RACE WAR POLITICS
The latest attack by the England haters upon the English was a programme on Channel 4 entitled ‘100% English’.
The programme, put simply, dismissed the English as being mongrels due to the alleged lack of ethnic purity of the English – as alleged by some unsubstantiated DNA tests from some firm in the USA, conducted on some new and unknown methodology.
The ‘findings’ were contrary to all previous understanding of ethnicity and history.
Furthermore, the programme makers hid the fact that they had deliberately excluded people who were already known to be of longstanding English descent.
In other words, the programme was rigged.
The underlying subtext is that those who consider the English to be a racial group, which they are in fact and law, are racist and that mass immigration is natural.
Below are some press releases which set out in detail the duplicity of the programme makers and Channel 4:
(From We are the English)
Folks
We've included below our comments concerning tonight's Channel 4 programme "100% English", followed by a press release that we have been asked to forward on, with a short introduction by Tony Linsell. Please read them all. The press release takes about 5 minutes to read and explains a lot about what it is to be English in the legal sense and also rubbishes many of the claims made on the programme.
To complain to Channel 4 about the programme e-mail them here viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
To complain to the producers of the programme e-mail them here mail@walltowall.co.uk
Our View
The programme was entitled 100% English and the content was 100% rubbish. The science on which the programme was based was bad and misleading. This was not a serious attempt to look at what it is to be English. Make no mistake about it, it was actually an attack on what it is to be English and what it is to feel a sense of Englishness. They spoke much about DNA but DNA is not a factor that people consider when they think about who they are. I share DNA with chimpanzees but if I jumped in the cage at Twycross Zoo I certainly wouldn't be accepted as one of the gang. Englishness is about a shared sense of history, culture and heritage. It is a sense of being a part of an extended family. It is not easy to define and would have been equally difficult, if the same questions had been levelled at someone of Afro-Caribbean descent. What would they have been able to answer when they were asked, off the cuff, what it takes for someone to be Afro-Caribbean? If they had been asked if simply having an Afro-Caribbean grandfather qualifies someone to be Afro-Caribbean they would have been equally stuck as some of the English people were who appeared in the programme. The fact remains that the Afro-Caribbean would know that he was part of the Afro-Caribbean community and those English people knew that they were part of the English community. It is not something we routinely ask ourselves about, it is just something that we sub-consciously know.
Are they seriously trying to tell us that some of these people who appeared in the programme who knew that their grandparents and great-grandparents were English (the person would for example receive 25% of their DNA make-up from each of there 4 ENGLISH grandparents) are somehow 35% Russian, 20% African and 15% Moroccan. I don't think so!
The whole programme was conducted in a mocking and derogatory manner which certainly would not have been tolerated if it was looking at any other ethnic group other than the English. It is the normal "mongrel nation" rubbish, an attempt to convince English people that they have no culture and nothing to lose from mass immigration and that we are nothing more than a mish mash of everyone else. We should ask ourselves about the motives behind the programme. Why do they make a programme that attempts to water down any sense of an English identity? Would they ever make a programme about Afro-Caribbeans or Asians or the Scots and then try and tell them that their is no such thing. Why is it always the English, why is not the Scots, the Welsh, the Poles or the Pakistanis who are ever portrayed as "mongrel" Why are other cultures actively promoted while at the same time anything that could be seen as encouraging any notion of an English communal identity either discouraged or jumped on from a great height.
Maybe it's because they fear that a renewed sense of an English identity would mean the English realising what they have lost and demanding it back!
Waes Haeil
WATE.com
www.wearetheenglish.com
Tony Linsell - Author and writer on English issues.
Channel 4 has squandered the opportunity to make a serious programme about English identity and has instead set out to mock and insult those who took part. The producer falls back on stale anti-English Leftist views from the 1990s and a DNA test which cannot do what the programme makers claim for it. Englishness, like any other ethnicity, cannot be determined by a DNA purity test. The predictable and lazy prejudice of the programme makers is evident from the fact that they chose the English as victims rather than another ethnic group - such as Romanies, Irish or Afro- Caribbeans.
