ENGLISH DEMOCRATS PARTY - ALL ROTTEN APPLES IN A RANCID BARREL?
Conscious as I am of the threat by the English Democrats Party (EDP) to issue libel proceeding against anyone who accuses their party of racism, there comes a point when a barrel is so full of rotten apples, that you may as well consider the whole barrel rotten to the core.
Not only have the EDP selected a member of the racist and fascist England First Party as a candidate for the EDP in Lancashire, it now transpires that the lead EDP candidate for the South East constituency, Steve Uncles, posted a vile racist joke on an internet forum in February this year seeing the racially motivated murders of Poles and Pakistanis as a matter for humour.
Steve Uncles also posted an article on the same internet discussion board mocking a lad who had tragically killed himself as, in Steve Uncles words, a “self hating liberal”. Apparently the suicide in question had objected to the EDP’s anti-immigration policies, and what he considered a victim mindset, enough for Steve Uncles to try to pursue him and insult his memory after his death, reckless as to whether or not this would cause distress to grieving relatives and friends..
The main policy plank of the EDP is campaigning for an English parliament, a perfectly reasonable, mainstream policy, that would make them a natural sister party of the SNP or Plaid.
But in reality, the EDP position themselves to the right of centre, and attract all sorts of misfits and extremists, like the utterly objectionable Steve Uncles. This is a problem, because the EDP also seeks to appropriate ownership of the whole issue of an English parliament, and they bring it into disrepute.
Recall that during last year’s London mayoral election, their candidate publicly disassociated himself from the EDP during the campaign as he became aware of the far right links with the England First Party.
Even though I have always made it clear that I am completely opposed to the EDP’s policies on everthying except the advocacy of an English parliament, I have been prepared to assume that the EDP were an essentially single issue party, around whom some unsavory characters had gathered. It seems even that position may have been excessively generous. The unpleasant nature of the EDP, and the oddballs it attracts have been relentlessly exposed by Boatang and Demetriou
Although the constitutional campaign for an English parliament is a perfectly reasonable one, and one that the left should support, the English Democrats Party are increasingly looking like a far-right, anti-immigrant party, that is fishing in the same pond as UKIP and the BNP.
Tragically, the leaders of the EDP are tarnishing the whole campaign for an English parliament in their indecent promotion of their own sorry right-wing sect.
Well said Andy, very well said.
Steve Uncles is not even fit for society, let alone public office.
Comment by Toque — 1 June, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
EDP sound like a bunch of Brit Normans clumsily trying to reinvent themselves as English in case the currently established far right becomes irrelevant. They have all the cultural arrogance of conquerors and none of the virtues of English down-to-earthness and that attractive take-as-you-find mentality which doesn’t go along with totalising cultural projects or essentialising racist jokes.
Comment by 'Arold — 1 June, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
The EDP are standing a Mayoral Candidate here in Doncaster, and he doesn’t even pretend to anything other than far-right bigot.
highlights of his campaign include harsher punishment to get ‘thugs’ off the street, more police to punish people caughting spitting or swearing in public, banning of gay pride, black history month and womens day etc. I was genuinly surprised when reading through the booklet how blatantly naive he was in this sense, compared to the BNP who were much more subtle and clever in their approach.
with not one even remotely left candidate, we can only hope that the EDP will effectively split the far-right protest vote with the BNP and allow the far more preferable tory candidate a win However given the local opinion polls either way its going to be very close.
Comment by Liammm — 1 June, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
The EDP at least split the bigot-right vote a bit, giving a taste in that corner of the rather pathetic divisions more deeply assailing the left.
Comment by Faust — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Don’t tar all members of the Eng Dems with the same brush most are normal decent folk fighting for equality for the English. A just cause in my opinion.
I’ve not renewed my membership of the party for the error of meeting with the England First party and the lack of a statement about that issue.
As for an ex member of England First standing for the Eng Dems I don’t see that being a problem for them as presumably he has left England First and is standing on the Eng Dem ticket which is in no way racist.
But back to SU. He’d be hard pressed to do more damage to the cause if he was being paid by the Brit establishment to do just that. If he cared anything for the English cause - he would resign pdq.
Comment by Wyrdtimes — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
one question, am I right that “England First” and “UK First” are two different parties?
Comment by Entdinglichung — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
We don’t see much of the EDP in Hackney, for some reason, so my only contact with their literature is at European election time. I’ve never seen them as anything other than right-wingers chasing the ‘Enoch was right’ vote. And the idea of an English parliament seems purely tailored for that audience, and in particular the subsection of that audience who are for whatever reason prejudiced against the Welsh and the Scots.
Comment by chjh — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Yes, I think arguing for yet another parliament with another crop of MPs is a perfectly mainstream view that will cut politically with most English people today.
Comment by Chuckles O'Hare — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
#8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm
Most people, including those in Scotland, think England should have its own parliament, a BBC poll suggests.
Newsnight found 61% in England, 51% in Scotland and 48% in Wales agreed with the idea.
The poll, carried out to mark 300 years since the Act of Union, was of 883 adults in England, 543 in Scotland and 527 in Wales.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
In answer to your question…. No.
Comment by Alfie the OK — 1 June, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
#5 “Equality for the English”?!
The English are hardly an oppressed minority. This is far-right language.
Comment by little black sister — 1 June, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
#11 Well the English are not racially opressed, but the residents of England, of all races, creeds and colours, are diasdvantaged within the UK.
The ONS have just published the per capita government spending for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom for 2007-8:
Northern Ireland £9,577 per person
Scotland £9,032
Wales £8,493
England £7,426
In that context, equality for the English means allowing the people who live in England to benefit from the same policies like smaller school class sizes, free prescription charges, etc, etc, that people in scotland and wales have - and the reason these other nations have a better deal is that their Scottish parlisment and Weslh assembly have voted for them. Whereas england has no parliament.
indeed as England has a much higher BME population than either Wales or Scotland, the current relationship should fail any racial equality audit as disproportionatly disadvantaging black and asian people within the UK.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Andy
As long as the EDP pull a significant minority of votes from the the BNP and hence lower the BNP totals in varoius closely fought regions, and push up the overall turnouts a bit then it’s not neccessarily a bad thing. Alone the EDP don’t stand a chance of getting in.
Comment by Halshall — 1 June, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
A good article but a couple of points:
1. UKIP aren’t far right, they’re moderately right of centre
2. The BNP are far left nationalist socialists - socialist may not like being associated with the BNP but you chose your politics so live with it
There is majority support for English devolution and the majority of that support is for an English Parliament. An English Parliament should be for all the people of England - a good definition I once heard was “Those people who were born in England or for whom England is their home and future”.
The England First Party and UK First Party (aka the UK Fascist Party - country before self comrades) are different parties, albeit with the same type of unsavoury elements in the background.
Comment by wonkotsane — 1 June, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
#14
“The BNP are far left nationalist socialists “
This does get a bit boring, a remark that frequently occurs on the internet from people who have not read the BNP’s manifesto or its constitution.
The BNP’s economic policies are not that disimilar to the policies Edward Heath fought the 1970 general election. If you think that the policies of the pre-Thatcher Conservative party are “far-left” then where does that leave your own politics?
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Andy #12
There’s no evidence that the Scots and the Welsh are to blame for the levels of public spending in the rest of the UK, where 85% of the population live. The only reason the Scots and Welsh can have higher public spending is precisely because they are a small minority of the UK population, and hence it barely affects overall government spending.
If the extra spending in Scotland and Wales was taken back and shared out equally between the constituent parts of the UK, residents of England would receive only an additional £200 per head, i.e. peanuts, and certainly not enough to pay for any of the improved services Andy quite rightly wants to see.
Or suppose ‘we’ just let the Scots and Welsh keep their existing spending levels, removed them from the UK parliament and renamed it the English parliament (or perhaps more accurately, the rump UK parliament). What would happen then? The liberated English MPs would suddenly vote to increase public spending by 20%? I sincerely doubt it. Could it be capitalism and the weakness of the left, not the Scottish and Welsh minorities, that is the obstacle here?
Andy - further, are you really arguing for geographical equality of government spending, irrespective of socio-economic differences and the urban /country divide? Surely what we want is targetted public spending to counteract the unequal effect the market. So, for example, we would support higher public spending per head of the population of poor Hackney compared to rich Kensington, wouldn’t we?
Comment by Calvin — 1 June, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Totally agree with Andy Newman #15.
I would dispute the statement in the article above that the EDP are centre-right, they’re bloody far right. I’m more left-of-centre than left wing, and I know there’s a big difference between the two
Comment by Bearded Socialist — 1 June, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
The Barnett formula is outdated and indefensible.
But per capita spending within England varies by more per region than it does between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That’s got everything to do with infrastructure, population, density, poverty, income etc - there’s no guarantee that a revised Barnett formula wouldn’t actually lead to a *more* differentiated settlement in “favour” of Wales (probably) and Scotland (possibly).
As for the idea that if there were an English Parliament then the promised land of small class sizes and free prescriptions would arrive - what on earth is stopping the English MPs in the UK Parliament voting for that in England?
Comment by Mike v2.0 — 1 June, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Personally I wouldn’t mind a democratically elected Wessex region on a par with Scotland and Wales rather than the current SWRA quango foisted on us by New Labour.
Comment by Jim — 1 June, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
#18
“what on earth is stopping the English MPs in the UK Parliament voting for that in England?”
How could they do that?
There is no parliamentary Grand Committee of only England’s MPs, and policies relating to England are regarded as british government policy, and many MPs for Scotland and wales insist on their right to vote on them.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Andy man,you cannot judge an issue of social equality by quoting just one side of the equation,in just mentioning the spend on an area you must mention the amount taken in from an area.When this is done the last figures I saw were that the Scots were subsidized by the princely sum of £8 per capita per annum. The largest “subsidy” was quite rightly to the people of N.Ireland but the 2nd largest was to the NEEngland,the 3rd to the NW ofEngland! But you are quite right about the people of SW England,they get robbed blind.
Comment by Scot in London — 1 June, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
#17
“I would dispute the statement in the article above that the EDP are centre-right, they’re bloody far right. ”
Well maybe, but they are in the main Tebbit / UKIP far-right, rather than BNP/NF far right.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
here is no parliamentary Grand Committee of only England’s MPs, and policies relating to England are regarded as british government policy, and many MPs for Scotland and wales insist on their right to vote on them.
And why shouldn’t they given that:
a) bills which on the face of it should only effect England are often badly drafted, to the point that they would actually effect Scottish and Welsh interests.
b) “English” bills have funding implications for Scotland and Wales, because the resourcing formula (for Scotland at least) is based on general UK/English spending.
Now point (a) has an obvious solution in terms of better drafting of bills.
But point (b) is a problem IMO. On the one hand, you could just go for a federal solution, and the various countries keep what they earn. On the other hand, UK economic policy over the last couple of centuries has led to a concentration of capital, wealth and earnings in the South East - should we ignore this history and abandon the principle of redistribution for that of petty nationalism?
Comment by Graham Day — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
#18 “As for the idea that if there were an English Parliament then the promised land of small class sizes and free prescriptions would arrive - what on earth is stopping the English MPs in the UK Parliament voting for that in England?”
