Category Archives: English identity

IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


One of the things that has been interesting about the General Election is that the British media’s reaction to any discussion of English interests and rights has been often hysterically anti-English In article after article David Cameron and the Tories have been accused of “whipping up”, “stoking” or some other pejorative verb with regard to raising the question of English national interests.

This reaction is when, to any sensible observer, Dave “I’m a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing in these veins” is a ludicrously unlikely candidate to be described as an English nationalist or even in any way personally interested in raising English nationalism.

We know from all his remarks about “fighting the little Englanders wherever he finds them” and his hostility to an English Parliament, etc., etc., that he is by no means an English nationalist. In fact he is an outright enemy of English nationalism, yet the mainstream media’s hatred of England, the English and English nationalism is such that however mild and minimalistic a proposal is made to correct the blatant unfairness of the current devolution arrangements, nevertheless many mainstream British media commentators can be found rushing forward to howl their disapproval!

Over the years we have heard enough about homophobia and Islamophobia and various other alleged “phobias” which the politically correct wish to make utterly unacceptable. I propose an addition to this list, since it is a hopeless task to get rid of it altogether, and that is:- ‘Anglophobia’. I accuse the mainstream British Establishment Media of persistent and blatant Anglophobia!

The response of our people to Anglophobia needs to change radically if we are to make any serious headway as a Cause.

Any expression of Anglophobia should be treated as a “Hate Crime” and should be reported to the police.

If the police refuse to accept the report or decline to take action, then those of us who do the reporting should make sure that we have obtained the relevant police officer’s name and number and a complaint to their force’s police complaints department should be made against that police officer (or officers) alleging that they have failed to act or have acted in the way that they have out of Anglophobia, which is of course a branch of racism and is a “hate crime”.

Over the years I have heard people say that you cannot be racist against the English. Anyone who says this simply doesn’t know the law, as legally speaking racism isn’t only about race. It does include national identity, national origin and nationality. It is on this basis that any Anglophobic comments or actions, or inactions, should be challenged in a way that brings it home to journalists, police officers, officials and political opponents that Anglophobia will no longer be tolerated and that instead will be “sanctioned”.

I suggest that, as a first step, we make contact with whichever police officer in our local areas is charged with dealing with political and electoral crimes and let them know what is intended.

Every time a complaint is made we need to issue a press release, not only for the purposes of putting journalists on notice that they will be sanctioned, but also with a view to getting it reported.

Even if it is reported in a hostile way, which is, of course, very likely, we should remember that politics is a zone of conflict and therefore any actions involving conflict and taking the fight to our enemy will in the long run be well worth it.

I suggest that our mottos, adapting the anti-racism sloganizing, should be “Unite against Anglophobia!”, “Say no to Anglophobia!”, “No to Anglophobic racism!”.

Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England


Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England


For my birthday I was given a book:- ‘The English and their History’ by Professor Robert Tombs. 

This is a book that I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of England and the English people. Here is an extract which particularly appealed to me. See what you think:-

“What is unique about England lies in the realm of politics: the early development, in response to Viking invasions, of a powerful kingdom occupying a defined territory, with a system of government in which a large part of the population participated, whether they liked it or not – through courts and juries, through tithings, through labour, taxation and military service, through the use of royal coins, and, for the powerful, through royal councils and parliaments. 

Some historians have suggested that this made England the prototype of the nation-state. Similar institutions to those of England had existed at times in other parts of Europe, particularly under the empire of Charlemagne, but they were swept away. In England they survived. Being a powerful and yet vulnerable kingdom, able to raise taxes and impose law and order, and yet subject to disputed royal succession and foreign invasion, it’s Kings needed the support of their people, and the people high and low needed to control the actions of their Kings. Anglo-Saxon institutions, some of very ancient origin, were preserved and developed by the post-Conquest monarchy, which extended royal justice and created a common law. 

The country of Bede’s gens Anglorum was never divided up into autonomous and warring feudal territories. Instead, the “community of the realm” imposed the rule of law on its powers and on its post-Conquest monarchs to a degree unique in Europe.