Press Release
On Monday 13th November at 8 pm Channel 4 is screening a programme entitled “100% English.” That programme is not a programme about who is English and who is not. It is a programme about the race and ethnicity DNA purity tests produced by a DNA company based in the deep south of the United States. Channel 4 has warmly endorsed those DNA purity tests as the tests for establishing a person’s race and ethnicity in total opposition to the tests laid down by the UK judiciary under the Race Relations Legislation. Just like the Nazis endorsed the work of earlier scientists to undertake a purity of race and ethnicity categorisation, Channel 4 has done likewise. Channel 4 has allowed the English racial identity claimed by the participants to blind it to the true implications of its programme.
The central premise of the “100% English” programme is that a person’s race and a person’s ethnicity is totally determinable by reference to a DNA race and ethnicity purity model produced by a commercial DNA company based in the Southern United States. It is a race and ethnicity purity model that no other DNA research institution or commercial company in the world follows. It is therefore not possible to independently verify whether the results of the DNA tests used in the 100% English programme are correct or even whether the results are actually those of the participants in the programme. Something Channel 4 is quick to exploit in the 100% English programme by not pointing out this limitation to the participants on air or otherwise.
The tests used in this programme are the novelty consumer versions of far more sophisticated tests offered by the DNA company to law enforcement agencies. The intent of the real tests is to link a suspect’s DNA sequences to physical features. In the novelty tests, and probably also in the real tests, those DNA sequences are given the names of races and of ethnic groups. The tests mean that to the extent that a person’s DNA does not match the race pure versions as set by the DNA company, that person is determined to be of impure race origin. The tests also postulate that there are pure versions of DNA for ethnic groups, for example that there is a DNA pure version of an English, Jewish, Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean person.
If the UK State were to undertake racial profiling or racial classification by reference to a person’s DNA, the DNA company would be well placed to offer the purported means by which the UK State could do so. This begs an interesting question. Since the alleged DNA results in the programme were interpreted for the programme by a professor at one of London’s Universities, one really has to ask whether the tests are being validated against the National Police DNA database, and whether race and ethnic categories are being assigned to persons on the database using the DNA company’s model of race and ethnicity. What Channel 4 is at pains to conceal in the programme is that the race and ethnicity elements of the DNA tests are flawed. The DNA company admits the tests cannot determine whether the DNA sequences of a person are thousands of years old, i.e. predating the existence of the English and England, or whether they were acquired from an ancestor just outside living memory. Channel 4 simply ignores the inconvenience of this limitation in its programme.
What Channel 4 does in this programme is to declare all those who it alleges do not have DNA that matches the DNA race pure European or the DNA ethnic pure English, as determined by the DNA company, to be non European and to be non-English. Channel 4 seems to have forgotten that it was not long ago that people where declared not to be European because they did not have the physical features judged by scientists to be those of the racial pure European. The consequences for the people affected were disastrous.
Yet despite Channel 4 best efforts every one of the participants in the programme are in English Law 100% English. In 2001 the Court of Session declared the English to be a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Legislation. The English racial group consists of the people who by reason of descent or origin or total integration are of the people who constituted the English prior to the inception of the British State in 1707. Being born in the geographical area of England does not by that reason alone make a person a member of the English racial group. The reason being is that in English Law racial group means racial origins not country of origin.
The Commission for Racial Equality publicly acknowledges the racial group status of the English. With the inclusion of an English ethnic group tick box, as distinct from an English national identity tick box, in the 2007 Test Census issued by the Office of National Statistics, it is clear that Central Government has begun the process of accepting the implication of the Court of Session judgement. The Government needs to do so in order to push through its agenda of community integration in a multicultural framework and its agenda of tackling the rise of the Far Right.
The continuing rise of the Far Right is judged in some circles to be linked to the Government’s previous, policy driven, exclusion of the indigenous populations of the UK from the benefits of the Race Relations Legislation. A link summed up in the frequent references by Ministers to engaging the so-called “white working class,” who, according to Ruth Kelly, the Minister for Communities and Local Government, “feel left behind” by multiculturalism. Channel 4 could have chosen to address these issues and contributed to raising the awareness among the general public of the existence of the English racial group and of the universality of the Race Relations Legislation. Instead Channel 4 choose to align itself with the attitudes prevalent in the Left of the 1990’s. This being the attitude held, even in high political circles, that the indigenous populations had no racial identity and no rights under the Race Relations Legislation because, as it was alleged, those populations had interbred with others too much to have the required racial and ethnic purity.