Pathological Anglophobia
The sake of the risibly named ‘Union’
Laziness
Corrution
Dishonesty
Comment by Stephen Gash — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
# 19 A democratically elected Wessex region would have a massive voice in Europe then!? Sarkowzy would sit down in awe and say “zut alor let’s hear what the Wessexers have to say”!
When England is finally bust up into EU-regions and officially abolished, then intact Scotland and Wales opt for independence, the English will be left powerless and stateless. We’ll be safe in the knowledge that the Wessex navy will save us.
How England organises its local government is a matter for them, and should be decided after an English Parliament. Wessex may play a part, but the decision should be made by the English people.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
I’m glad to see this. Given the stick that No2EU has been getting on these pages for its left nationalist meanderings, I was wondering why the far more insidious EDP had got off so lightly in previous commentary.
One area where I will disagree with Andy - his comparison of BNP policy with Heathism from the 70s. Last night I closely read all of the BNP’s policy pages and manifestos, and have never before encountered such a collection of empty verbiage, devoid of any real policies. Even the NF in 1979 managed to put together a program that could be argued with (however vile it might have been). This stuff is just a bunch of windy slogans, uncosted promises, and populist nonsense of the type you hear muttered at any bus stop any day of the week. Lazy bastards … but it may well work, alas.
Comment by Another Dave — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
#23
there is no “principle of redistribution” behind the Barnett formula. That is just a lazy assumption.
Some of the most impoverished parts of the Uk are in England, so the result is “redistrubiting” wealth from the needy to people who are better off. some socialism.
Come to North Devon and tell them that it is a socialist principle that equivalent rural areas in Scotland get £2000 per head per annum more government spending than them.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Nothing against devolution for England, but as I feared the English Democrats are attracting a racist far right element.
Still they do put up candidates against the BNP and any splitting of the far right vote has to be a good thing.
Comment by green socialist — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
# 11 The English are hardly an oppressed minority. This is far-right language.
No, but being a majority does not mean a group cannot be oppressed. Ask the Shi’ites in Iraq.
The English have been fighting for equality for 12 years. Nothing more.
They are denied a voice by the whole of the establishment and much of the media.
Any English activism was lumped in with the BNP immediately, by the media and the establishment. Toque will verify this and I know he has been fighting the slur.
The biggest slur is the association of the English flag with the NF and BNP, when both those parties have the Union Jack as their emblem. The English moved to the Cross of St George to dissociate Englishness from the racism tainting the Union Jack.
That did not stop the Anglophobes hounding the English with their racist accusations. Juxtaposing the English flag with racism is a flagrant and indisputable lie.
The UK is institutionally Anglophobic.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 1 June, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
#27,did you actually read what I said?
I said that the UK over the last couple of centuries has led to a concentration of capitalism in the South East.
Do you live in some parallel universe where “North Devon” (to take your example) is in the South East?
Are you also incapable of answering my point regarding the reasons why Scottish and Welsh MPs want a vote on so-called “English” legislation? Is that why you would rather have a pop that I don’t understand the problems of the people of North Devon?
Your problem is that you see things through a petty nationalist perspective, and (as is evidenced by many contributions to this blog) you’re happiest when that perspective is confirmed.
Also, if you want to quote some figures you could at least give a source, we can then address the quality of the evidence.
Comment by Graham Day — 1 June, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
I must have imagined all those years (probably up to the 90s) when the only time you saw a St George Cross was on some sort of far rightwing march.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad that the English flag is no longer just the preserve of racist nutters, but to pretend that it has never had any unpleasant connotations in the past is pure historical revisionism and denies the reality of why it may still have racist associations for some people who remember those days.
Comment by Rory — 1 June, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
#30
Graham
The point I was making, that I wouldn’t have thought would be beyond you but clearly is, is that any crude redistributive measure that gives a higher per capita spend to scotland and wales under the Barnett formula based upon average per capita spend across England takes no account of regional variations and inequality within england. As such it is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Frankly your weaselly justification for MPs for wales and Scotland voting on affairs that only affect England is beneath you, by claiming that these emasures also affect Scotland and wales indirectly. because signifiantly MPs for Welsh and Scottish constituencies have voted for the social provision in England worse than that afforded to their own constituents.
I have no idea why you use quote marks to describe UK legislation that only affect England as ‘”English” legislation’; this only makes sense if you deny that England even exists.
You whole argument only stacks up if you also oppose decolution for Wales and Scotland, so that westminster MPs from the whole of Britain could vote on matters that are currently devolved to the Scottosh parliament and Welsh assembly.
Now at least those unionists who opposed devolution in the first place, like Tam dalyell, has a consistent and democratic position, all Westminster MPs would have equal powers, and all parts of Britain would be in the same boat. BUt once devolved powers were granted to Scotland and wales I don’t see how you can in pronciple deny the right for the people of England to have a parliement with similar powers to that in Edinburgh. Why do affairs like eductaion and health in England and not Scotland continue to be decided by a Uk parliament?
It makes no sense to say that it is in principle correct for Westminster MPs for Welsh and Scottish constitunecies to vote on matters that only affect England and do not affect their constitunets, but no Westminster MPs can vote for the same matters affecting Scotland and wales.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 June, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
“The English moved to the Cross of St George to dissociate Englishness from the racism tainting the Union Jack.”
Given that the Union Flag is not, and never has been, the English flag, they shouldn’t have been using it in the first place, should they?
Comment by A Scot in England — 1 June, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Hi,
Just thought I’d add to the above. Not all of the members of the EDP where racist right whingers. I should know I was a member for a short period (I normally vote Green). However I quit when I found out about the England First link up and saw Mr Uncles behaviour.
I would imagine anyone with an ounce of credibility has quit the party as well and probably feels very angry. I also hope any ex-members don’t have membership held against them as I am sure they are just as disgusted with the goings on as everyone else!
So where does that leave us who want to see England treated equally on the devolution front, but don’t want to be represented by or associated with racists and nut jobs?
The EDP have done a great job of ruining any kind of grass roots English political movement by swimming in some polluted water.
Thanks guys…
Comment by Why? — 2 June, 2009 @ 2:25 am
#29 The English “fighting for equality”? With whom are they fighting?
These islands were unified because the English conquered the other nations. The UK is run from London, the English capital. The British Empire, led by England, conquered millions of people around the world.
The Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly arose because of pressure against English domination. To claim it works for England too is to see the whole thing backwards. Like “racism cuts both ways” etc.
A class struggle exists within England, like it does everywhere else. But “the English” are not “fighting for equality”. A section of the English are extremely privileged and fighting for the very opposite of equality.
I don’t see much mileage for the left in encouraging English nationalism, which is what this all amounts to. However sincere you are, in our political context you will be swamped by the right.
Comment by little black sister — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:33 am
#35
i don’t think any of that is true LBS. Indeed there is a danger of your approach mythologising an ethnic, oppressive aspect to the British union that simply doesn’t exist, and has never existed.
the union of Scotland and England was not an English conquest, but a merger of two states based upon mutual self interest of the ruling elites - the peoples of neither nation were consulted; and the result was a unified British ruling class that projected the British imperial project abroad. I think it is highly inaccurate to descibe the Empire as English.
the merger of England and Wales happened in the pre-modern period, before nation states in the modern sense were created, and in that feudal context the elite bonds of the barons transcended nationality - as evidenced by the Welshman henry tudor becomming King. it was common in the mediasvel period for the labouring classes to be of a different national culture to their rulers, and in that sense the Welsh serfs and freemen were in the same position as those in the English regions.
You also have to understand the degree to which Scottish and Welsh supporters of Britishness, rather than the English, carried out the transformation. For example, at the battle of Culludon, there were Scottish British troops and German hanoverian troops fighting on the King’s side, but almost no English.
Devolution was more about developing local space outwith the confines of British centralised structures, and not about “English” domination. the problem with Westminster is that it is remote and UK wide,, not that it is English. indeed, the vigorous advocacy of the union and Britishness by Scottish and Welsh labour politicians, and the long line of Scottish and Welsh prime ministers is evidence that the UK and Britain belong to the Weslsh and Scots as much as the English.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:45 am
EDP watchers should take note of David Ball EDP East Midlands euro candidate and previous election candidate for the Freedom Party
Comment by JimPage — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:54 am
It shouldn’t go unremarked that the “lad who had tragically killed himself” was the great and sadly-missed Chris Lightfoot, who created PledgeBank and the Downing St petition site, among much else - and as such did more for democracy in a few years than the EDP will ever do. He had the EDP’s number early on, much to the annoyance of the repulsive Steve Uncles.
Two final comments. Martin Keegan: Of very few people can it be said “He made his country more democratic”, but Chris Lightfoot was one of them.
James Graham: There is something irredeemably vile about someone who tries to make political capital out of a suicide. (Particularly the suicide of a much better man.)
Comment by Phil — 2 June, 2009 @ 10:31 am
LBS - Andy’s analysis is a good one, I think. And there is plenty of info out there on why England is currently disadvantaged within the Union. I suggest browsing the OurKingdom site for some good analysis:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom
There are plenty or privileged people within England keen to maintain their privilege, just as there are within every nation. This is not an ethnic or a cultural issue. The fact of the matter is that everyone living in England - including you, if you do - has fewer democratic rights within the political system and less money from the UK government to play with than the other UK nations.
You either think that’s a good thing or you don’t. Personally I believe in equality - I thought that was a left-wing principle. Devolution has created an unequal situation which should be righted; this is a simple democratic point.
Good piece here by Monbiot on this subject if you haven’t seen it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/britishidentity-constitution
Comment by PK — 2 June, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Devolution for Cornwall, a separate parliament for ‘Wessex’, and UDI for Swindon - where will it all end? Probably in nothing more than a handful of disappointed scrumpy drinkers muttering darkly into their pint glasses… And a good thing too!
“Oh to be England now that summer time is here
I stand up in my wheelbarrow and pretend I’m Boudicea”
Comment by Egbreth The Bald — 2 June, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
# 35 Can’t let your Welsh history lesson go by without some comment …
Edward I imposed a racial feudal settlement on those parts of Wales under his rule in which the Welsh were, amongst other things, forcibly removed from lands which were then given to English settlers, denied the right to hold office and barred from buying property and living in certain areas. While the Welsh were allowed to practise some aspects of Welsh law alongside English criminal law they were denied the right to use Welsh in a court of law and all records were kept in English. Their legal position was different from that of their English counterparts for two and half centuries.
These legal disabilities weren’t formally removed until 1536 but the effect of that legislation was not to extend English rights to the Welsh but to make the Welsh English in law. The intended process of total cultural assimilation was derailed by various factors.
Comment by Hendre — 2 June, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
#41
I cannot help noticing though that the conquest of Wales in the thirteenth century was carried out under a French speaking plantagenet King. Indeed the fact that Edward Plantagenet was the fourth English king to be named Edward, but is styled Edward I, is a clue to the Norman French attitude to the English. It only make sense to describe this as a conquest of Wales by England, in the legal feudal sense that Edward I personally was England.
