by the Zionist foreign minister Abba Eban in a speech in the US in 1972.

On this basis alone, the statistics on “antisemitism” are wholly unreliable since they include a significant, if unknown, amount of anti-Zionism which is not Judeophobic - ie “prejudiced” against the Jews as Jews.

The Community Security Trust

Amongst the groups working on the development of the working definition of antisemitism in the 1990s was the Community Security Trust, a Zionist charity in the UK created in 1994. It was involved from the earliest days, including working directly with Mossad, which at that stage was in charge of the development of the strategy to make anti-Zionism the “new antisemitism”. It continued to be involved when the “working definition” of “antisemitism” was being discussed by the European Union Monitoring Centre in 2004-5 as can be seen in the figure below. The EUMC was the official body of the EU responsible for monitoring racism and “xenophobia”.

CST relations with police and military advisors

The CST has developed extremely close relations with the police, counterterrorism establishment, intelligence  and senior government officials. Despite their best attempts at secrecy, we know that they maintained an advisory board, which (in June 2010) comprised 55 individuals, including all the key leaders of the Zionist movement, many career or ideological Zionist MPs and members of the House of Lords (including obviously Michael Gove), as well as former and serving senior police and military officers. The latter included:

• Chief Constable Peter Fahy QPM; MA former Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police; On his watch a report “said Asian police staff were nearly three times more likely to face corruption probes than white colleagues.”
• John Grieve CBE; QMP; formerly of the Metropolitan Police; Grieve notably “admitted authorising secret recordings of a meeting between a friend of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, his lawyers and detectives.” The Met was found “institutionally racist” in its handling of the murder.
• General the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank; GCB; LVO; OBE; Guthrie was involved in a wide variety of Atlanticist and Zionist organizations including the Club of Three, UK Defence Forum, United Kingdom National Defence Association, the Zionist Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Jewish National Fund UK (Honorary Patron circa 2012) an organization centrally involved in the ethnic cleansing of Paltestine.
• Chief Constable Stephen House QPM Strathclyde Police, Chief constable of the Metropolitan Police. In 2021 he vowed that “the Met will continue to carry out “disproportionate” stop and searches of young black Londoners”. He said that “of course our stopping and searching is disproportionate” but that it was also “nonsense” to think that the majority of ethnic Londoners subjected to such checks felt they had been badly treated.
• Colonel Richard Kemp CBE; Kemp is an infamous Islamophobe and Christian Zionist, among other achievements, he is a trustee of the UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel’s Soldiers, a “charity” which sends case and support to the genocidal “Israeli” occupation forces. Various reports on its involvement in the Genocide in Gaza by Middle East Eye and Ian Overton, led to a Charity Commission investigation. Then investigations by Palestine Declassified and myself were followed by AWIS shutting down its website and all of its social media.
• Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington; QPM; Former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; Stevens presided over the Met at the time it was declared “institutionally racist” by the MacPherson report into the murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence. Later, Stevens was investigated “over allegations of a cover-up by the Metropolitan Police”. Neville Lawrence, Stephen’s father, told Channel 4 News that he had asked for an investigation into allegations that officers, including Lord Stevens, had not given “full, frank and truthful” information to the inquiry.
• Assistant Commissioner John Yates QPM, Metropolitan Police Service; Yates worked as staff officer to Met Commissioner Paul Condon during the period of the Macpherson Inquiry which found the police to be “institutionally racist”.

As can be seen from this brief account, most of those advisers have been accused of racist policing, racial discrimination, or have been part of an “institutionally racist” police service, while in post.

The revelation of the names on the advisory board was a source for a subsequent, January 2012,  Guardian report that “Michael Gove, the education secretary, awarded £2m of public money to an organization that he promoted as an adviser for four years.” The Guardian also cited my view on the issue: “David Miller, of the Spinwatch pressure group, which campaigns for greater transparency in politics, said: ‘It is blindingly obvious that he should have stood aside, as this is a potential conflict of interest. This is another example of transparency rules in the UK being ineffectual and in serious need of overhaul.’ Miller first drew attention to Gove's advisory work for the trust.”

Government funding

The CST is in receipt of a massive annual grant from the Home Office, as well as having been in receipt of British government largesse from the Department for Education, and the Department for Levelling Up for at least 10 years. In February 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a massive increase in the funds the government gives to the CST in a speech to the CST annual dinner. The presence of the Prime Minister at such an event is itself an indication of how close the government is to extremist Zionist groups.

At the Community Security Trust’s (CST) annual dinner last night (Wednesday 28th February), Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledged to give the organization, which was established to protect Jewish community sites, more than £70 million over the next 4 years, as part of the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant. The funding will increase security at a range of Jewish buildings across the country, including schools, synagogues and other facilities used by the Jewish community.

 

The £54 million of new funding announced today is the biggest single financial commitment any government has made to protect Jewish communities. It comes on top of the £18 million already given to CST for 2024 to 2025 and will mean the organization’s crucial work is funded until 2028.

 

CST as government advisor

In addition to taking advice and money from government, the CST also appears to be a close advisor to government.