In a contest between Channel 4’s race and ethnicity purity tests and the position under English Law, Channel 4 has not the slightest chance of emerging as the victor. English Law is categorical on the point; a person’s membership of a racial group is not determined in any way whatsoever, and with no exceptions, by reference to the possession of a required type of DNA or any other scientific test. No doubt for good reason. In English Law a person is a 100% of a racial group if that person (a) believe he or she is a member, (b) other members of the racial group accepts that he or she is a member and (c) that person is not also a member of another similar type racial group by virtue of the tests at (a) and (b) above.
Channel 4’s production team were given a ¾ of an hour presentation on racial identity under English Law by a solicitor, one of the participants in the programme. Written explanations were provided, as were copies of relevant case law. Prior to filming that solicitor and others put it to the Wall to Wall TV, the production team, in writing, that Channel 4 intended to use the programme to mock people who claimed to be members of the English racial group. It was put to the production team that they would do this by attempting to prove (a) there could be no English racial group because the English are a mongrel people, are they not, and/or (b) that some participants could not be English because they had non-English ancestors and so forth. Assurances were received from the production team that the programme would be a genuine attempt to explore Englishness as a racial identity for benefit of the public at large and that participants would not be identified as being non-English simply by virtue of their recent or distant ancestry or DNA.
As will be seen Monday next (13/11/06) those assurances, which induced consent to participate in at least one participant, amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation by Channel 4. Given that the producers were fully appraised of the implications of English law, the decision to go ahead regardless without taking on board that information must surely mean the programme itself falls foul of the broadcasting code.
It is easy to conjecture that Channel 4 would not have produced programmes doing the same to other racial groups. Few in the English Community would believe that Channel 4 would tell members of the Jewish or Afro-Caribbean Communities that they were not Jewish or Afro-Caribbean because they did not have, according to a DNA company from the deep south of the United States, the required purity of race and/or ethnic DNA. Such a difference in treatment by Channel 4 amounts to less favourable treatment of the English on racial grounds contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.
There are also good grounds, since Channel 4 were appraised of the Law’s approach to the issue of racial group identity, for alleging the programme amounts to unlawful racial harassment of the English on racial grounds. In other words, the programme was intended by Channel 4 to create or was likely to create a hostile, intimidating, degrading, or offensive environment for the participants and for any other members of the UK public who assert they are members of the English racial group. Channel 4 did so by knowingly and wilfully promoting a misleading, incorrect and unlawful test for membership of the English racial group. Channel 4’s approach means that no one who is genuinely of mixed race origin but who is wholly a member of an English Community could be a member of the English racial group. A view point many in the English Community would find revolting.
If Ken Livingston could be proved wrong, and the Commission for Racial Equality were indeed still interested in taking cutting edge litigation, the Commission would do well to look at Channel 4’s conduct and at the TV company’s compliance with its obligations under the Race Relations Legislation. It may be that like Channel 4, the Commission would unable be able to get itself passed the racial group involved. The issue of the extent to which the media, (as suppliers of goods and services), are subject to the race and other anti discrimination legislation is well due for judicial examination.
The deception on the participants involved in the making of the “100% English” programme and the fraud being enacted upon the general public by Channel 4 is the reason why the solicitor participant, in keeping with the habits of her profession and surely to the amusement of Chancery Lane, threatened to sue Channel 4. A fact referred to in the programme. Interestingly, Channel 4 does not make any attempt to explain the legal reasons behind the threat to the programme’s audience. No doubt leaving the audience with the erroneous view that the participant’s reasons lay with the race and ethnicity category Channel 4 sought to put the participant in, rather than with Channel 4’s conduct.
Channel 4 has promoted Nazi type methods of race and ethnicity categorisations. All should, irrespective of the racial group involved, roundly condemn Channel 4 for doing so. Perhaps if the folks at the Commission for Racial Equality are still awake, the judiciary, who have taken such great care over the sensitive issues involved in race and ethnicity identity may get the opportunity to publicly condemn Channel 4 as well.