The dominant aspect of the situation was feudal and dynastic rather than national-popular. So we are talking about a war between an Anglo-French fuedal dynasty against Welsh feudal barons to establish feudal military hegemony. Similarly the language used by the clerks was only affecting an elite stratum. There was no concept of national citizenship or political nationalism, although there were obviously cultural and linguistic signifiers of nationality.
It makes no more sense in the modern world to hark back to that as a national coonquest than it does for English (and Welsh) people to refer to the Norman conquest.
In any event, I am absolutley correct that the merger of Wales with England was in the pre-modern period, as indeed your own evidence testifies. The result of which was incorporation of the Welsh elite classes into the English power structures, and the oppression of the Welsh ordinary folk was not very different from the oppression of the dialect speaking lower classes in the English regions. that is not to deny Welsh nationhood, but to recignise that the modern Welsh nation grew up in the political context of union with England - a union that happened in mediaeval times.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
# 42 Re your first paragraph, I think Norman Davies in his history of the isles was on the right track when he referred to those well-known English kings such as Etienne de Bois and Jean san Terre. It is indeed high time to recognise those medieval kings for what they were – a load of thieving, violent Norman French bastards! (And that includes the much feted Richard the Lionheart.)
However the point remains that the experience of conquest in Wales differs from that in England: the use of the Welsh language was proscribed in favour of English; Welsh law was replaced by English common law; and the Welsh still faced statutory legal disabilities in the early modern period. And from 1536 onwards the right to hold office in Wales was only granted if the individual could speak English. So I can’t quite go along with your apparent dismissal of an ‘ethnic oppressive’ element within the British union.
Comment by Hendre — 2 June, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
#43 “Welsh law was replaced by English common law;”
But the history of english law is a bit more complicated than that, although it is a long time since I studied it. The period that you are talking about is where King’s law is starting to be rolled out to replace the concept that each baron was legally sovereign on his own demesne. So there was a centralisation of mediaeval power in the authority of the crown.
In this sense there was no “English law” and I very much doubt of there was any “Welsh Law”, except for that newly created King’s law that was a feudal-dynastic concept. Remember in this time law only really existed to cover land ownership issues, and treason - all other issues were settled on a customary and relatively arbitrary basis - except for those specifically Norman French laws , like the new crime of Murder, which held saxon commnities collectively responsible for the deaths of Normans.
You refer to the extension of English Common Law to Wales, but i don’t think that you can really argue that England even has a common law system until the fifteenth century, with the first book of Common law beeng published in the 1480s.
The period you are talking about is not the extension of common law to Wales -, but the process under Henry II of regularising land tenures throughout his Kingdom, and removing localised variations of land tenures. Henry II also introduced uniform systems of court records - which would have included wales. But this was not the extension of any pre-existing English system to Wales; but the creation of an entirely new system simulateoulsy in Wales and England - and the suppression of local and regional forms of land tenure in England as well as Wales.
Now you say that the use of English was made standard in the courts in Wales at that time, I would be suprised, becasue Norman French was used in courts in England until the 15th Century.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
#31 The Scottish flag is used by the Ku Klux Klan, but people don’t whine about it being racist when it flies over every public building in Scotland. It isn’t called the Klan for no reason.
Both the NF and BNP have the flags of Ireland (St Patrick’s cross), Scotland, Wales, England and the UK on their websites. They both have branches in Wales and Scotland. Only England is singled out for the racist slur however.
Here’s a timeline for you:-
1966 – The World Cup with the mascot World Cup Willy dressed in the Union Jack which also flew all over England and was just about the only flag to be seen in Wembley on that glorious day.
1967 - National Front founded with the Union Jack as its emblem
1968 – Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech
1982 - British National Party founded with the Union Jack as its emblem
1996 - English supporters fly the English Cross of St. George at the European Championships. This is accepted as the first time the COSG swamped out the UJ which was hardly to be seen. A complete reversal of 1966
The truth is English fans re-adopted the Cross of St. George to get away from the Union Jack that had been tainted with racism by the parties concerned.
Anglophobes in parliament and elsewhere should start “reclaiming” the Union Jack instead of inaccurately besmirching our beautiful English flag.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
#44
To save time, here’s a quick wiki cut and paste job from a much more detailed article …
“Welsh law, the law of Wales, was traditionally first codified by Hywel Dda (”Hywel the Good”) during the period between 942 and 950 when he was king of most of Wales. In Welsh it is usually called Cyfraith Hywel, the Law of Hywel. The tradition states that Hywel’s men adapted existing laws and some elements are probably of much greater antiquity, with points of similarity to the Brehon Laws of Ireland. The earliest manuscripts which have been preserved date from the early or mid 13th century. The law was continually revised and updated, sometimes by rulers but usually by jurists, so that the provisions of the law in a mid thirteenth century manuscript should not be considered as evidence of what the law was in the mid 10th century.
Welsh law was in force in Wales until the death of Llywelyn the Last in 1282 and the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 which replaced Welsh criminal law with English law. Welsh law continued to be used for civil cases until the annexation of Wales to England in the 16th century.”
I’ve got into trouble on another blog recently by pointing out that the Magna Carta contains three Welsh clauses confirming the use of Welsh and Marcher law … but it does!
With regard to Henry II, he wouldn’t have had control over the whole of Wales as it was a patchwork of independent territories and marcher lordships (where the King’s writ didn’t run).
Comment by Hendre — 2 June, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
#33 It explains the distinction between the Scots and English in the days of ignorance. By that I mean the ignorance the English had of the Scottish hatred towards them that persists to this day, exemplified by Andrew Murray.
In the 60s and 70s, English people would support the Home Nations, not just England. I myself rooted for Scotland when England did not qualify for the World Cup and “Aly’s Army” did.
However, Scots have always supported whoever England was playing against. I think that may be an additional reason why we dumped the UJ, Scottish Anglophobia. I would not support a Scottish team or sports person myself, although neither would I support any team against Scotland.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
#35 How many times were we told how “the Scots ran the Empire and run the UK”?
Scots provided 30% of the Caribbean slave-owners, from only 9% of the UK population.
The ‘Flowers of the forest’ is a bagpipe dirge composed to lament the Scottish dead of yet another failed invasion of England in support of the French. Ever heard the expression “the Auld Alliance”? It refers to the alliance Scotland had with France against the English. When you see an “Ecosse” sticker on a Scottish car, it isn’t there so that locals will understand that the car owener holidaying in France, is Scottish. It refers to the “Auld Alliance”.
This Anglophobia pervades the Scottish psyche.
Only the Scots would pen a lament to their dead who perished in an invasion of another sovereign country. Now they play the victim card, which is absolutely contemptible.
The English never needed the Union with Scotland and we need it even less now.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Can anyone explain to me why Cornish nationalism is good and English nationalism is bad?
I’m a nationalist. I don’t believe in empires and invading other people’s countries and interfering in their internal politics. Unlike the EU.
Why is it that every socialist and communist regime has sought to build an empire and invaded other countries?
The irritating thing is, when this expansionism inevitably happens, socialists turn round and say “they weren’t real socialists”?
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Talking of Steve Uncles, Jacqui Smith has resigned.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Can somebody also tell me why opposing factory closures and protecting key industries is right wing?
Fighting for workers’ pay and rights, then permitting uncontrolled migration to undermine those rights, then closing the factories and exporting the jobs to a country from whence the imported labour came from, is pretty fucking stupid to my thinking.
However, this is an EU policy. Unless of course the jobs are in Scotland where a 40 mile protection zone for local workers is in place. Oh! Perhaps that is why Hewlett Packard closed down and moved from Scotland to the Czech Republic.
Never mind, it will only be Poles who lost their jobs because British workers are lazy and Poles fill the jobs British workers don’t want.
I’m going to have to wash my keyboard, now I’ve typed the word British. Bollocks I did it again.
Comment by Stephen Gash — 2 June, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
#46
Hendre
I think you are missing the point.
Both England and Wales in the thirteenth century were feudal/dynastic polities; and governed by the Anglo-French Plantagenet dynasty, who spoke French at court, who used Norman French as the language of administration, and Latin as the language of formal record and diplomacy.
The annexation of Wales by the Plantagenet monarchy was not a national-popular conquest of one country by another in the modern sense; but the overwhelming of one feudal ruling class by another, and in the specific three hundred year process started by Henry II, the consolidation of a unified legal system, particularly to deal with land tenure.
The consolidation of Plantagenet rule in Wales was the continuation of the Norman French invasion of England, and the sweeping aside of English customs and laws. Given that England was itself conquered and the entire national culture and system of land tenure and administration was overturned in the eleventh and twelth centuries, to descibe the consiolidation of that process in Wales in the thirteenth century as English invasion is dangerously ahistorical.
the effective merger of England and wales happened in the pre-modern, feudal period, where there were dynastic not citizenhip based states. Furthermore it happened at a time when England was itself ruled by French barons and chivalry. It is a continuation of the aftermath Norman conquest, and as such the English were in the same position as the Welsh, but you don’t find English people complaining about the lost Moots and Witans.
Talk of an ethnic or national oppression of Wales in the thirteenth century is as incongrous as reviving an English mythology of the Norman Yoke.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
#46
“With regard to Henry II, he wouldn’t have had control over the whole of Wales as it was a patchwork of independent territories and marcher lordships (where the King’s writ didn’t run).”
But the whole of wales offered suzereinity to the English monarch; as such it was not really that different from the rest of his domain, whether in England France or Wales. recall that the mid mediaeval period is one of transition where the monarch has to call upon the armed forces of his barons, rather than having a monopoly of state power with the crown. And as I have explained above, the King’s writ didn’t really run anywhere until the legal reforms that begin in the late twelth century and take three hundred years to consolidate, hence the term “time immemorial” meaning anything that happened before 1189, before which the King’s law didn’t even nominally apply.
From the late twelth century there was a concerted effort by the monarchy to create a national legal system, and sweep away all local and regional irregularities, and if there was a system of Welsh law, it was just one of many variations within his Kingdom. And as you know, the grip of the plantagenets on the throne was often precarious with several baronial ars, and then the war of the roses between different cadet branches of the Plantagenent familly.
It is an historical anachronism to consider the Welsh barons as outsiders in that system; so the beginning of a process of extension of national codified law (using French not English, we must underline) was a removal of the specific idiosyncratic privalages of Welsh feudal barons, not an oppression of the Welsh people. Indeed the upshot of the end of the plantagenets is that a Welsh familly became Kings of England.
i think you have a very hazy understanding of how english society worked in the twelth and thirtenth centuries.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
I’ve read the BNP constitution and manifesto (the two don’t match, I’ve blogged about the fact many times) and they’re left wing authoritarian nationalist socialists. Deny it all you want, thankfully not everyone is taken in by the left wing propaganda spreading the myth that the BNP are right wing. Call a spade a spade, be brave. We won’t automatically assume all left wingers are violent racists because they have a similar ideology to the BNP.
Comment by wonkotsane — 2 June, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
#54 “I’ve read the BNP constitution and manifesto and they’re left wing authoritarian nationalist socialists.”
Just saying something doesn’t make it true, y’know. If you want to convince people that this is the case, why not quote the bits of the constitution or manifesto you think are ’socialist’?