The common law in Magna Carta was seen not as revolutionary innovations, but as restatements of ancient principals. The distinctiveness of the common law became a source of pride …

This (took) on weighty ideological significance: the law was claimed to be above and beyond royal absolutism and hence the safeguard of liberty. This significance it has subsequently retained, at least subliminally. 

Moreover by an unpredictable historical twist, “the insular and arcane learning of the small band of lawyers who argued cases in the corner of Westminster Hall became the law by which the third of the people of the earth were governed and protected, the second (after Roman Law) of the two great systems of jurisprudence known to the world”.

Continuity is crucial in this story. Many of the jumbled ingredients of nationhood, beliefs, myths, institutions, customs, loyalties – that were already present in the 9th Century were revived or reinvented in the 12th. 

Thereafter they gained in potency because they persisted, deriving legitimacy from their ever growing antiquity, enhanced by linking them with the real or mythical pasts of St Edward the Confessor and King Arthur. England’s laws and institutions came to seem untouchable and immutable, as if in the nature of things, dating from time immemorial. They could then be seen in Edmund Burke’s famous phrase of 1791, as creating “a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. In such ways nations and identities are “constructed”: that is made by people, and not determined by geography, genes or blood.”

UKIP ‘believes’ in “Britishness” not Englishness!


UKIP goes for “Britishness” not Englishness!


There has recently been a development within UKIP which I didn’t think I could leave unmentioned. Nigel Farage has given several important speeches recently, but has written the article which appears below for the Daily Telegraph. In all these he has made clear where UKIP’s national identity/nationality lies.

I have recently read an excellent book about UKIP written by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Ron Ford called “Revolt on the Right”. It is such an excellent read and analysis of UKIP’s situation and of the whole of what the authors call “the radical right”, that it is well worth reading. Here is a link to purchase a copy on Amazon >>> Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy): Amazon.co.uk: Robert Ford,.

The interesting thing is that the authors of “Revolt on the Right” compellingly compare UKIPs position with the growth of the Right across many other Western European countries, such as the Front National in France. It is noted that all share some common characteristics. These are Euro-scepticism; hostility to mass immigration; attachment to traditional values; hostility to the current political elite; and assertive nationalism.

UKIP of course shares all these points but had been making noises about being interested in England and Englishness. This all began back in late 2010 as a serious effort by UKIPs leadership to destabilise the English Democrats using various dirty tricks.

So for several years now there has been an ambivalence about UKIP’s talk about England, the most extreme example of which we saw only a few weeks ago when Paul Nuttall said that he personally supported an English Parliament as his punch line on Question Time.

Now all that is over and UKIP has nailed its flag to the mast. The only element of the radical right agenda that they had waivered on was which national identity. Now that is clear, as you can see reading Nigel Farage’s article below. There is no more prevarication or hesitation and we can see the colours of the national flag that they have unfurled!

English nationalists should no longer be under any delusions about UKIPs national identity.

Here is the article:-

Nigel Farage’s appeal to Britons: believe in Britain


Ahead of the general election, Ukip leader Nigel Farage sets out his party’s vision

This election campaign has been incredibly dull so far. Labour is trying to claim our National Health Service, as if they own it. The Tories are trying to grab at the economy, as if they haven’t presided over a doubling of the national debt in just five years, and failing to erase the deficit. Pretty predictable stuff.

And that’s because these two parties – the legacy parties – have forgotten that there is a country out there.

There’s a country beyond Westminster, crying out for attention, respect, and assistance at a time when politicians are trying to convince them that everything is absolutely fine.

But it’s not fine. Now more than ever, this country needs a positive political party, with firm ideas for the future of this country. I believe that at this election, Ukip will be that party.

When you look at somewhere like Castlepoint in Essex, this election presents voters with a stark choice.

Ukip’s candidate is a local lad, Jamie Huntman, a timber merchant, who is deeply patriotic, involved in his community, and known as hard-working, straight-talking guy.

He’s a man who, in spite of this country’s woes, despite the ruling classes telling us we can’t be a great nation again, still believes in Britain.