The programme, put simply, dismissed the English as being mongrels due to the alleged lack of ethnic purity of the English – as alleged by some unsubstantiated DNA tests from some firm in the USA, conducted on some new and unknown methodology.
The ‘findings’ were contrary to all previous understanding of ethnicity and history.
Furthermore, the programme makers hid the fact that they had deliberately excluded people who were already known to be of longstanding English descent.
In other words, the programme was rigged.
The underlying subtext is that those who consider the English to be a racial group, which they are in fact and law, are racist and that mass immigration is natural.
Below are some press releases which set out in detail the duplicity of the programme makers and Channel 4:
(From We are the English)
Folks
We've included below our comments concerning tonight's Channel 4 programme "100% English", followed by a press release that we have been asked to forward on, with a short introduction by Tony Linsell. Please read them all. The press release takes about 5 minutes to read and explains a lot about what it is to be English in the legal sense and also rubbishes many of the claims made on the programme.
To complain to Channel 4 about the programme e-mail them here viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
To complain to the producers of the programme e-mail them here mail@walltowall.co.uk
Our View
The programme was entitled 100% English and the content was 100% rubbish. The science on which the programme was based was bad and misleading. This was not a serious attempt to look at what it is to be English. Make no mistake about it, it was actually an attack on what it is to be English and what it is to feel a sense of Englishness. They spoke much about DNA but DNA is not a factor that people consider when they think about who they are. I share DNA with chimpanzees but if I jumped in the cage at Twycross Zoo I certainly wouldn't be accepted as one of the gang. Englishness is about a shared sense of history, culture and heritage. It is a sense of being a part of an extended family. It is not easy to define and would have been equally difficult, if the same questions had been levelled at someone of Afro-Caribbean descent. What would they have been able to answer when they were asked, off the cuff, what it takes for someone to be Afro-Caribbean? If they had been asked if simply having an Afro-Caribbean grandfather qualifies someone to be Afro-Caribbean they would have been equally stuck as some of the English people were who appeared in the programme. The fact remains that the Afro-Caribbean would know that he was part of the Afro-Caribbean community and those English people knew that they were part of the English community. It is not something we routinely ask ourselves about, it is just something that we sub-consciously know.
Are they seriously trying to tell us that some of these people who appeared in the programme who knew that their grandparents and great-grandparents were English (the person would for example receive 25% of their DNA make-up from each of there 4 ENGLISH grandparents) are somehow 35% Russian, 20% African and 15% Moroccan. I don't think so!
The whole programme was conducted in a mocking and derogatory manner which certainly would not have been tolerated if it was looking at any other ethnic group other than the English. It is the normal "mongrel nation" rubbish, an attempt to convince English people that they have no culture and nothing to lose from mass immigration and that we are nothing more than a mish mash of everyone else. We should ask ourselves about the motives behind the programme. Why do they make a programme that attempts to water down any sense of an English identity? Would they ever make a programme about Afro-Caribbeans or Asians or the Scots and then try and tell them that their is no such thing. Why is it always the English, why is not the Scots, the Welsh, the Poles or the Pakistanis who are ever portrayed as "mongrel" Why are other cultures actively promoted while at the same time anything that could be seen as encouraging any notion of an English communal identity either discouraged or jumped on from a great height.
Maybe it's because they fear that a renewed sense of an English identity would mean the English realising what they have lost and demanding it back!
Waes Haeil
WATE.com
www.wearetheenglish.com
Tony Linsell - Author and writer on English issues.
Channel 4 has squandered the opportunity to make a serious programme about English identity and has instead set out to mock and insult those who took part. The producer falls back on stale anti-English Leftist views from the 1990s and a DNA test which cannot do what the programme makers claim for it. Englishness, like any other ethnicity, cannot be determined by a DNA purity test. The predictable and lazy prejudice of the programme makers is evident from the fact that they chose the English as victims rather than another ethnic group - such as Romanies, Irish or Afro- Caribbeans.