Comment by Jon — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Why are you fighting amongst yourselves, your enemies are the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties who quite openly treat England and all of you with contempt. The first objective is to get England its political and constitutional recognition and any other arguments can wait. This stupid minor party infighting is turning your heads from the enemy and they are not only loving it they are creating it. Lets have some sense not nonsense.
Comment by theenglishman — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
#32, are you in control of your spelling…? There are alway’s typos of course, but is maybe I touched a nerve?
I wasn’t being “weaselly”, I was pointing out why Scottish and Welsh MPs may be justified in voting on so called “English” legislation that affects public expenditure, and hence affects public expenditure in Scotland and Wales.
Perhaps that link should be broken, but IMHO those who propose that choice are looking to break the redistributive principle. “Great Britain” was a product of the transition from feudal power to bourgeois power. The ultimate effect was to shift the capital to the South East (and don’t start talking about Imperialism, historically we’re to early). That capital was produced in the industrial centres of “Great Britain” - which were never in the South East.
Anyone who is serious about being “left” should be looking to send that capital back to where it was produced.
Comment by Graham Day — 2 June, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
#57
“The ultimate effect was to shift the capital to the South East (and don’t start talking about Imperialism, historically we’re to early). That capital was produced in the industrial centres of “Great Britain” - which were never in the South East.”
Sorry, when was capital shifted to the South East? Throughout the nineteenth century I would think there was an accumulation of capital in Manchester, South Wales, Glasgow and Belfast, and elsewhere, and indeed capital export to the Empire.
I am mystified by your understanding of what Capital is, if you think that the huge amount of plant, buildings, machinery, railways, canals etc in the industrial centres were not capital. And if that was capital, and it was invested in the manufacturing areas around Britain, then what was transferred to the South East?
So when did the economic centre of Britain start to become located in the South East? Wouldn’t that coincide with the growth of finance capital, and the growing importance of capital export to the Empire. But according to you that isn’t imperialism. Obviously you have insight of why Hilferding, Lenin and Bukharin were so wrong, perhaps you could share them with us?
What a bizarre world you inhabit, where the function of the UK is to redistribute wealth to Scotland and wales. And you tink this is done on the basis of some sort of progressive redistributive principle? Do you seriously think that is what is at stake?
Let me tell you how wealth shoudl be redistrubuted: through dmeocratic social control of the economy, and through progressive taxation. Having a primary school class size of 25 in Aberdeen, and 35 in Barnstable is not “redistributive” nor progressive. Indeed in both Scotland and England the rich send their kids to private schools where the class size is much smaller still.
Your argument about MPs from Scotland and wales is not only weasely it is scandalous and reactionary. Labour MPs from Scottish constitunecies have gone through the UK parliament lobbies to vote, for example, for tuition fees in English universities, knowing that their own constituents are not affected, and don’t have them, in order to keep UK public expenditure down.
MPs for Scottish and Welsh constituencies have supported prescription charges in the NHS in England, knowing that the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly are abolishing them for their own constituents. In order to keep public expenditure accross the UK down.
Drugs are available free on the NHS in Scotland, that are not available to pateints in England and wales. So when a cancer patient in England dies of an illness that in Scotland they would have been treated for on the NHS, they have the consolation that they were denied those drugs on the basis of what you call a “redistributive principle”; and the shameful supporters of these NHS cuts in England were justified becasue ” “English” legislation that affects public expenditure, and hence affects public expenditure in Scotland and Wales.”
So your left unionism is a heartless and cynical willingness to let English children have bigger class sizes, English cancer pateints be denied drugs that are available in Scotland, English ill people to pay precription charges that are free in other parts of the UK, and English students pay tuition fees, that are not charged in Scotland. All of these measures are legislated for by MPs from Scottish and Welsh constituencies, and you justify it becasue these financial savings benefit Scotland and Wales.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 June, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
The BNP don’t regard themselves as left wing. Perhaps this shows the irrelevance of “left” and “right” as labels.
I always think in terms of how parties approach working people. The BNP only supports workers if they are white racists - they have no respect for our unions or cooperatives, our struggles for equal rights and democracy.
Comment by Charlie Marks — 3 June, 2009 @ 1:23 am
#58 Yes Andy, but England is 85% of the UK. What evidence is there that English MPs are straining at the leash to massively increase public spending, only to be held back by the Scots and Welsh minorities? These minorities can have these concessions precisely because they are minorities, i.e. it doesn’t cost very much. It doesn’t follow that by declaring independence from them (for that is the inevitable result of an English parliament), England will suddenly be blessed with smaller class sizes and free universities and prescriptions.
That will only happen though political struggle, and it’s the absense of that political struggle that’s holding us back, not a bunch of I’m-Allright-Jack Scots and Welsh MPs, most of whom, in any case, follow the whips of the English-dominated parties to which they belong.
Comment by Calvin — 3 June, 2009 @ 3:50 am
In fact, the argument that it’s unfair that the English don’t have the benefits of the Scots and Welsh, only works within the confines of the union. It’s not unfair if they’re independent countries. And what would these mini-countries do to gain a competitive advantage over the English? I know what *I* would do. Lower corporation tax to attract inward investment, including from England. And England’s response would be what, exactly? Take the hit, or cut taxes and join the race to the bottom?
It’s already happening in Ireland, with even Sinn Fein conceeding that N.I. has to cut corporation tax if it wishes to prevent a flight of capital over the border into the Republic.
Comment by Calvin — 3 June, 2009 @ 4:10 am
Calvin
#60 and #61
Your arguments make perfect sense in a pre-devolution UK; but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Nor, for example, is the British labour Party an “English dominated party” as you describe it. It is a British party, stuck in a unionist pre-devolutionary mindset. One of the most classic example of which was the woefully useless david lammy on Question Time in Cardiff a year or so ago, discussing SATS in schools, so pig-ignorantly London-centric that he didn’t even know that they don’t have SATs in Wales.
the debate about the constitutional position of England has been thrust upon all of us by devolution in Scotland and Wales, and the accelerating difference in policy agenda; it doesn’t go away by repeating 19th century truisms about Grossstaaterei
you ask how the Scottish could be internationally competitive - well one way would be to cut down their contribution to military spending to the same level as the Irish republic; and opting out of Trident replacement.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Graham - what’s the poorest part of the UK? Any ideas?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s not in Scotland or Wales. Nor is it in any of the English inner cities.
It’s Cornwall. Unemployment, homelessness and poverty are so high that it’s the only part of the UK that still receives Objective 1 funding from the EU - the budget slated for areas of extreme deprivation.
The Cornish - and, come to that, residents of other areas of English deprivation like former mining areas - get less money per head from the treasury than the wealthy residents of Glasgow or Cardiff. They also, as Andy points out, pay more to go to university or use the NHS.
Fair? ‘Socialist’? ‘Redistributive’?
Comment by PK — 3 June, 2009 @ 9:46 am
# 46
‘and if there was a system of Welsh law …’ You feel there’s some doubt on the matter? I joked on the other blog about Welsh law deniers but I didn’t expect to find them here.
You mentioned Henry II. Giraldus Cambrensis concludes his Descriptio Kambriae in 1193 with a conversation between Henry II and the Old Man of Pencader. Henry asks the old man what he thinks will happen to the Welsh and he replies (translation obviously!):
“The nation, O King, may now, as in former times, be harassed, and in great measure weakened and destroyed by your and other powers, and it will also prevail by its laudable exertions but it can never be totally subdued through the wrath of man, unless the wrath of God shall concur. Nor do I think that any other nation than this of Wales, or any other language whatever may hereafter come to pass, shall on the day of severe examination before the Supreme Judge, answer for this corner of the earth.”
In his Itinerarium Kambriae, Gerald declares:
“The English fight for power, the Welsh for liberty; the one to procure gain, the other to avoid loss; the English hirelings for money, the Welsh patriots for their country”
I think you have a hazy understanding of Welsh identity in the 12th and 13th century. It’s true that one set of feudal overlords was replaced by another but Welsh lords and princes were defenders of Welsh law and patrons of Welsh literature (with a couple of poet princes for good measure). The Norman/Anglo-Norman incursions into Wales (I don’t think I mentioned an English invasion?) began a contested process of assimilation which continued into the modern period.
Comment by Hendre — 3 June, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Hendre
My questioon of whether there was system of Welsh law was a genuiine question, as I have some knowledge of the history of the English legal system, but little knowledge of mediaeval Wales. I accept fully your argument that the Welsh were a Staatsvolk .
I also fully accept the concept of therie being an historical Welsh identity, and Welsh nation.
What i don’t think you can do is draw a straight line between the dynastic/feudal eradication of local law under the Plantagenets, which included Wales, and the experience of modern Welsh assertions of identity. By so doing you are muddling history and mythology; across two entirely different political and social systems. Not least becasue some of the most vigorous exponents of assimilation were Welsh themselves, who saw a class benefit for themselves. As such modern Welsh identity, like in England, is typically defined by class and community not by ethnicity.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2009 @ 10:23 am
# 65
You’ve left out one little word – language.
Back to the medieval period for a moment … Wales was a patchwork of feudal petty kingdoms but two things united the Welsh – law and language. While the former was gradually displaced post-1282 the Welsh remained firmly attached to the latter.
You’re right - by the 16th century the Welsh gentry were getting fed up of being barred from office and from attending Parliament(Welshmen did hold office but faced the risk of being deprived of it) and actively sought greater assimilation with England. This anglicization of gentry was gradual with some remaining Welsh-speaking into the 18th century.
Modern Welsh identity derives from the fact that the majority of the population remained Welsh-speaking until the end of the 19th century and it is language loss in the 20th century which has led to a crisis of identity/nationalist politics. I’m not sure about a ‘straight line’ but there is certainly a thread – the failure to form a Welsh polity in the 13th century and again in the 15th century by Owain Glyndwr meant Welsh ceased to be the language of administration and justice in Wales.
Language politics remains the most contentious area of Welsh politics – not least because it feeds into whole debate on identity, language rights, civil disobedience and other acts of law breaking, devolution and independence. It has also divided the Labour movement in Wales in creating a tension between cultural identity and wider working class solidarity.
My contribution on this thread wasn’t so much in the spirit of ‘it’s the ’orrible English wot did it’ but to demonstrate why forging a single (uncontested) narrative for the UK/British union is pretty difficult – why Gordon Brown thought he could do it remains a mystery.
Comment by Hendre — 3 June, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Hendre
i think we actually agree about more than we disagree. I accept that Welsh language is an important consideration (some members of my own familly are Welsh speaking), and I think what we are saying is beginning to converge after a bit of clarification.
But I also think it is important to understand the degree to which modern Welsh identity grew up in parallel with the development of Britishness, and that as well as language has created a division in the labour movement in both Wales and Scotland. So it is not just cultural and lingusitic affinity with England, but actually shared centralist political assumptions that a strong british labour government in Westminster is the answer.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 June, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
“The English fight for power, the Welsh for liberty; the one to procure gain, the other to avoid loss; the English hirelings for money, the Welsh patriots for their country”
Oh, the Welsh! That lovely sweet thinking, pure, “Celtic”, white tribe nation! Or so some Welsh Nats say. No racism there, then!
Comment by Maria — 4 June, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
#68
I didn’t reacalll anyone expressing the bizarre sentiment that maria quotes here, so i googled it, and she is quoting a 12th Century book, by a Welsh monk, Giraldis Cambrensis, describing the English conquest of Britain.
