I WOULD like to comment further on CT Riley's letter (HAS, Jan 6), in which he claims Jeremy Corbyn "defended" an allegedly anti-Semitic mural.

The mural showed caricatures of a group of real-life banking magnates, some of whom happen to be Jewish, sitting around a Monopoly-style board supported on the backs of crouching figures, presumably intended the to represent the poor.

The artist insisted it was intended to be anti-plutocratic, not anti-Semitic.

There is a range of opinion among Jews. Some say it is blatantly anti-Semitic, others say it isn't anti-Semitic at all, and others say Corbyn can be forgiven for failing to notice its alleged anti-Semitic content – he only saw an image of it on his mobile phone.

It attracted little media attention when it was removed in 2012, or when Corbyn's tweet was unearthed in 2015, but hit the headlines in March 2018 following Labour's surprising successes in the 2017 General Election, strategically timed to coincide with the launch of Labour's local election campaign.

Corbyn clearly did not intend to defend its alleged anti-Semitic content, but rather supported the artist's opposition to its removal on the grounds of freedom of expression.

He apologised, saying: "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic.

"I am opposed to the production of anti-Semitic material of any kind, and the defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of anti-Semitism in any form."

That really should have been the end of the matter. To keep bringing this up to attack Corbyn, eight years after that tweet, is just ludicrous.

Pete Winstanley, Durham.