Press Release
On Monday 13th November at 8 pm Channel 4 is screening a programme entitled “100% English.” That programme is not a programme about who is English and who is not. It is a programme about the race and ethnicity DNA purity tests produced by a DNA company based in the deep south of the United States. Channel 4 has warmly endorsed those DNA purity tests as the tests for establishing a person’s race and ethnicity in total opposition to the tests laid down by the UK judiciary under the Race Relations Legislation. Just like the Nazis endorsed the work of earlier scientists to undertake a purity of race and ethnicity categorisation, Channel 4 has done likewise. Channel 4 has allowed the English racial identity claimed by the participants to blind it to the true implications of its programme.
The central premise of the “100% English” programme is that a person’s race and a person’s ethnicity is totally determinable by reference to a DNA race and ethnicity purity model produced by a commercial DNA company based in the Southern United States. It is a race and ethnicity purity model that no other DNA research institution or commercial company in the world follows. It is therefore not possible to independently verify whether the results of the DNA tests used in the 100% English programme are correct or even whether the results are actually those of the participants in the programme. Something Channel 4 is quick to exploit in the 100% English programme by not pointing out this limitation to the participants on air or otherwise.
The tests used in this programme are the novelty consumer versions of far more sophisticated tests offered by the DNA company to law enforcement agencies. The intent of the real tests is to link a suspect’s DNA sequences to physical features. In the novelty tests, and probably also in the real tests, those DNA sequences are given the names of races and of ethnic groups. The tests mean that to the extent that a person’s DNA does not match the race pure versions as set by the DNA company, that person is determined to be of impure race origin. The tests also postulate that there are pure versions of DNA for ethnic groups, for example that there is a DNA pure version of an English, Jewish, Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean person.
If the UK State were to undertake racial profiling or racial classification by reference to a person’s DNA, the DNA company would be well placed to offer the purported means by which the UK State could do so. This begs an interesting question. Since the alleged DNA results in the programme were interpreted for the programme by a professor at one of London’s Universities, one really has to ask whether the tests are being validated against the National Police DNA database, and whether race and ethnic categories are being assigned to persons on the database using the DNA company’s model of race and ethnicity. What Channel 4 is at pains to conceal in the programme is that the race and ethnicity elements of the DNA tests are flawed. The DNA company admits the tests cannot determine whether the DNA sequences of a person are thousands of years old, i.e. predating the existence of the English and England, or whether they were acquired from an ancestor just outside living memory. Channel 4 simply ignores the inconvenience of this limitation in its programme.
What Channel 4 does in this programme is to declare all those who it alleges do not have DNA that matches the DNA race pure European or the DNA ethnic pure English, as determined by the DNA company, to be non European and to be non-English. Channel 4 seems to have forgotten that it was not long ago that people where declared not to be European because they did not have the physical features judged by scientists to be those of the racial pure European. The consequences for the people affected were disastrous.
Yet despite Channel 4 best efforts every one of the participants in the programme are in English Law 100% English. In 2001 the Court of Session declared the English to be a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Legislation. The English racial group consists of the people who by reason of descent or origin or total integration are of the people who constituted the English prior to the inception of the British State in 1707. Being born in the geographical area of England does not by that reason alone make a person a member of the English racial group. The reason being is that in English Law racial group means racial origins not country of origin.
The Commission for Racial Equality publicly acknowledges the racial group status of the English. With the inclusion of an English ethnic group tick box, as distinct from an English national identity tick box, in the 2007 Test Census issued by the Office of National Statistics, it is clear that Central Government has begun the process of accepting the implication of the Court of Session judgement. The Government needs to do so in order to push through its agenda of community integration in a multicultural framework and its agenda of tackling the rise of the Far Right.
The continuing rise of the Far Right is judged in some circles to be linked to the Government’s previous, policy driven, exclusion of the indigenous populations of the UK from the benefits of the Race Relations Legislation. A link summed up in the frequent references by Ministers to engaging the so-called “white working class,” who, according to Ruth Kelly, the Minister for Communities and Local Government, “feel left behind” by multiculturalism. Channel 4 could have chosen to address these issues and contributed to raising the awareness among the general public of the existence of the English racial group and of the universality of the Race Relations Legislation. Instead Channel 4 choose to align itself with the attitudes prevalent in the Left of the 1990’s. This being the attitude held, even in high political circles, that the indigenous populations had no racial identity and no rights under the Race Relations Legislation because, as it was alleged, those populations had interbred with others too much to have the required racial and ethnic purity.