We believe that the backbone of this country – small business owners, families and indeed the legal migrants who come here to better their lives – know that we no longer have a capitalism that works for all.

Instead, we have corporatism, lavishing attention on big corporations while ignoring the little man. Only Ukip will address and tackle this imbalance.

We’ll turn the other cheek to insults and negativity and focus instead on what we could deliver for the country if we have enough MPs.

No one will have a majority after this election. They all know it. But the thing they fear the most is a sizeable number of Ukip MPs in that chamber, holding them to account for you.

And when we say we believe in Britain, we believe in the whole of Britain. We’re the only political party with representation in all four corners of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are obviously regional parties. Labour has increasingly become a regional party in the North – though voters in the one-party state they tried to create there are now beginning to revolt. The Conservative Party is now a regional party of the South.

Ukip, on the other hand, is doing as well in the North as we are in the South. We’re a party that represents the whole country and, even more importantly, we have broken the class divide in British politics.

And our greatest, most recent growth has been in Labour areas. So far from the narrative and amusing conference line from Mr Cameron, that if you go to bed with Nigel Farage you wake up with Ed Miliband, the truth is that from Birmingham to Hadrian’s Wall, we are the challengers to Labour.

Ukip will put at the heart of its campaign not just the cost of living crisis, because we know that Britons are feeling the pinch, but also the cost of government crisis.

We will have a costed manifesto that deals with these issues, which includes taking those on the minimum wage out of tax, reducing energy bills, and by ending our costly membership of the EU.

But we’ve got to ask ourselves as voters: at what cost do we keep electing the current, Westminster college kids?

At what cost to our freedoms? At what cost to our communities? At what cost to the confidence and belief in the values that underpin British civil society?

These are the big questions the political class don’t want you asking. They’ll try to bore you into submission, or convince you that you’ll let someone else in if you vote for us. Ask Douglas Carswell or Mark Reckless about this. If you vote Ukip, you get Ukip. Nothing else.

A Britain which can govern itself. A Britain with an ethical immigration policy based on the Australian-style points system. A Britain that doesn’t weaponise the NHS, but makes it work for those who need it. A Britain that is more than just a star on someone else’s flag. Ukip believes in Britain, and we know you do too.

We believe in a Britain that can trade freely with the world, honour our troops, work without a nanny state, stop propping up dictatorships through aid, and stop spending your money on white elephant projects like HS2.

I believe in a Britain that has confidence, stands proud, projects a national identity based on our Judaeo-Christian heritage, and our tremendous natural resources.

We believe in a Britain that is the fifth largest economy in the world, not because of our governments, but in spite of them.

A Britain with room to grow, not based on debt, but on real, tangible assets: our fisheries, our gas supplies, infrastructure like Manston Airport, and the prospects of our youth and people who come here legally and integrate and become the best of British themselves.

Not only have we found a way to inject £3 billion more per year into our NHS, but we also want people to have a say in how the NHS is run.

We want to scrap hospital car parking charges, acknowledge that the future for the NHS relies on the innovation and dedication that we will get from British graduates (not middle managers), and invest in research and cleaning up our hospitals.

This is why I’m pleased to say that we would scrap tuition fees for students studying science, technology, engineering, maths, or medical degrees.

And we’ll also fight for a right of recall for MPs who have failed voters.

We’d reverse the opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant, because Britain believes in “innocent until proven guilty” and we believe in Britain.

And we’d reward our Servicemen and women with a National Service Medal, social housing priority, and jobs when they return to civilian life.

We’d toss out ideas like the bedroom tax, and the mansion tax, because they’re two sides of the same coin, equally unconscionable and intended to divide us.

And we’d say no to propping up a government that refuses us an immediate EU referendum – no to any coalition deals with the establishment parties who have taken us so far into this mess.

But we need you to come with us on this journey. So I urge you, when you go to the ballot box, when you send in your postal vote: believe.

Believe in Britain. Believe in real change. Believe me when I say this is not just another election and yours is not just another vote.

