Thread: Alan England

Originally Posted by david H

I would add that Uncles and England have done much damage to English nationalism. They have caused you decent English nationalists to have many unnecessary hurdles to surmount.

This is pretty much my thinking on the matter. My 'agenda' is a parliament for England. What the English Democrats seem intent on doing is tying that goal into extraneous other demands on behalf of 'the English', in the vain hope, so far as I can tell, of drawing other nationalists (from UKIP and the BNP) to the cause for a parliament for England.

Instead of discussing this strategy the easy way out is to dismiss me as 'anti-English' or 'anti-white', or to point to the fact that I should be attacking the 'anglophobes' in the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties rather than the EDP. But obviously what the EDP do is within my sphere of activity and impacts upon what I am trying to achieve. The dismissals I can take because they are absurd.

I was at a seminar recently and a well known constitutionalist was asked by the chair what the support was for an English parliament. He turned to me, looked me in the eye, and mockingly said: "Let's ask Gareth shall we; Gareth, where did the English Democrats come in the recent election?" All the room laughed, knowing that the EDP had come below the Monster Raving Loony Party. So I said to the room, "I'm an English nationalist and I wouldn't vote for the EDP, and you wouldn't gauge the importance of environmental issues on how many people vote for the Green Party, so why apply the same logic to an English parliament?"

And there's the important thing. Despite what they tell themselves the English Democrats are not 'the English movement', they are a party not the issue, and certainly not the movement. To not vote for the English Democrats does not mean that you are 'anti-English' and nor does it make you an 'anglophobe' as Steve Uncles would have us believe, it doesn't even mean that you are opposed to an English parliament (you might, like me, be wildly and enthusiastically in favour of one). To criticise the English Democrats is not to undermine 'the English movement' (their phrase, not mine), anymore than criticising UKIP makes you an europhile. Unfortunately the English Democrats, at least the ones on this forum, are too stupid to separate out party from issue, manifesto from policy and identity from allegiance.

In my little piece on Our Kingdom I noted that "There's no room for dual identity on this turf, no place for hyphenated anglo-brits in this polarised world; you're either English and with us, or British and against us". Steve Uncles has proved me correct with his statement that "Not Voting English Democrats is Anti-English", from which we should presumably draw the conclusion that it is impossible to reconcile English identity - or at least primary political (national) identity - with political allegiance to Britain. The English Democrats, who willfully confuse ethnic cultural identity with political identity, think that an assertive ethnic English nationalism will be impossible to reconcile with political allegiance to Britain - which is one reason for 'converting' ethno-British nationalists to ethnic English nationalism. Whether or not this is actually desirable from either an ethical or political perspective is questionable, and for the tactic to work identity and allegiance should not be easily divided.

Consider the EDP's slogan "ENGLISH, british, or EUropean? YOU decide!" Essentially it's a forced choice, because you can't be both, or all three. They want you to primarily identify as English (which is the probably instinctive for most of us) and to follow that instinct through to the logical conclusion that your political allegiance should mirror your identity.

This sort of thing might make sense coming from the Free England Party but I don't think the EDP have really thought it through. Do I really have to decide whether I am English, British or European. How can I be English without being British or European? Are we talking about ethnicity - which the EDP seem very interested in - or are we talking about citizenship, in which case why not argue for independence from Britain as well as the EU.

The founding statement of the English Lobby contained the following:

"That the nationality of "English" is recognised as such and is accorded
the same respect as any other national identity and that people born in
England have the right to call themselves English if they so choose."

Essentially then, if we take this at face value, the English Lobby is calling for all people born in England to have "the right to call themselves English" irrespective of their race or ethnicity. Therefore the definition of 'English' is to include anyone and everyone born in England.

Yet Alan - Director of the English Lobby - clearly has a predilection for making distinction between 'whites' and 'so-called minorities', and 'alien' and 'indigenous' cultures. So events like the Notting Hill Carnival have, in the words of Alan England, "all been imposed with presumed consent on the English". However, by the English Lobby's own definition it is fairly likely that the majority of people taking part in the Notting Hill Carnival ARE English by dint of the fact that they were born here.

So if I was an English person of Afro-Caribbean decent who was refused permission to hold a festival, would the English Lobby support me in my case for discrimination. Or would Alan England turn around and say ""I oppose these alien events in England, whether they be Burns Night, St Patrick's P*ss Ups, Dhivali, Kalees [English spelling], Notting Hill Carnival etc etc which have all been imposed with presumed consent on the English!"

