Special Edition
Special Issue September 2007

Contents

Editorial
Justice for England March
Wall to Wall Propaganda
The Census + Charities
Nationality & Ethnicity
The Legacy of William Tyndale
Ethnic English Trust & Wycliffe Trust
The Steadfast Trust

Justice for England March, Whitehall - May 2007
Lots of press photographers; lots of journalists, no coverage. Why?
(for photographs see pdf version)

Is there another way?

At Steadfast we are more concerned with justice for the English rather than justice for a personified England. It is not England that has a culture, language and communal identity, it is the English, the people who gave England its name. This may seem a mere quibble to some but it is crucial to understanding the problems we face, who our potential supporters are and how we can successfully gain their support.
Steadfast seeks to defend and promote the interests of the English – and that means the ethnic or indigenous English or those who are recognised in law as belonging to a racial group known as the English. In pursuing our objectives we are doing what thousands of other organisations do for hundreds of other ethnic groups. But we will deal with that in what follows here and future editions of Steadfast.
Having got that out of the way it should be made clear that nothing written here is meant to decry either the effort of those who travelled from all over England to take part in the demonstration, or the skill and hard work of the organisers; we have admiration for them all.

Those who promote a political idea must use all the lawful methods and opportunities open to them to do so. A demonstration whether reported or not can be an effective message to the political establishment - telling, or warning, them that there is a view or complaint which they should address or suppress. However, the primary aim is to bring the idea to the attention of the public through media reports of the event. In this respect the Justice for England march was unsuccessful. However, it served another important function, which is to bring hundreds of people together and let them see and hear that others share their concerns and aspirations. It was a boost to communal morale that is worth more than any amount of email messages.

The problem of course is getting news of events such as this past the gatekeepers who control access to the media – especially the broadcasting media, which the great unwashed tend to believe. Why and how, despite a good attendance by demonstrators, media cameras and journalists, was there no coverage? The official answer is that there are demonstrations almost daily and they can’t all be reported. The truthful answer is that they report events that fit their agenda or when the views expressed by the demonstrators are not ones that conflict with their values and perceptions. A recent example of this was the TV coverage given to a group of about five demonstrators who stood outside an Australian government building to protest about the treatment of immigrants in Australia. Pictures of that went around the world.
The reason for there being no coverage of the English demonstration was simply that the British unionist establishment disapproved of its message and saw it as a threat. It may come as a shock to some, but news of some events is blocked in a chummy informal way.