If you hold onto those beliefs, if you want that change, then we believe, that together, we can achieve great things.

Here is the link to the original >>> Nigel Farage’s appeal to Britons: believe in Britain – Telegraph

Charity for the English under police attack!

Charity for the English under police attack

Below is an excellent and alarming article about the Steadfast Trust. 

I would advise anyone to note the contacting Police officers’ names and badge numbers and to complain to the Met’s complaints office about Racial Prejudice (which legally includes predjudice against English National Identity/nationality/National Origin) >>> https://secure.met.police.uk/complaints/
 
The Met is an organisation that is so prejudiced against the English that they don’t even mention us in their “Ethnic Monitoring” forms!

Here is the article:-

Charity for the English under police attack

11th February 2015
Civil Liberty correspondent

Police investigating the only charity supporting the English community

Seasoned nationalists and libertarians will be all too well aware of the lengths that the State will go to conduct repression against what it views as dissident organisations including political parties which have or have had elected representatives. The State has sunk to a new low as we learn that the Metropolitan Police are hounding donors and supporters of the only charity dedicated to self-help amongst the English community.

There are literally thousands of charitable organisations which are ethno-specific ranging from the Bethnal Green Bengali Women’s Group, London Islamic Turkish Association to the Ghana Nurses Association (UK). There are over 100 charities specifically for each of the Polish and Irish communities living in the UK but the Steadfast Trust which was launched after a prolonged battle with the Charity Commission remains the sole charity which works exclusively for the English community.

As is required by Charity legislation, The Trust has strictly followed an apolitical agenda and focuses on cultural events and supporting deserving individuals from poorer backgrounds. It has provided a grant towards retaining the Staffordshire Hoard in the West Midlands, between the Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery and the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Stoke-on-Trent. It also helps the funding of storytellers who go into to schools to talk positively about early English history, providing books on English art and culture and individual education based grants such as funding towards schools fees, travel and equipment for a budding English soprano from a working class background. It is a relative minnow with total annual income of under £10,000.

This worthy activity carried out by the Trust is under a sustained attack by the Metropolitan Police. This included a raid on the family homes of two of the Trustees last month. 15 heavy handed police officers took part in each raid and personal items such as mobile phones, computers, printers and routers were seized. The Trustees were taken in for questioning and we understand that the nature of the interviews by the Met officers was truly bizarre and included questions suggesting that anyone interested in early English history and culture is an “extremist”. Authoritative historical works by scholars such as Tony Linsell and Stephen Pollington were cited as “encouraging extremism”.

The Trustees have not been charged with any offence but are on strict bail conditions preventing them undertaking any work on behalf of the charity and restricting their personal movements.

In addition the Met are now actively contacting hundreds of donors and Friends of the Trust. For many Friends and supporters this will be a humiliating and distressful activity, but as the Trust has not broken any laws there should be nothing to fear. It is recommended that a simple, polite and sustained “no comment” to any questions posed by investigating officers is made. Always seek professional legal advice if you have any concerns and submit formal complaints against officers who are abusive, aggressive and who utter racist comments.

It is believed that the Met’s investigation into the finances of the Trust has arisen from an approach made by an individual in 2014 who expressed an interest in the Trust and its work and befriended some its Trustees and donors. However the individual turned out to be a sneak reporter working for Hardcash Productions; a London based documentary production company. The desperately pathetic attempts to smear and ultimately seek to have the Trust deregistered as a charity, as a result of the “undercover” work are planned to be broadcast on ITV next week. The documentary unoriginally untitled “Charities Behaving Badly” goes out on ITV Weds 18th February 10.40pm

It is not a crime to make donations to the Trust and in solidarity with the Trust we would encourage our readers to make a contribution here.
 
Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=2073

Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


I have posed the above title for this article as a question, but I think that once the question is asked the article answers the question affirmatively. As the English legal profession would have responded to such a question for centuries with the Latin phrase:- “res ipsa loquitur” – the thing speaks for itself!