As early as 2007, the Home Office established the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Antisemitism. This consisted, they said, “of representatives from across Whitehall, the Parliamentary Committee against Antisemitism, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council.” In fact, all of the non departmental groups listed are ideologically pro-"Israel" groups committed to the racist ideology of Zionism, and thus ipso facto to an ideological and indeed racist conception of “antisemitism”.

In its most recent annual report (to 31 December 2022), the CST devotes around six pages to the advice on policy and security it gives to a range of bodies including government, police, schools and others. It opens with this account of its relations with government.

In 2022, as in previous years, CST was regularly consulted on relevant government policies, submitting expert opinion to various inquiries and consultations. This including being asked, as a key stakeholder, to consult on the Government’s review of its CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy

The report also had a section on collaboration with the counter-terrorism apparatus of the British state:

CST works closely with PREVENT, the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. CST also works closely with the Commission for Countering Extremism; with Home Office units that research and monitor extremism, and support the protections of vulnerable communities; with relevant units at the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; and other government departments.

Though the CST is shy about saying this explicitly, this means that it works directly with British intelligence, since among the units in the Home Office engaged with this topic is the Homeland Security Group, which is a formal part of the British intelligence apparatus.

CST personnel have even been appointed to represent the British government on international bodies. For example, Michael Whine, a long term associate of the founder of CST, the convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson, has had several advisory appointments according to a 2010 biographical note: “Latterly, he has also represented the United Kingdom at OSCE conferences and National Point of Contact on Hate Crime meetings as a civil society member of the UK Ministry of Justice Hate Crime Advisory Group.” In 2013 Whine was appointed by the UK government as “UK independent expert on problems of racism and intolerance to serve five-year term on Council of Europe's racism monitoring body.”

CST reporting of 'antisemitism'

The CST openly admits that its activities include significant reporting to the police of alleged “antisemitism”. Under the heading “Working with Police” the 2022 report states:

CST is a trusted partner with police forces across the UK. In general, this makes for good and constructive relations between Jewish communities and their local police services. CST is a leading participant in various advisory groups across national and local policing…Police and the Government continue to ask CST for assistance in advising other faith communities on counter-terror security. CST reports antisemites and extremists, including potential terrorists, to police. In 2022, CST reported many antisemitic and extremist networks or individuals to counter terrorism police, thereby helping to protect both the Jewish community and the wider public in the UK and overseas.

The CST’s systematic disinformation on Palestine

The CST has become increasingly anti-Palestinian in its publicity on “antisemitism”.  The state of play can be illustrated by some extracts from their website post Al-Aqsa Flood. Have a look at these carefully.

As you can see, all of these are related to the question of Palestine. None express specific points about supposed racial characteristics of Jews. Readers should not take my word for it that these images are representative, and should go on to their website and check how many photos there are of actual Judeophobic images.   

The CST director of policy, Dave Rich, weighed in to denounce the spraying of “Free Palestine “ on a railway flyover “in huge letters atop Golders Green Road, the heart of Jewish London”. Instead, he wrote, “of making it a cause that all can join, you turn it into a weapon of fear.” But the appearance of the slogan “Free Palestine”, anywhere in the country is cleary related to the fact of the ongoing Genocide in Gaza.  If it is true that “Jews” in Golders Green find this offensive, it may be the case that they need attention from a different  group of professionals which can help them with mental health or other psychological  issues.

Unsurprisingly, Rich also then immediately echoed the totally discredited lies issued from the Zionist propaganda machine: “There is no obligation on any of us to condemn terrorism abroad. But choosing to excuse the slaughter of hundreds at a music festival? Solidarity with people who rape young women and take them hostage? Who kill babies in their own homes? This is a struggle of values and you are choosing to place yourselves on the wrong side of it.” 

As everyone who pays attention is aware, every one of these allegations has now been shown to be false. They were in fact propaganda to encourage genocide. The charitable objectives of the CST include promoting “good race relations”, to ”promote research into racism” and to “relieve the victims of racial or religious prejudice and especially antisemitism”. They do not  include justifying genocide.

What this shows on the one hand is the total intellectual bankruptcy of the CST approach to conceptual and data analysis.  But it also provides a comparator for us to contrast with the actions of the police. 

We have therefore shown that the CST (and others) were able to define the way in which hate crime against the Jews was counted in a manner which was systematically biased and had the result that official figures on  hate crime against the Jews was artificially inflated by activities that can not legitimately be said to amount to “hate crime”.

We showed that organizations dealing with the reporting and analysis of hate crime against Jews have close relations with senior police and military officers, and are both funded by, and advisers to, the government;

This well funded campaign openly acknowledges that it both encourages reporting and directly reports “hate crime” against the Jews to the police;

We also saw that the CST operationalises an extremely wide and biased conception of “antisemitism”, which deliberately and dishonestly claims that pro-Palestine activism expresses “antisemitism”.

I will consider whether these absurd, indeed racist,  judgments are being replicated in police actions in part 5 of this series of articles.

Spoiler alert: They are.