Seeing as the island of Britain was originally inhabited by Celts, and the Angles, Saxons and Jutes actually did invade, then the description seesm to be entirely historically accurate of the original arrival of the English tribes into Britain.
there is an extremely bizarre victim mindset about Maria.
Why on earth would any rational person dig up an 800 year old quote by someone of Welsh descent and use that to infer racsim on modern Welsh people.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
“…the leaders of the EDP are tarnishing the whole campaign for an English parliament in their indecent promotion of their own sorry right-wing sect.”
No they’re not; you are!
Typical pinko waffle “the EDP are tarnishing the whole campaign for an English parliament”. You are denigrating ONE PERSON and applying what he did to EVERY ENGLISH NATIONALIST! More weasel words from the self-appointed guardians of what is right and correct huh?
31:
“I must have imagined all those years (probably up to the 90s) when the only time you saw a St George Cross was on some sort of far rightwing march.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad that the English flag is no longer just the preserve of racist nutters, but to pretend that it has never had any unpleasant connotations in the past is pure historical revisionism and denies the reality of why it may still have racist associations for some people who remember those days.”
If you say you must’ve imagined it who am I to say you’re wrong.
Of course, the NF and British movement used the union flag; not the Cross of St. George. Maybe this had something to do with them describing themselves as the BRITISH movement; not the English movement. Of course, you shouldn’t let your imagination get in the way of the truth. I have just googled “British movement” and “national front”. Both webpages had union flags on them. No English flag was to be seen.
You lying about the English flag and waffling about “racist associations for some people who remember those days” is pure fiction. I guess you’re trying to justify your hatred of the English flag. Besides that, you’re trying to associate what, 1970 with 2009?
33: “A scot in England”
“The English moved to the Cross of St George to dissociate Englishness from the racism tainting the Union Jack.”
Given that the Union Flag is not, and never has been, the English flag, they shouldn’t have been using it in the first place, should they?
Why shouldn’t they have been using it? By that twisted logic, Rangers F.C. IN SCOTLAND shouldn’t be using the British flag either. AS FOR CELTIC F.C. using a foreign flag well that’s more twisted logic.
Anyway, I thought we were all British. So now, not only can’t the English fly their own flag, but they shouldn’t use the union flag either. What rot.
By the way, “a scot in England” Given that the England is not, and never has been, scotland, you shouldn’t be using it should you?
“why” stated:
“The EDP have done a great job of ruining any kind of grass roots English political movement by swimming in some polluted water.”
Steven Uncles is a stooge plain and simple. This whole thing stinks of a set-up.
He told a joke and like the dear Lord, got (metaphorically) crucified for it.
35:
“These islands were unified because the English conquered the other nations.”
Rubbish! The Normans fought the scots and welsh. That is why all those castles are called Norman castles.
“The British Empire, led by England…”
More rubbish! I think that’s an oxymoron. British empire led by England? Do you get it? Who named Nova Scotia? What about new south wales?
What about the New Dublin Hotel found at port Wakefield Road in
Dublin, South Australia? Need I go on?
Comment by M Anderson — 5 June, 2009 @ 5:56 am
All,
I’ve been a “true blue” for most of my voting life. However the past weeks / months have turned my hand away from the conservatives box. But where to go?
I decided to troll through the list of party websites one by one and decide on policies not upbringing.
I plowed through each of them, asking the same question after reading each manifesto (long day !!) - do these policies meet my vision of my life and the lives of my children. One website had me going back for more - “The English Democrats”
I even spread the word, and had other like minded, disillutioned persons seeking out their website during our lunch breaks!
Indeed, for the first time in my life I felt compelled to put my hand in my pocket and support such a group with my hard earned cash, but I thought I’d wait till time gave me more chance to investigate further. Then the clock struck and it was time to place my mark where it mattered. Off went my ballot.
Today time allows me that further investigation - and I’m startimg to wonder whether my tick did indeed land in the right box !!!
The website message is clear and righteous! But lift the lid and all I can see is dithering, arguements and ripping one another appart with acusations of rasicm.
“Ok”, I thought, “let go and see what other pages on the web are saying”. I ‘googled’ and found several pages included the must have ‘Facebook’ page - a telling thing indeed.
I found a mixture of supporters - but the one that stood out was of a young man (did I just say young man … I must be getting old !! lol)
Picture showing a shaven headed face, it reminded me of the skin heads I saw as a boy walking through Watford. Parker jackets, tight jeans and braces ….. But as we all know, first impressions are not always correct - I read on to gain his thoughts. Well ….. for someone supporting an “English” party, he showed little sign of having grasped even the basics of the language. This coupled with a hint of rasicm, suggested to me that this Party I had found, was maybe tainted with the overspill of those parties we love to hate … I trust I need not even spell out their names.
Ok, every party, country, faith and creed has them. We’ll never get rid of those that seek enjoyment from the misery of others … but …
My heart has sunk and the wallot has now closed. This Party who I though was holding the flag high, the flag of my hopes, the flag that would bring some sense to this collapsing Country, appears tainted.
Why oh why do we kill off everything that holds true.
I only hope that my vote was note wasted on a bunch off … well people that donlt deserve it !!!
Gentlemen, Ladies - if there’s any hope for your Party - become a true Party - not a bunch of grown up NF skin heads!
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 9:43 am
PS. having re-read my comment after posting it - a question for the forum’s owners.
Can we have spell check please for those of us that can speak English …. just can’t type !! lol
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 9:48 am
#72
Ian thanks for your comment. Sadly the software I use doesn’t allow a spell check or preview for comments.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Andy … not a problem. A comment made more in jest.
However, have just come back from Braintree DC (on work matters) having seen the “hot off the press” results. Conservatives all round. Oh well!
EDP did well beating BNP in all but one local. Knocked “Greens” down a peg or two as well!
But I’m still frustrated over EDP’s apparent suicide attempts.
A question - looking at Facebook there appears to be a whole host of “Honourable Members” in the form of well known celebs. Are we aware whether these are truly EDP members/supporters, or just an attempt by a party to uplift its image?
If indeed they are members, any hint of racist undertones will send these high profile, and potentially helpfull members, scattering to the four corners.
Forgive this next question but political/party rules are outside of my knowledge - if the majority of the party feels the need to distance themselves from racist bigots and fly high what appears to be a sound manifesto, why doesn’t the party members remove said irritants? Management takeover as it where.
People I’ve spoken to have opened their ears to EDPs official message - it just seems a crying shame to have it spoiled - with no other party promoting a clear steer in this direction.
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Ian
Personally I tink that there is a political space for a party espousing the cause of an English parliament, and also celelbrating the sort of tolerant, multicultural and vibrant society that England is.
Sadly the EDP are not that party, and by occupying the space, they probably inhibit anything more sensible coming along to fill it. Perhaps if the EDP does get more public scrutiny there may be a revolt from decent people in the membership, but perhaps those decent people may prefer to vote with their feet.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Well I’d be first to put some pennies into the pot of such a Party, and I would envisage that so would the thousands of people that occupy the EDP’s Facebook pages - of whom 99% appear to be just proud to be English and pleased to see a manifesto such that it is. They just haven’t looked under the carpet yet !!
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
#76
It is over to you then Ian!!!
Well volunteered!
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
#72 if you use Firefox it can have a dictionary extension that gives you spell checking as you type in the comments box.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
I note a few senior names above - but what of the Chair, Mr Tillbrook?
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Oh and one to make you titter ……
Above I’ve found the forum with a Mr “Richard the Lionheart” of the Free England Party.
Someone better tell him that “Richard the Lionheart” was French, only spent 60 days in England and indeed on his death his body parts where scattered to the four corners of his ‘empire’ … but NON to England.
And his crusades … well look what mess that’s left us in … but thats for another day !!
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Eddie - thanks. Difficult on an iPhone thoug, but will investigate when I get back to my laptop.
Andy - me volunteer! One thing you learn in the Army never to do !!! Always take the step backwards.
…. but if we did … what would we call it?
“The United English People’s Popular Party for Unification of said United English People within the Independant Multi National Borders of England”
Roles off the tongue …. lol
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
But I fear we’re getting away from a serious debate …. enough of me .. over to the wider audience.
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
they’ve just won the doncaster mayoralty
Comment by Another Dave — 5 June, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Living_in_Doncaster/The_Mayor_and_Council/voting_elections_democracy/Elections/Mayoral/Mayoral_Election_2009_Results.asp
Comment by Another Dave — 5 June, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Took a little impropriety to get them there though - but a win’s a win as they say!
Is this the point at which public scrutiny is heightened and the carpet is lifted leading to supporter outcry or party clean up?
Comment by Ian Williamson — 5 June, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
After reading this article and comments on this site I find it hard NOT to believe that the people contributing are anti England. Nobody in their right mind who has England in their heart would be fighting against ANY political party who has in their manifesto a parliament for England, no matter how right or left wing it maybe. The time to write your aticles and make your comments,expressing your views etc which could well be right or wrong? are during the time of the election of parties to make up that parliament. It is you with these articles who are the problem and not these parties,if it is your intension of driving people away from England’s recognition then I congratulate you, if not you are going the right way about it.
Comment by theenglishman — 6 June, 2009 @ 11:30 am
I am English, I am an Englishman, I am proud to be English, I have served in Her Majesty’s forces for this Country and I ONE THOUSAND PERCENT stand behind a Party who has a manifesto such as EDP has. Indeed I have voted for them locally and for the European elections.
However following these votes I have read and noted many things that may or may not be 100% accurate. However questions are raised and answers are sought. That is my position and I stand by it.
Should you be able to convince me that the party I voted for indeed do not conspire with racist parties \ persons, I look forward to your comments - I truly do.
Comment by Ian Williamson — 6 June, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Every party attracts individuals who detract from the overwhelming majority of the party. We’ve all seen examples of sleazy claims from all parties and the desperate attempts led by Michael Martin to keep everything hidden from the ordinary citizens of our countries. Not exactly a paragon of socialist virtue is he?
The English Democrats are no different as the various antics of Steve Uncles show - but he is one man, not the entire party.
As for the recurrent whining about “English” oppression in the Middle Ages, I have just two things to say. First, will you be attacking Germans and Austrians in 700 years time for crimes instigated by Adolf Hitler? Or is it only the English who are supposed to suffer the supposed sins of their far distant ancestors?
Second, it might be helpful to point out that we English had to fight for the right to use our language. After the Norman Conquest, Norman French was made the official language of both England, and later, Wales. In 1332 an Act of Parliament decreed that French must be taught to all children receiving an education. In 1325 it was decreed that all conversations in Oxford should be in French or Latin. In other words, the ongoing oppression of the Norman French ruling classes nearly 300 years after William the Bastard’s Conquest, and indeed his attempted genocide of all people living in the North of England.
But there appears to be no social solidarity across England and Wales that recognises that we were both viciously subjugated by an alien ruling class. Just blaming the English, ALL the English, as always.
And that’s why I am an English Democrat. As the party slogan says, “Not Left, Not Right, Just English”.