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE


The OCR exam board unveils plans for a new history GCSE that will include a module on 2,000 years of immigration, from the Romans up to 21st century arrivals from Syria

Teenagers will be able to learn about the impact of immigration on Britain over the last 2,000 years under plans for a new history GCSE, it was announced today.

For the first time, a history module will be introduced covering new arrivals to the UK from the Romans up to modern day migrants such as those from Syria and eastern Europe.

The proposals – drawn up by one of the country’s leading exam boards – will assess the reasons for immigration, the experience of new entrants and the impact on the indigenous population.

The OCR board insisted pupils would find large numbers of parallels to the modern day, saying they would be “surprised to learn” that the black population of London may have numbered up to 15,000 in the 1750s and that at least 10 languages were used across medieval England.

Under plans, “Migration into Britain” will be included as part of an optional extended study theme, which will make up around 20 per cent of a new GCSE course being introduced in 2016.

OCR’s GCSE in history is currently the most popular version in the country, with more than 93,000 teenagers sitting it last year, the exam board said.

It is hoped the move will “reinvigorate interest in GCSE history” following claims from historical experts that rising numbers of schools were barring pupils from taking the subject beyond the age of 14.

The move is made as immigration continues to dominate the political agenda in the run up to the election. Last week, David Cameron promised the introduction of tough new rules on access to welfare benefits for migrants entering Britain from the EU.

But the government has insisted that the number of pupils sitting GCSEs in history had increased in recent years, with almost four-in-10 teenagers taking an exam in the subject in 2014.

Mike Goddard, the exam board’s head of history, said: “Migration is an ideal history topic for GCSE students to study, allowing them to consider fundamental historical concepts such as continuity, change and significance, rooted in the major events of England’s history.

“Doing this through the lens of the movement of diverse groups of people has the added benefit of contemporary relevance and will make for a rigorous, stimulating and enjoyable course.”

He said it would require pupils to explore and understand “the constant shifts in the British population”. This included the impact of invaders such as the Romans and the Vikings, the effect of the Empire on India and the West Indies and people coming to Britain to flee persecution including the Huguenots, Jews and, more recently, the Syrians.

The Government has already set out proposals to overhaul GCSEs will more rigorous subject content and a greater emphasis on exams as opposed to coursework.

Under the changes, new history exams require pupils to study a wider range of historical periods, a greater emphasis on British history and at least one extended project.

OCR is currently developing two new GCSEs in response to the reforms. One will focus on the “modern world” and the second will put more emphasis on a range of historical periods. As part of the courses, pupils will have the option of taking a dissertation-style project in the monarch, war and society or immigration.

The proposed new GCSEs will be submitted to the government next year and will be taught from 2016, subject to approval from Ofqual, the exams regulator.

Mr Goddard said: “Migration has been a constant and, in many important ways, a defining feature of our history. Tracking it thematically over time makes for a complex and fascinating study, will build on recent academic research, and will reveal many new and enlightening aspects of our past.”

Here is the link to the original>>> Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE – Telegraph

Scottish Nationalists to make play for Berwick


Scottish Nationalists to make play for Berwick


The English town of Berwick on Tweed looks set to be a battle between three contending national identities in the General Election. The Scottish Nationalists have indicated that they are considering putting up a candidate for Berwick on Tweed, calling for Berwick on Tweed to “come back” to Scotland. The British Establishment parties will, of course, be putting up candidates to take the seat from the Liberal Democrats on the retirement of their sitting MP, Alan Beith. The English Democrats will also be standing in Berwick on Tweed to campaign to keep Berwick part of England.

Berwick on Tweed was originally an Anglo-Saxon foundation back in the 6th Century as part of the Kingdom of Northumbria, before the Scots even arrived in Scotland from Ireland.

In the late Dark Ages/early Medieval period Berwick on Tweed did change hands several times with the fluctuations of the fortunes of Northumbria, but by English Unity Day on the 12th July 927, Berwick on Tweed was firmly part of England, only to be sold to the Scottish King by Richard I (Coeur de Lion), as part of his fund-raising efforts to raise money to go on crusade. (This is the King who is purported to have said that he would sell London if he could find a buyer).