In a contest between Channel 4’s race and ethnicity purity tests and the position under English Law, Channel 4 has not the slightest chance of emerging as the victor. English Law is categorical on the point; a person’s membership of a racial group is not determined in any way whatsoever, and with no exceptions, by reference to the possession of a required type of DNA or any other scientific test. No doubt for good reason. In English Law a person is a 100% of a racial group if that person (a) believe he or she is a member, (b) other members of the racial group accepts that he or she is a member and (c) that person is not also a member of another similar type racial group by virtue of the tests at (a) and (b) above.
Channel 4’s production team were given a ¾ of an hour presentation on racial identity under English Law by a solicitor, one of the participants in the programme. Written explanations were provided, as were copies of relevant case law. Prior to filming that solicitor and others put it to the Wall to Wall TV, the production team, in writing, that Channel 4 intended to use the programme to mock people who claimed to be members of the English racial group. It was put to the production team that they would do this by attempting to prove (a) there could be no English racial group because the English are a mongrel people, are they not, and/or (b) that some participants could not be English because they had non-English ancestors and so forth. Assurances were received from the production team that the programme would be a genuine attempt to explore Englishness as a racial identity for benefit of the public at large and that participants would not be identified as being non-English simply by virtue of their recent or distant ancestry or DNA.
As will be seen Monday next (13/11/06) those assurances, which induced consent to participate in at least one participant, amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation by Channel 4. Given that the producers were fully appraised of the implications of English law, the decision to go ahead regardless without taking on board that information must surely mean the programme itself falls foul of the broadcasting code.
It is easy to conjecture that Channel 4 would not have produced programmes doing the same to other racial groups. Few in the English Community would believe that Channel 4 would tell members of the Jewish or Afro-Caribbean Communities that they were not Jewish or Afro-Caribbean because they did not have, according to a DNA company from the deep south of the United States, the required purity of race and/or ethnic DNA. Such a difference in treatment by Channel 4 amounts to less favourable treatment of the English on racial grounds contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976.
There are also good grounds, since Channel 4 were appraised of the Law’s approach to the issue of racial group identity, for alleging the programme amounts to unlawful racial harassment of the English on racial grounds. In other words, the programme was intended by Channel 4 to create or was likely to create a hostile, intimidating, degrading, or offensive environment for the participants and for any other members of the UK public who assert they are members of the English racial group. Channel 4 did so by knowingly and wilfully promoting a misleading, incorrect and unlawful test for membership of the English racial group. Channel 4’s approach means that no one who is genuinely of mixed race origin but who is wholly a member of an English Community could be a member of the English racial group. A view point many in the English Community would find revolting.
If Ken Livingston could be proved wrong, and the Commission for Racial Equality were indeed still interested in taking cutting edge litigation, the Commission would do well to look at Channel 4’s conduct and at the TV company’s compliance with its obligations under the Race Relations Legislation. It may be that like Channel 4, the Commission would unable be able to get itself passed the racial group involved. The issue of the extent to which the media, (as suppliers of goods and services), are subject to the race and other anti discrimination legislation is well due for judicial examination.
The deception on the participants involved in the making of the “100% English” programme and the fraud being enacted upon the general public by Channel 4 is the reason why the solicitor participant, in keeping with the habits of her profession and surely to the amusement of Chancery Lane, threatened to sue Channel 4. A fact referred to in the programme. Interestingly, Channel 4 does not make any attempt to explain the legal reasons behind the threat to the programme’s audience. No doubt leaving the audience with the erroneous view that the participant’s reasons lay with the race and ethnicity category Channel 4 sought to put the participant in, rather than with Channel 4’s conduct.
Channel 4 has promoted Nazi type methods of race and ethnicity categorisations. All should, irrespective of the racial group involved, roundly condemn Channel 4 for doing so. Perhaps if the folks at the Commission for Racial Equality are still awake, the judiciary, who have taken such great care over the sensitive issues involved in race and ethnicity identity may get the opportunity to publicly condemn Channel 4 as well.
posted by erc @ 10:53 am
<< Home