Comment by David Wiildgoose — 7 June, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Ian,
The English are being defeated by psychology and that is exactly my point,its all based around one word ‘RACIST’ and it should be obvious that the British establishment would be at work decrying any party with the word English in it as racist.
I am not a member of any party and so do not have to defend any parties manifesto,but you must realise that the enemy is not these small parties, it is the British establishment who refuse to give England its identity and will do anything to deter that being achieved.Your remarks show how they are winning, don’t believe all you read on the internet or in the newspapers on these issues, because its quite easy to go onto the sites of the small parties and read their manifestos, or if you are really interested why not contact one of their nearest local representative.
REMEMBER Ian - THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD
Comment by theenglishman — 7 June, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Than you for your comments and thoughts.
As you say every party has a bad egg and I fully accept that you will never find a party that ticks all of the right boxes! And indeed if that were just the case I’d have signed my EDP membership card by now!
HOWEVER what concerns me are the stories, and let’s face it that’s what they are, stories - albeit that ring slightly true’er when looked at side by side with other reports, that strongly suggest this the EDP at senior \ party level is conspiring with other parties that are seen in the ordinary persons eyes as racist. This appears far greater than the ‘bad egg’ mentioned above.
History is irrelevant to my arguement - especially as my Grandfather was Scottish, and our ancestors Shetland (Therefore Scotts or Norse depending on date and standpoint) Indeed I have Irish and Welsh blood in me as well, while my children, via their mother have Cornish, Italian and Prussian blood.
What matters is now and the future of the Country I and my family where born into and will, possibly, grow old in. Being selfish, maybe?, I ask am I paying a fair share and receiving a far share. At present my response to myself us no. And for every English person, I suggest the same question to themselves would receive the same response.
HOWEVER I do not wish to correct this concern while also bringing with it an undertone of white, or dare I say English supremecy!
I want equal but sensible rights for all.
This is
Comment by Ian Williamson — 9 June, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Why should an Englishman be called a racist without a shred of evidence? It seems to me that most of the replies printed above are abusive and unpleasant. If you are a citizen in England you are welcome as a member of the English Democrats. I agree that some of the weirder, far right folks are attracted to any English cultural party, but that doesn’t make us all racists. The best way to demolish them is by joining us.
Call me what you will, I defend my right to abide in my own country and preserve my own culture. If you think that is racist, then perhaps you ought to examine your own bigotry.
Comment by rob silvertree — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
I know there are more important issues being discussed on this thread but in response to # 88 I would like to draw David Wildgoose’s attention to my thieving, violent Norman French bastards comment at # 43.
I dug out the quotes from Gerald the Welshman to demonstrate to Andy Newman that I wasn’t merely projecting a modern Welsh sensibility onto a feudal medieval society – the Welsh very much had a sense of themselves as a people in peril at that time. In fact one Welsh historian – Gwyn Alf Williams – reckoned that the Welsh have been in crisis since about 310 AD!
Comment by Hendre — 13 June, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
You are all misguided idiots with nothing better to do. Well how about reading what ethnic and other minorities REALLY think of you? http://www.capc.co.uk/not_in_my_name_comments.htm
Stuff that in your leftwing fascist racist pipes and smoke it.
YOU are the REAL RACISTS AROUND HERE. YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED AND YOU KNOW IT!
Comment by KimGandy — 31 August, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Well folks, that was Kim Gandy, member of the policy-making National Council of the English Democrats Party. Just in case you didn’t know. Would anyone like to revise their opinions now?
Comment by Mr Rob — 31 August, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
I have been on the Anti Peter Davies (English Democrat mayor )page as a member for some time and i do not post i watch , but some of the EDP people who post make great sense and some do not , it is like any party good and bad , i dont think they are far right , but they just have the wrong people in the wrong places , looking at the mayor and him saving so much money i would if a better alternative other than the main 3 didint show up vote for an English Democrat.
Putting England first in England makes alot of sense , they just have to check some people who are gobby to make a good impression.
Comment by Anti peter Davies man — 31 August, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
I think that the people of Britain need a kick up the arse and this should happen becuase our Mp’s are not trust worthy and we need to replace them we need to make this country great and make sure we are great before we help others.
The european union is not helping and the fact we have to have other nations peoples here doing jobs our people could be doing is wrong.
Bring our soldiers home spend that money on schools and hospitals and infurstructor of our transport system and other places and limit immagration , asylum seekers shoudl be allowed if they are genuine , make us better and give brits jobs
Comment by Anti peter Davies man — 31 August, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Please ignore Gandy’s petulant outburst.
I am afraid she is yet another embarrassment to our party along with Fat Boy Uncles.
We are doing our best to defecate these tapeworms out of our party’s system, but they are persistent; like most parasites.
However, I assure you that their cards are marked.
Comment by the_wanderer — 31 August, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
That is an intresting comment the_wanderer , so would we be as bold as to imagine they will be ousted or are you just trying to make it look like the party worrys about these people and make it look good ?
Comment by Anti peter Davies man — 31 August, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Some of us do not like the direction in which our party is being taken by a certain group of people who seem to be operating according to their own agenda.
As a concerned group of EDP members we are very keen to get the party back on track and rid it of undesirables: two of whom were named above.
All we can ask is that you accept our word that we have the best interests of our country at heart - something that these individuals patently do not.
Comment by the_wanderer — 31 August, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
[content deleted]
Comment by Michelle-Louise Lewis — 1 September, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Andy - could you delete this racist bile from Michelle.
Comment by Steve — 1 September, 2009 @ 9:18 am
CONTENT DELETED
Comment by Michelle-Louise Lewis — 1 September, 2009 @ 9:40 am
CONTENT DELETED
Comment by Michelle-Louise Lewis — 1 September, 2009 @ 9:43 am
CONTENT DELETED
Comment by Michelle-Louise Lewis — 1 September, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Wow, Michelle is boring.
You say we all live in a fantasy world but then you write:
“Can I point something out to you? This is a free country. I have a right to say what I like. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean to say you can’t delete it. Who’s being the fascist now, eh?”
1. This messageboard belongs to Andy. We post here at his discretion. If you don’t like it, go and call for the abolition of private property.
2. Look up fascism and then come back. In fact, scrap that last bit.
Comment by Mikey — 1 September, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Further to Michelle- in fact you dont’ have the absolute right to say what you want anyway in this country, leaving aside the fact that this blog is the private property of its administrators.
If you want to live in a country where you are free to use insulting provocative racist language, then find it and go and live there. And preferably stay there.
Comment by Armchair — 1 September, 2009 @ 11:16 am
#107, it was your reference to these people as “scum” that was the give away.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 September, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Oh the rampant hypocrisy.
Ms Lewis is a member of the England Facebook page, where criticism of the EDP is routinely deleted and opponents barred.
Whole threads have been edited to remove anything which might embarrass the EDP in any way.
Anyone who is critical is branded a ‘Nazi’, a ‘fascist’, a ‘loony lefty’, a ‘liberal self-hater’ or ‘anti-English’.
If you care to visit their Facebook page you will also find people singing the praises of one Fred Bishop speaking in a video - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7015362248526080475
In the course of it, he comes out with this gem:
“It is a personal insult from creatures that are not even of the same genetic species as the people that built the nation that they are currently trying to obliterate.”
One prominent voice on the England page comments:
“Really really really good speech. Is straight talking truth but I can see how the hatefilled left and right extremists could twist it.”
I don’t think you need to twist what Bishop says to identify the ignorance, prejudice, hatred and evil within it.
Comment by SteveShark — 1 September, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
@Michelle-Louise Lewis
“For your information, I am against the EDP’s Facebook page deleting anyone who puts a counter-argument. I may not like what you are saying but I defend your right to say it.”
Well, forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I’ve never heard you speaking out against deleting posts on the England Facebook page.
Your comments on this statement of Bishop’s would be appreciated - here, as it’d never get discussed on the England page:
“It is a personal insult from creatures that are not even of the same genetic species as the people that built the nation that they are currently trying to obliterate.”
My opinion is that it’s ignorant, inflammatory, unfactual drivel - yours may differ…
Comment by SteveShark — 1 September, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
You are all fools and idiots. I have not even read your response but somebody told me you think my days in the party are numbered. WRONG, I am a member of the national council AND a prospective parliamentary candidate in the GE next year. I hope you have some good lawyers because you are being monitored. YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR ANY OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING and are just rambling on ad infinitum. I don’t even HAVE to read it because I know it’s the usual mewling, puking mind vomit you lefties are so good at but you can’t take it when it’s thrown back at you.Accept that YOUR days are numbered. If you want to see arrogant fascist pigs and TRAITORS, next time you’re passing a mirror…. oh and I never read your comments either here or on the anti Peter Davies site because I consider people like you lower down the evolutionary scale than I am and your points of view therefore, without validity. How’s about that for a bit of discrimination. Actually I detest the loony left far more than I could ever dislike any other individual or ethnic background. I have now problem with people coming to this country if they are contributing to it and not robbing others of jobs. I work with different nationalities and enjoy good relationships with them. It’s the likes of YOU I have a serious problem with. Now I’ve had my say and I will not be reading any of your ludicrous gibberings. You people need locking up. You’re not right in the head.
Comment by KimGandy — 1 September, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Standing on the street corner you look around and you see people who look like you and you think what do they think , everyone thinks different and if we all thought the same it would be very boring.
As a member of the Anti peter davies page on face book you look at the people posting on there and for me only one person makes sense and that is a certain JR all the others just jump out of thier prams and choose to pick holes in what the EDP people come and say admittidly some of the time they ar enot polite but in recent weeks visiting members and i can think of 2 , one female SG and one male bddw who have been polite and one has been slaughtered at times , his postings are varied and sometimes make no sense but he comes across as trying if SG and bddw bcame politicains as if JR did as well there would be alot more common sense around in the house of commons.
Common people work together and sort out your problems and solve them do not just row be polite be nice and i am sure we can all get along
Comment by Anti peter Davies man — 1 September, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Funny that, we’re all fools and idiots, yet she was singing the praises of Stephen Gash a few weeks ago. And what does she have against Wyrdtimes? Anyone would think that she hadn’t read any of this thread before she came here to vent some of her bile….don’t think she was showing off for the benefit of the England Facebook group that they linked to this thread two months after it had gone cold do you? Surely not…
Comment by Mr Rob — 1 September, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
mr rob who are the fools and who are the idiots sure we should all call a truce and try and work something out
Comment by Anti peter Davies man — 1 September, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
#113
Can’t be done old chap. You see, although many people here have differing political opinions, they all (before the arrival of a certain person that is) share a belief in freedom of expression and honest debate. No socialist am I, and I am not an English nationalist per se, but I have more in common with any of those who posted here than with a party that allows itself to be represented by a totalitarian-minded venomous buffoon.
How can one work something out with people who refuse to listen (see above), spew invective at opponents real or imagined (see above), and have a proven track record of censorship and re-writing events when they have the power to?
Thankfully there are others who believe in greater representation for England who do not belong to the EDP and who are not unbalanced, and I am happy to where practical support their aims.
Comment by Mr Rob — 1 September, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
‘lower down the evolutionary scale’ says Gandy. I knew EDP where a little suspect, but I’d never considered them eugenicists!