The next legal change occurred following the Scottish opportunist invasion to loot, rape and burn their way across Northern England when the young Edward III overthrew his mother’s lover, Mortimer, thinking that a teenage king would be unable to respond effectively. How wrong they were was proved at the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333, in which the Scots suffered a catastrophic defeat. As part of the peace terms they agreed to hand back the legal title to Berwick on Tweed.

Since that time Scottish armies have occupied Berwick from time to time but never with a legal title. The last occasion being in1482, a little before Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas!

It will therefore amuse any impartial observer that Scottish Nationalists would talk about getting Berwick back, when the last time they had any proper title to it was 1333 and the last time they even occupied it was before Europeans had even discovered that there was the continent of the Americas and well before most of the current Nation States of Europe were even thought of!

The strategic importance of Berwick however lies in the effect of North Sea oil and fishing. If the UK does break up and Scotland and England become separate Nation States, then control of Berwick will be of great importance. If Berwick is English, to work out the sea boundary between England and Scotland you will follow the average of the national land boundary, which broadly speaking would mean placing a ruler on Carlisle and Berwick and drawing 200 miles out to sea – all south of that line being English. If you do the exercise you will see that that means that a substantial proportion of North Sea oil and fishing is not Scottish at all, but is English. In fact it goes further than that because the usual international legal convention on deciding the sea boundary is also to follow the geological features which probably places more than half of North Sea oil in English waters and also places nearly all the gas in English waters.

Even ignoring such a strategic point about the position of Berwick, as an English nationalist I would not be willing to see Berwick become part of Scotland without the opportunity to campaign hard to persuade the people of Berwick on Tweed and the whole constituency to remain true to England. Let them sing Gilbert & Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore, Boatswain that “in spite of all temptation to belong to other nations, I remain an Englishman!
 
Below is the article from the Scottish newspaper, The Herald, about the SNPs intentions. What do you think? 

We shall be calling for funds so that we can make as bigger splash in campaigning in Berwick as possible! Will you help?

Here is the article:-

SNP could stand for Berwick seat in UK elections


The SNP could stand for Berwick in the UK general elections this May, in a bold but very smart move to gain a spot in the UK-wide television debates.

Christine Grahame, MSP for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, has offered to stand for the English seat. She says broadcasters have no plans to include the SNP leadership in any UK-wide debates to be screened in the run-up to May due to their presence being confined to Scotland, but a move to stand in an English seat would automatically provide the party with an ‘across the UK-presence’.

Ms Grahame’s proposal would mean that the SNP could claim to be standing right across the UK because it would have candidates in England as well as Scotland. Ms Grahame believes that would justify a place on the national stage for new SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon when it comes to pre-election leader debates.

Berwick has long been a divisive territory for the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in a historical sense, however more recently, the people of Berwick have become increasingly envious of SNP policies just a few minutes drive over the border including free prescriptions, higher education and travel for the elderly.

Any contest from the SNP for the seat would be seen as a direct attack on the UK establishment and could confidently succeed as many residents of the English constituency could use an SNP vote to voice their discontent with the UK government and may well see it as an avenue from which to introduce fairer local policies and raise issues which matter most to them, being just across the border from Scotland.

Ms Grahame said: “I have offered to stand in Berwick as a candidate so we can get equal coverage on the television because we fight throughout the UK.

“I can still keep my seat in the Scottish Parliament but then they would have to say we stand all over the UK, we should have all our leaders in these debates.”

And this isn’t the first time English-born Ms Grahame has set her sights on Berwick, where she took part in the independence referendum debate in September.

Speaking at the BBC’s pre Scottish referendum ‘Scotland and Us’ debate at Berwick’s Maltings Theatre, she told the audience that Scotland breaking away from England would be good for the area and would stimulate the case for devolution of powers to the north of England.

And in the run up to the 2008 general election she lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament calling for the town to “return to the fold”.

Standing in bordering English constituencies would certainly frighten the Westminster political elite and would give the SNP a greater chance at strengthening their presence in the UK Parliament.