Who are the English who have had these thing imposed upon them? Can they be defined? And how does this marry with the English democracy for the people of England that the English Democrats are hoping to achieve? Should we even take the opinions of Alan England to have any relevance whatsoever to the English Democrats, or is there an ideological separation between the two organisations of which Robin Tilbrook is head? Would Robin Tilbrook and Alan England represent the England First Party with whom the English Democrats are allied?

Ideologically it seems very sloppy to me. The English Democrats should provide clarification and be more upfront about their precise involvement with the English Lobby and how it helps promote the case for an English parliament (and what sort of English parliament). They should also be more open about their meetings and cooperation with white nationalists, and their strategy of 'extracting' nationalists from the BNP who might not agree that everyone should be able to call themselves English.

The conduct of senior EDP members is damaging to both the EDP and the wider movement for an English parliament.

Regrettably, I?m voting UKIP A National Conversation For England

Readers here should be concerned about the animosity which infests Gareth Young. In order to concoct some kind of case to discredit me, Gareth has taken selected extracts out of context, omitting the time and the place in which each extract was posted together with accompanying text. Where are the 'balancing' comments about white people, or are they too inconvenient for Gareth's misrepresentations? Surely any reasonable and fair-minded person would be concerned about Gareth's incomplete and deliberately skewed posts here, but this is his standard practice.

It might be more useful to identify Gareth's own agenda and how this connects with the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) with which Gareth is closely and predominently associated; just what is HIS political goal? In view of his postings, WE could ask what is Gareth's main agenda for England and whether it is:
(1) non-English rights;
(2) supporting the imposition of foreign cultures;
(3) promoting Islam;
(4) promoting the EU and
(5) supporting the creation of an English Parliament? On the evidence, Gareth sees them as part of the same war.

With such a prominent CEP figure as Gareth being involved, are we really expected to continue to swallow the fiction that the CEP is not associated with any particular political party. Are we not equally entitled to ask whether Gareth has been and is using the CEP to promote his particular beliefs, as a vehicle for his antipathy to the English Democrats? Certainly, the CEP's own blog ~ which Gareth controls as webmaster ~ has been abused by him to disseminate his personal bile. It is important to know what kind of personality we are dealing with here and the deceitful methods he uses to mislead and to cloak his inadequacies.

We may also consider whether Gareth's personal agenda is complementary to the political goal of the CEP, or whether his malign posts often obscure, or even bring into disrepute, the political objective of the Campaign. Consider: he has put up posts after post, here and elsewhere critical not only of me, but Steve Uncles and the EDP. I am not aware of a single post critical of the the Labour Party or the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats - certainly nothing remotely in the same vein. Are we to conclude that all those associated with all other political parties hold opinions which are entirely consistent with the declared policies of those parties? Were the oppositional activities of individuals in this country's politics such as Ian Mikardo, Nye Bevan, Jennie Lee, Stafford Cripps [even expelled from the Labour Party before the War], Tom Driberg, Tereasa Gorman, Bill Cash and other 'EU rebels' fictional and pure myth?

Is it solely the English Democrats which differ in this respect, or is it yet another example in which anyone or anything overtly, declaredly English must be singled out and treated differently, more harshly? The conclusion must be that, on the evidence, Gareth Young is very much associated with the EDP by reason of his selective and discriminatory public postings! True his is not the customary constructive type of association, but it is an association nevertheless. Taken in the round ~ something Gareth avoids for himself ~ his default position is against the English Democrats; it cannot be otherwise given his proud claim never to have been a member of a political party and his failure to treat other political parties similarly.

If the English Democrats do fail, Gareth can claim his fair share of debit, for his part in obstructing progress in ways and to an extent he has not directed at other political parties antithetic to the English Cause. I shall not forget.


.

Originally Posted by cassie

I shall not forget.

Is there some sort of threat implied here? It reminds me of the time you quit another forum and sent the administrator this charming message "Do you really claim to be English? I think not! Maybe I'll eyeball you one day ~ we'll see how bold you are then."

Originally Posted by Toque

Is there some sort of threat implied here?

No answer? It's probably bluster anyway. As one former EDP member informed me:

The redness of his font has a positive correleation with his level of self rightious indignation, unfortunately it also has an inverse relationship with his sensibilities. I've taken Alan to task many times in the past and now just ignore him completely, he once challenged my service record so I told him that at the next agm I would bring it in, let him read it, then feed it to him, when my wife and I saw him at the AGM in Leeds he was most apologetic and very sycophantic, I asked him if he would like some sauce to have with his humble pie. Since that time he has never said a cross word to me! He is harmless for the most part but i still have huge reservations about his authenticity.