Comment by KomGandhi — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Anyone would think ‘anti-peter davies man’ has been reading a different site to the one I read every day..
hes strangely familiar too..
Comment by anti peter davies reader — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Mr Rob has hit the nail on the head.
That woman is an embarassment to England, and everything it means to be English.
whats she posted ‘not in my name?’ yeah. Here here love!
Comment by anti peter davies reader — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
As a parlimentary candidate for the English Democrats i feel that the EDP is a party for the future i comment on the Anti Peter Davies site as well , some times it is an intelligent posting other times you look at the post afterwards and wonder why you have bothered especially after you get reactions from the people on there.
We all have our own style of debating and some are more vigourous than others , Kim’s style is an attacking stance and take no prisoners , i am more subdued and that is how it is.
We will all face the public when the election is called and the people of the area in which we are standing will decide who is elected people can blog , people can post on social networking sites people can write to newspapers and put across thier views but at the end of the day it will be where that X is placed on who wins , i for one think the EDP will gain seats and that the parliment will be one of the most diverse we have seen there will be majority party ,but it will not be a big majority and whoever wins will need to work with the other parties small and large to make things happen , the BN , EDP , greens , ukip christian alliance independents and many others will walk into a new parliment a parliment that will have to be open and public to the people and each mp will have to be answereable to his constiuants
Comment by ben weald — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Yes, folks.
It’s true.
All you need to become an EDP parliamentary candidate is £500 and a pulse.
Comment by SteveShark — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Oh the insults , i love the insults.
There is untold amounts of insults on the anti peter davies page as steve will tell you and has just shown you.
Steve’s favourite is if you decide not to answer a question you are said to take you ball away and not play because you will not play thier game , you have to be very carefull on thier page as they tend to put words in your mouth and make assumptions.
This is dangerous as it is always best to stick to the facts
Comment by ben weald — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
“Kim’s style is an attacking stance”
That’s strange…
I’ve just looked up ‘attacking’ in my dictionary and nowhere does it say that attacking means ‘rude’, ‘abusive’, ‘hysterical’, ‘insulting’ or ‘rabid’.
You must have the EDP Dictionary - a useful little pamphlet, but a bit lightweight for here.
Comment by SteveShark — 1 September, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
The thoughts of Chairman Ben #35:
“Isnt Ethnic like people who are say ethnic minorities so it would be not them and maybe people born here who have been genetically modified like crops are”
In answer to this question:
Ben, while you are there, can you tell us what we are supposed to make of someone who says that non-ethnic English are “creatures that are not even of the same genetic species”?
I am honestly not making this up.
Comment by SteveShark — 1 September, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
I am not going to enter into a debate steve as youcandebate with me when you choose to be poilite on the anti pd page and i will reframe from making some comments onwhat you have said as i will not go that low
Comment by ben weald — 1 September, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Mornin’.
“Ben Deafdude Weald 24 July at 20:54 Report
Hey little BOY TAKE A CHILL PILL AND LEARN TO GROW UP AND BE GOOD , ASK YOUR MUMMY AND DADDY TO CHANGE YOUR NAPPY WHEN YOU FIND THEM.
OH AND BEFORE YOU MOAN AND RUN CRYING TO THE PEOPLE ONTHE ANTI DAVIES PAGE I AM TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ME FULLY AND DONT MAKE ANY MISTAKES ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING.
BOY ”
Don’t you dare say you won’t go that low, Ben.
Comment by LoudMimeDave — 2 September, 2009 @ 2:25 am
By the way, the above is a direct copy and paste from my Facebook inbox, a message I recieved from Ben after questioning the way his party was led and if he was decent political material.
Comment by LoudMimeDave — 2 September, 2009 @ 2:27 am
On the England Facebook page, some of the members are discussing what cabinet post they’d like when the EDP sweep into power.
Michelle-Louise Lewis makes this comment:
I would be Foreign Secretary. I did mention soemthing about Pikeys and Chavs being put in a Labour Camp and having experiments and cosemtics performed on them. Is that too strong?
Now, that may be a joke - in which case it’s a sick one - or it may not.
Whatever it is, it’s an indication of how some of the most vociferous EDP members think.
Defend that, Ben Weald.
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Kim Gandy
all forms of political correctness should be rooted out and abolished. Common sense policies should be put in its place. I feel that the perpetrators of pc should undergo a medical examination. Seriously.These people are off their rocker. They have to be to think up the crackpot schemes and take offence at nursery rhymes and golliwogs. I mean; those are NOT the thoughts and actions of NORMAL people.
Then would it be the camps for them?
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
post 124
If someone decides to have a dig at somebody and only shows half the story it is classed a fiction if somebody decides to have a dig at somebody and shows the whole story , it then turns from fiction to the truth , you have to look at the wider picture of why things are said and when they are said not just in and around posts but the days or so before posts are made to understand the fuller picture.
If you happen to go to the Anti Peter Davies page on facebook and scroll through many days and weeks of posts , yes you will find me there getting very frustrated by the people on there trying to answer questions they put but you will also find most of the time answers given are often rebuffed and you get abuse especially from steve shark as he is called on here.
If you decide to go you will see me being annoyed and angry and reacting to thier comments as any human being would do.
But as i have said before it is down to the people who read on what they think.
If you look at one of the above messages you will see the words defend that ben weald , they ask you questions and NO i will not defend that as unless you look at the England page you will not see the entire thread and if it has another meaning , then again it may not and it may mean what it says , i refuse to defend something as it is not my doing and maybe the person isnt even a member of the English Democrats as it is an open page and anyone can comment and if we try and defend every comment we dont agree with , it would proberly take up quite alot of our time.
When I / we refuse of choose not to answer something it is again thrown back in our faces , so what ever happens if you do post and answer you quite often lose and if you dont answer you lose.
Again it is down to the reader to decide who is right and who is wrong.
With reflection on post loud mouth dave shows he really doesnt like me because of what i stand for which is a party for England with the people of England at its helm driving England towards a future that is bright for our children and thier children and thier childrens , children , an England with an English Parliment like the other British countries and an England that has equality withing the union , also an England that is one England and not split into regions so that as a country we do not exist.
Yes there is more and we want seats in the next election to show what we can do and prove oursleves like peter davies has done in many ways.
But we NEED TO BE GIVEN the chance to do this and if you meet one of us out on the streets as many people have met me , most people agree with what we are saying and what we stand for.
We are passionate about our cause and our party and we will fight people for England in as many elections as possible.
If people have questions i will quite happily answer them via the England page to the best of my ability and if i do not know an answer there will always be somebody who can answer , but be made aware I will not tolerate abuse of any kind.
Comment by ben weald — 2 September, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
If you read Lewis’ comment
“I would be Foreign Secretary. I did mention soemthing about Pikeys and Chavs being put in a Labour Camp and having experiments and cosemtics performed on them. Is that too strong?”
in the thread in question you can see it in context.
I’m afraid that no matter how I try and interpret what she says - on a parameter that runs from joke to serious suggestion - I can see no possible way in which this comment cannot be seen as anything but truly repulsive.
What she suggests is well described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
And now her comment has gone…
There’s a halfhearted apology from her:
“Apologies if I made a too strong a post on Kim’s blog earlier but it is just my thoughts about having to put up with all this nonsense.”
But fortunately I have it all screencapped.
Oh, I forgot…you don’t like screencaps.
Tough.
As for the rest of your whining self-pitying garbage, get used to people criticising you.
That’s politics for you and so far you’ve had an easy ride.
Wait till the real critics get their claws into you.
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Very aggressive stance there by Mr Shark.
As i have just posted on the ANTI Peter Davies page , it has been comments about obscene posts being not removed which was criticism of some of the people on the said page and now the England admin have removed something for what ever reason they are not happy again , it is a lose lose situation which is what i would expect.
You can also see Mr Shark showing his true colours with teh remarks garbage which is quite mild.
If the real critics gave us an easy ride there would be something very wrong
Comment by ben weald — 2 September, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Aggressive?
Aw…poor little Ben.
My heart bleeds for you.
My true colours?
Who cares?
It’s not me standing for parliament.
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
As long as what I say can be backed with evidence then you’ll just have to suck it up.
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Wow. If Ben thinks Steve’s post was aggressive, what does he make of Kim Gandy’s post earlier in this thread?
Comment by Jamie — 2 September, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
With reflection on post loud mouth dave shows he really doesnt like me because of what i stand for which is a party for England with the people of England at its helm driving England towards a future that is bright for our children and thier children and thier childrens , children , an England with an English Parliment like the other British countries and an England that has equality withing the union , also an England that is one England and not split into regions so that as a country we do not exist.
“loud mouth dave”
Ooh no, siree.
Ben’s never aggressive.
“Hey little BOY TAKE A CHILL PILL AND LEARN TO GROW UP AND BE GOOD , ASK YOUR MUMMY AND DADDY TO CHANGE YOUR NAPPY WHEN YOU FIND THEM.”
Not that Ben.
Comment by SteveShark — 2 September, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Shark,
With regard to Mrs Lewis’ comments - AND IT IS MRS LEWIS TO YOU BOY. LEARN SOME MANNERS.
She apologised because it wasn’t strong enough…
Pikey and Chav loving scum. The day is coming when we all hang you!
Comment by Stormfront — 3 September, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
A typical Socialist Unity person….
Inbred, retarded, sheepshagging, pigshagging, breed like rabbits, sponge off the state, never worked a day in your life, no personal hygiene, hates soap and water, criminal, kiddie feeler, illiterate, thinkin society owes you a living, smackhead….
Comment by Stormfront — 3 September, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Sounds like a nice chap.
Is everyone getting the message about this crowd yet?
Comment by Mr Rob — 3 September, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
I am getting a message here , But the message is confusing , it just shows politics for what it is and that the two groups can not agree.
It would appear Steveshark is quite agrressive in his style and I have had a quick look at the anti Peter Davies page and , he is throughout aggressive when dealing with people not of his page and who disagree.
Also it would appear this Ben needs to check what he says on the above said page so as not to get into trouble , but on the England page his postings are quite sensible , But i have checked out the England page and it would seam if they controlled thier posters a bit more it would be better and some of the admins need to calm down a little
Comment by racaul — 4 September, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I would also like to say i am niether for the English Democrats nor against them.
I would again like to point out , that so i am not sean as biased , others or the Anti Peter Davies page , like John Ryder and Liam come across very well and do seam to be well organised in how they operate.
The last point i would make is sometimes on both pages all is not what it seams , but i have not posted on either page to find out what reactions i get.
Comment by racaul — 4 September, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
You seem rather familiar, racaul.
Have we ‘met’ before?
Comment by SteveShark — 4 September, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Why has Andy not deleted the comments by Nazis above?
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 4 September, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
#141
Wouldn’t it be better to show anyone passing through what these people are really like Keith? I think right now certain people are wishing like hell they had never come somewhere where they can’t edit all the comments in their favour, like they do on their own site. By their words shall ye know them
Comment by Mr Rob — 4 September, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
I have not met anyone who as you put it wished they had never come where they can not edit all the comments.
Comment by Ben weald — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
I wonder why they do so much of it on their own page then Ben, if they are happy to engage in open and uncensored debate.