Border constituencies may be more likely to vote for the SNP as an alternative to the mainstream parties in England, especially with the prospect of a strong SNP contingent at Westminster which would wield greater power and sway over issues affecting those constituencies.”


Click here for the original >>>
http://scottishstatesman.com/snp-could-stand-for-berwick-seat-in-uk-elections/

MY INTERVIEW ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TEACHING "BRITISH VALUES"

INTERVIEW FOR NEWS FEATURE ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TO TEACH BRITISHNESS


Early on Thursday, 20th November, I was quietly fuming to myself about the article which had appeared in the papers about a primary school in Lincolnshire being marked down by Ofsted for being too English. The phone then rang and I was invited to come to Russia Today’s studios at Millbank Tower to be on this News to talk about it. Naturally I was happy to do so and the YouTube of my interview is below. Before you look at that interview though do read the article:-

Rural school is denied top grade by Ofsted inspectors because it’s ‘too English’ and not diverse enough

 A high-performing primary school has missed out on Ofsted’s top grade after being judged too English.

Pupils at the rural primary lacked ‘first-hand experience of the diverse make-up of modern British society’, declared the watchdog.

However, around 97 per cent of the population in the town to which the school belongs are white.

Ofsted refused it an ‘outstanding’ rating and graded it ‘good’ instead.

It said the school was failing to do enough to ensure pupils understand the ‘cultural diversity of modern British society’ and experience ‘first-hand interaction with counterparts from different backgrounds’.

But parents complained Middle Rasen Primary in Market Rasen was being punished for factors outside its control and had effectively been told it was ‘too English’.

The row is the latest controversy over new rules on teaching ‘British values’ introduced in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, in which Muslim extremists tried to infiltrate schools in Birmingham.

Schools are required to ‘actively promote’ British values such as democracy, tolerance, mutual respect, individual liberty and the rule of law.

However the rules – and Ofsted’s enforcement of them – have brought criticism from some schools and faith groups. A Christian school in Reading says it was warned it could face closure for failing to invite imams and other religious leaders to take assemblies.

In another case, a Roman Catholic school in East Anglia was marked down for failing to do enough to ‘teach students about the dangers of extremism and radicalisation’, although the report was later withdrawn.

The 104-pupil Middle Rasen Primary, in the town of Market Rasen on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds, was inspected last month.

Ofsted praised it for high standards of teaching and leadership and the courteous and enthusiastic behaviour of pupils. But the inspector said: ‘The large majority of pupils are White British. Very few are from other ethnic groups, and currently no pupils speak English as an additional language.’

It said the school should ‘extend pupils’ understanding of the cultural diversity of modern British society by creating opportunities for them to have first-hand interaction with their counterparts from different backgrounds’.

Yesterday parents attacked the Ofsted decision. Mother-of-two Kirsty Egen, 29, said: ‘I think it’s ridiculous. It’s a brilliant school.

‘Why would the school spend time on trying to teach the children how to integrate with people who aren’t even there? It seems very vindictive to just mark them down for something they cannot change.’

Jodie Miller, 35, whose daughter Dylann, six, attends the school added: ‘We are a small rural community, there just aren’t many children here from different backgrounds.’

Julia Weeks, 47, who has a son of ten at the school, said: ‘To mark a school down for something they cannot control is crackers. If there were more people from ethnic minorities around then maybe you could have a complaint, but there just aren’t.’ Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘It’s outrageous that a British school can he punished for being too British.’

Head teacher Melonie Brunton said the school was now looking to partner with an inner-city school in an effort to comply with Ofsted’s recommendation.

‘Ofsted are very keen on British values,’ she said. ‘We were very pleased to have got the very positive comments. We are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue.’

Ofsted said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas, including teaching quality and pupils’ behaviour. All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values.’

Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘Its outrageous that a British school can be punished for being too British. It just doesn’t make sense at all.

‘We would welcome people from different cultures with open arms I’m sure – but there just aren’t any ethnic minorities around here.’

Ms Brunton said the school would look to look to partner with an inner-city school to develop their understanding of multicultural issues.