Comment by Mr Rob — 7 September, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
The reason is because if people to look at tonights postings on the Anti Peter Davies page , they would see or anybody would see that people like Steve are unable to asnwer questions , that are put to them and if you go back a day or so others do the same and twist things around.
It has been said tonight that my English is terrible , but i am open to debate with people who are reasonable and the people on the above said page are far from reasonable.
I posted a questiion to steve which he has not been able to answer and stated to him when he was able to answer it , to send me a message , this will never happen.
He also stated that if he had a doctor who’s English was bad he would not give him a chance he would prefer to change doctors , so a doctor who has come here from another country who has taken up a surgery and is willing to work his trade would not be given a chance , it was stated on the Anti PD page there are ways of making people understand but steve would not be willing to try these ways.
Also another has called myself a little jumped up whatever becuase my wife made a posting , the insults are rife on the Anti Peter Davies page and most of them are coming from those it that group.
They often on the anti peter davies page slam the ENGLAND page for deleting posts when it was admitted the other day that they have actually deleted posts themselves but when challenged on this they stated only 2 had been deleted , But the question is how do people know this is the truth , they call this censoring.
The anti peter davies page is now very often doing what in earlier days they crtisized the EDP page for.
We are not perfect , i am far from perfect and i have many faults , but before people have a go at me at least get to know me first and see what makes me tick.
Comment by Ben weald — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Total misreprentation of what I said.
My point was that if my GP’s English was so bad that we couldn’t communicate properly then - over something as vital as my health - I’d change GPs.
That doctor could be black, white, Asian, or Martian and green.
It wouldn’t matter.
His ability to speak and understand English does.
Comment by SteveShark — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
To actually read what was said go to the Anti Peter Davies page and read the comments.
You will have to go back to yesterday and see other commenst about learning difficulties and a one legged ballerina that Steve said about and it would be clearer as well then.
If the word communicate had of been used it would have been completely different.
Steve also asked for me to clarify my disability or learning difficulty and when i did he had no reply as he could not say anything , as did Mr Ryder
Comment by Ben weald — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Showing thier true colours in style.
The Anti Peter Davies page 8/8/09
Talking about a fellow human being in the best possible way , it would appear they think.
At 6:44pm the poster called the area chair of the English Democrats a moron , thick and an idiot in his puddle of wee and then followed it up with calling him a lunatic.
Then at 6:55 the next poster actually spoke Steve Uncles name and finished the posting off by saying “Actually if we keep going maybe he’ll drown…”
As has been said above now showing thier true colours with style.
Comment by Ben weald — 8 September, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
If anyone out there still has the misfortune to be reading this, Steve has cleared up what he said (though go and look by all means - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=97541711484 - it’s all on the wall), so just to clear up the puddle of wee mentioned above….
The EDP have an official who posts as Atticvs - he is fond of mocking what he has read (or had read to him) on the anti-mayor Facebook group on his Twitter account, although he seldom has the courage to debate openly. On his Twitter, his favourite phrase is “pmsl”, pissed myself laughing - now are things becoming clearer?
The reference to Steve Uncles in the post that Ben mentioned above had nothing to do with the subsequent comment that he has accurately quoted…that, of course, was a reference to Atticvs, as anyone with an elementary grasp of the English language and an ability to follow a very simple conversation would have realised.
Unfortunately Ben Weald does not fall into this category, and seems to be so profoundly stupid as to draw attention to his own lack of understanding by attempting to use this as a weapon with which to denigrate others.
Ben Weald is the English Democrats Party candidate to be MP for Enfield and Southgate.
Comment by Mr Rob — 9 September, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
I must thank Mr Rob for his delightful insults.
For some reason he does not post as himself on here but posts as Mr Rob on in other places as well and uses the same profile picture and does go by the name at least on the Anti Peter Davies page anyway as John Ryder.
I can also assure everybody that i do understand what is put and written , but there people do like thier games.
Comment by Ben weald — 9 September, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Ah, given away by that damned avatar picture again eh? Curses, I should have known that a sharp fellow like you would spot that one, Ben.
Comment by Mr Rob — 9 September, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
I have to say reading the comments on here and I have been on the Anti page to read it a couple of times ,but have yet to post , but any comment that at all that wishes somebody to drown weather whatever the reason needs thier head examined.
I have been on the ENGLAND page a couple of times and seen some of the English Democrats Party candidate to be MP for Enfield and Southgate , Ben Wealds Post and he comes across as a nice fellow , but as i am not in the said area i will not be able to vote for him.
Having read the manifesto , I like what i have seen in it and like what I have seen on the facebook page , so I am hoping they will field a candidate in my area as if they do i will suppoort them.
Comment by Ram raider — 9 September, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Would anyone care to compare the final three words of the first sentence of the above post by Ram raider with the final three words of post #150 by Ben Weald?
Yes, that’s right…
Comment by Mr Rob — 9 September, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Sadly, any political party or organisation that includes the words “British” or “English” in it’s title will, invariably, attract some moron or other that sees a chance to get a public airing of his or her vile racist rants. I read the EDP manifesto and constitution before joining, if i had felt that the party was racist i would not have joined. True, some points do seem, at first glance, to be rather radical, but the point is that the whole idea of the party is to put the English first in England. Nobody seemed to mind when the Scottish and Welsh assemblies did it. I have no problem with any individual on account of skin colour, but i am sick of being marginalised in my own country and of being told that i should be sorry for our imperialist past. Well hello, i wasn’t there!!!! People wantine the best for England would be well advised to start working together and not slagging each other off.
Comment by Terry Underwood — 4 October, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
#154, Terry Underwood, in what way are you marginalised in your own country ?
Who or what are you marginalised by ?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 4 October, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#154 What about your imperialist present?
Comment by Anonymous — 4 October, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
I only got an orange and a pair of socks for mine.
Comment by external bulletin — 4 October, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
#157, ours was an aircraft carrier contract but I think there might be a product recall notice on it, due to lack of cash in the bank.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 4 October, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
why is being anti-immigrant considered “far-right”? every nation in the world has a right to ensure the demographic rights of their indigenous populations, that includes the english. and before you start whining about how it doesn’t matter about race or colour, remember the days when leftists would foam at the mouth over south africa, but remain silent over the thousands of people being murdered by mugabe in the 1980s, when he was wined and dined by britain’s liberal elite; and the millions who died under the dictators of congo and uganda. nobody ever seemed to mind, but those nasty white south africans who didn’t want to live next to the blacks, how evil, ohohoh…. i know the left is very comfortable with hypocrisy, (you people are drowning in it,) but please, stop hiding the fact that you only like immigration because it is part of your n.w.o.bankster agenda, and in order to see this come to life, you first have to destroy the sovereign nation-state, and what better way to do that, than to change the demographics, making the native population into a minority. we are waking up to you interNATIONAL-SOCIALISTS.
Comment by alex — 23 October, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Oh Dear , here we go again , same old loonie cant .Extreme left is right all else is wrong.Have you all forgotten that now as always the Left Extemists worldwide are killing at least as many, and terrorising as least as many as the Extreme right . The BNP , as nasty as they may be ; are in reality no worse (in fact probably a bit better than UAF ,or the Unions , to my best knowledge ; no one has yet ben coerced into the BNP.
Not too long ago , when the Soviets had a lot of Europe under the Jackboot (not much changed there then ) We in the forces , who were doing our best to counter that threat , we came home to find Communists in Parliament ,The Unions On
Comment by John Lillywhite — 22 January, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
I think that YOU are the danger to society rather than the English Democrats Party.
Do you regard Plaid Cymru and the SNP as racist parties?
They are not racist,they just want the same as English patriots want - their country back and their own Parliament.
Comment by Mike — 27 April, 2010 @ 12:59 am
“Most people, including those in Scotland, think England should have its own parliament, a BBC poll suggests.
Newsnight found 61% in England, 51% in Scotland and 48% in Wales agreed with the idea.
The poll, carried out to mark 300 years since the Act of Union, was of 883 adults in England, 543 in Scotland and 527 in Wales.”
That is so true, ask yourself as an Englshman, do you like your hard earned taxes being sent to the other parts of the UK , where they have their own constituents ?
Me personally will be voting EDP, we can do with as many of these guys in the corner to get England back to two it should be again, I’m not racist, my best friend is from India, my sons girlfriend of afro Caribbean descent , but this immigration thing has got to stop, lets give the doctors and nurses a bit of a break at the hospitals, the tax office staff, and everyone working their nuts off because of it. Lets give the builders their jobs back so they stop being undercut by groups of polish who will build a bad spec job, AND LIVE IN THE HOUSE WHILST DOING IT, all for peanuts. These Englishman have families, and if it carries on the roles will reverse , it will be them queuing at the dole office….. Make Britain Great Again, one Country at a time !!
Comment by Bouncy Castle Hire in Weston-Super-Mare — 27 April, 2010 @ 6:38 am
Having come across the hateful bile of Kim Gandy many times before, I was not surprised to see how she posted on this thread.
Hilariously, and typically for Gandy, her assertion that her days in the EDP are *not* numbered are somewhat contradicted by the fact that she stood for election in West Ham under the UKIP banner this year. And appears to have lost her deposit.
Frankly it amazes me that anyone listens to this bigoted creature. If I had £1 for every time she said “I haven’t read your posts but…” and her personal favourite phrase “brain vomit”, then I’d be Lord Ashcroft’s boss.
Kim - I know you won’t be back to read this, but once again thanks for the laughs. All at your expense, as ever.
Comment by Doug — 10 May, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
It’s great to see the nazis and racists smashed in this election. It shows that we can fight racist anti-immigration and Islamophobia and win. The BNP are out for the count for now so we can target the EDP and sweep aside these racist homophobes as well. Their call for an English parliament is a ruse to stoke up race hatred. The electorate rejected such nonsense so let’s get rid of them.
Comment by Ray — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
#164
Ray
I am not sure whether you are a congenital idiot or just a complete fool.
The EDP have positioned themselves as a centre-right party, and are blighted by idiots like Steve Uncles, and the extraordinary foolishness of a naive association with the quasi-fascist England First party in the North West (courtesy of the talentless Uncles).
But the EDP are NOT fascists, and their campiagn for an English parliament is certainly nothing to do with race.
Do you seak for the SWP, or UAF? Is that your next idiocy, to seek to extend the “anti-Nazi” bandwagon into a campaign against constituitional, centre-right parties?
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Ray are you saying that people who support an English parliament are closet racists? If not, you need to be clearer in what you say.
Comment by Evan — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
I can see Ray getting on the SWP Central Committee pretty soon. Keep it up Ray you dolt.
Comment by eamonn wright — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
#167 I thought he was.
Comment by Anonymous — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
“dolt”- that’s a word I haven’t seen for a long time.
It brings to mind old-fashioned schoolmasters.
Fettes your alma mater Eammon old chap?
Comment by Evan — 10 May, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Actually once worked on the roof at Fettes, cash in hand casual labourer. Always remember spitting down at the Finlays and Farquhars as they strolled around the lovely grounds.
Evan ive got a decent vocabulary cos im a working class autodidact, left school at 15.
Comment by eamonn wright — 10 May, 2010 @ 3:34 pm