She said: ‘We would have liked to be ‘outstanding’ but we were very pleased to have got the very positive comments.

‘We all worked really hard – everybody, the staff and the pupils have worked hard.

‘I think the problem is that we are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue. I agree that we could do more and we are trying to get a partnership with an inner city school.’

The head said school trips usually involve visits to the countryside, such as farms and zoos.

But they recently had a trip to Derby, which included a mosque visit as well as touring the Rolls-Royce factory.

She added: ‘We try to do things but not enough. I felt the Ofsted comments were a backlash against the Birmingham Trojan Horse issue and Ofsted are very keen on British values.’

Reverend Charles Patrick, who was head of the governors at the time of the report, added: ‘There is always more that you can do and maybe now we look at twinning the school with ones from other minority areas or something like that.

‘But this is a rural area, like 80 per cent of the country, we don’t have many non white residents. Perhaps it would be a different matter if we were in the middle of London or Manchester or something.’

Tory MP for Gainsborough Sir Edward Leigh said: ‘This is political correctness gone mad.

‘Middle Rasen Primary School is an outstanding school by any standards, and Melonie Brunton is a brilliant headteacher – I back the school and its head one-hundred percent.

‘Just last week I wrote to Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, objecting strenuously to the new so-called ‘equality’ regulations she is implementing in schools.

‘Conservatives have always stood for freeing our schools from the deadening hand of state-enforced orthodoxy.

‘Why there has been such a massive U-turn under Nicky Morgan is inexplicable to me.

‘Multiculturalism is an irrelevance in Lincolnshire with its low number of ethnic minorities, who are already welcomed and well-integrated into our local communities, as they should be.’

A spokesman for Ofsted reiterated that it was not the only factor in depriving the school of its ‘outstanding’ rating.

He said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas including leadership and management, teaching quality, and pupils’ behaviour and safety.

‘All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values including mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

‘That way they will be prepared for the future wherever they go.’

Click here for the original of the article >>> Middle Rasen Primary School denied top grade by Ofsted as it’s ‘too English’ | Daily Mail Online

Now here is the link to my interview with Russia Today – click here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6MSh487lKQ

What do you think?

ARE THE FLAGS TELLING US ANYTHING?


ARE THE FLAGS TELLING US ANYTHING?

We have long-standing family friends who live in Ashbourne which is a nice old-fashioned market town in Derbyshire near the border with Staffordshire.

Around the corner from where they live there is a row of houses which are overlooked by the path which I use to walk my dog. I know your heart is sinking already at the thought of a long drawn out story, but in fact the nub of the matter is simple and very encouraging to any English nationalist.

When our friends first moved to their house about 15 years ago, I went out for a walk and looked down on this row of houses there was then one flagpole which flew the Union Jack.

About 10 years ago there were two flagpoles, one flying the Union Jack and the new one flying the Cross of St George.

About 5 years ago there were two flagpoles with the Cross of St George and the one flying the Union Jack.

Last Saturday there were seven flagpoles all flying the Cross of St George and that also included the flagpole that had previously flown the Union Jack.

I suspect that this is very bad news for the Emily Thornberrys of this world and all those who hate and fear the rising sense of English national identity!

But in case you are wondering, these seven flags appeared to have been flying for some time and not to have just been raised in the last few days in order to tell the Islington set to “go forth and multiply”!

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings


The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>> http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/files/2014/10/Taking-England-Seriously_The-New-English-Politics.pdf

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can’t agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because “in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”.

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and also claimed “that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”.

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin’s article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians


By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn’t going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
“People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons.”

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.

IPPR Report on Englishness

IPPR Report on Englishness

Here is the IPPR’s long awaited report on the rising sense of Englishness and its political impact.  
The research was done in April but the publication was kept back so as not to give advantage to the SNP in the Scottish Independence Referendum. 
The IPPR is a Labour think tank so their focus is on issue that Labour should take into account in developing their electoral strategy.


The report is worth the read for all English Nationalists as it does give clear statistically based guidance on the contours of the developing political English nationalism.