Steadfast Voice of the English Community

Mental Health Foundation Report

Mental Health Foundation Report 

A YouGov survey commissioned by the Mental Health Foundation, found that 70% of people are most worried about terrorism and 58% by immigration. One of the consequences of these and other worries is that 15% of adults expressed a reluctance to have children. 27% felt less inclined to plan for the future.  The heavy promotion of immigration as an economic necessity and benefit for Britain in general and England in particular has ignored the psychological effects on the indigenous English.  Commenting on the research, clinical psychologist Dr Michael Reddy said: 

“Immigration ranks highly as a worry because humans identify themselves as belonging to particular groups who share the same values and codes of behaviour – this is one of our main ways of feeling secure. Feeling a threat to one’s group from an unknown force, such as immigration, can threaten this sense of security and make people feel anxious.” 

It appears that globalisation and the promotion of progressive values and policies has had harmful effects on those traditional communal structures which give people a sense of belonging, security and wellbeing. As societies and communities are transformed to meet the needs of economic globalisation, so the level of anxiety and frustration rises. People feel swept along by powerful groups and organisations which are moulding the world to suit their own interests. Individuals and communities feel powerless to control what is happening to them. This gives rise to heightened anger, anxiety and frustration which affects a person’s day-to-day life and mental wellbeing.  Dr Andrew McCulloch, Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation, pointed out that,  “If angst is reaching a level where adults are contemplating whether or not to have children, then this could be a serious mental health issue because the current global issues aren’t going away in a hurry.”

The survey also shows the different responses of men and women. Men felt more angry (53 to 48%), frustrated (49 to 44%) and cynical (32 to 25%) than women, while women say that they feel more anxious (39 to 30%), scared (23 to 11%) and vulnerable (39 to 26%) than men about global problems. Both men and women are made to feel depressed by the lack of power they have to influence changes to their way of life. One of the suggested ways to alleviate adverse feelings is to discuss problems with friends, family and more widely. It is unfortunate that public discussion of immigration is only thought acceptable in terms of economics despite it having severe adverse effects on communal life and the mental health of people who feel that their worries and interests are ignored.

That concern about immigration should bring a lower birth-rate is not good news for the already rapidly declining English community. More on this matter can be found under ‘Steadfast Home Page’ ‘Articles’.

Down but not out

Short statement by the Ethnic English Trust following an unsuccessful application in the High Court for a Judicial Review against the Commission for Racial Equality  

The Ethnic English Trust (EET) regrets the decision to refuse its application because it thought the application provided an opportunity for the court to clarify certain matters concerning English identity.  We thank everyone who sent donations – we are grateful for your support, which was a morale booster. Please see ‘thanks to donors’ on the home page. The other positives that have come from this matter are mainly to be seen in terms of practical and personal experience gained. We learnt much from pursuing this matter and believe it will be of help to us in the future. 

The Complaint & Judgement
The Trust argued that the Commission for Racial Equality had published misleading and inaccurate information which, when taken together, had the effect of obscuring the existence and status of the English racial group. The Trust produced a list of examples but the judge chose to look at them one by one and pointed out there was no error in law in any of them. So when, for example, CRE gave a list of racial groups and omitted the English it was not wrong in law, the list was merely incomplete – just a list of examples. There could be no Judicial Review of the code merely because of poor drafting. There would need to be clear and obvious mistakes that needed correction in the public interest. He held that there were no grounds to proceed and the application was refused. 

The Positive Side
Despite the decision there are positives. The judge found nothing objectionable in The Trust’s definition of its beneficiary group as being those who (a) would tick the ethnic English box on the new census form and (b) belonged to the racial group known in law as the English. He didn’t quibble with the Trust using the term ‘indigenous English’ to describe its beneficial group, but the judge was not prepared to say that ‘English racial group’ means the same in law as ‘indigenous English’. To have done so would have caused a major upheaval because it would conflict with the policies and mindset of the Government and Commission for Racial Equality. So, although the judge thought the matter of English identity and the status of the indigenous English in law was interesting, he did not think it the time and place to get involved in such things. 

What Happens Next?
Although we did not succeed in our application, our action on behalf of the indigenous English will have registered with those who govern us. This, together with other matters that the Trust and other English organisations are involved in, is sending a signal that there is disquiet and rumblings of rebellion amongst the indigenous English community. Perhaps those people who would prefer that we didn’t exist will simply take the route to conflict and devote more resources to convincing us that everyone living in England is English and that the ‘English racial group’ should be redefined in an inclusive way which strips the indigenous English of their communal identity. Hopefully they will shy away from that route and take a constructive approach which acknowledges the existence of the indigenous English (and the Scots and Welsh) and enable us to enjoy the same rights, benefits and privileges that other racial groups enjoy. We will see.  Tony Linsell – for and on behalf of the Ethnic English Trust 

A longer report is available under ‘Press Releases’ on the main website menu.

Commission for Racial Equality sued by the English for racial discrimination

The Commission for Racial Equality is being sued by the English for racial discrimination 

The Ethnic English Trust is suing the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in the High Court of England. The Trust alleges that CRE is unlawfully seeking to redefine membership of the racial group known in law as the English. The application is due to be heard on 24th September.

The indigenous English are recognised as a ‘racial group’ for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976 (“the RR Act”). The Trust believes that CRE in its publications and actions is deliberately misrepresenting the law and is intent on redefining ‘English’ to suit its own aims. Such redefinition is beyond the lawful powers of CRE. The Trust is concerned that such reinterpretation appears to be part of a strategy by CRE to deny the existence of an indigenous English community, (the English racial group) and thus deprive this community of the rights, protection and benefits granted to all racial groups in law.The Ethnic English Trust accepts that there are many meanings of ‘English’ and many views on the matter. This legal case is only concerned with the legal definition of ‘English’ under the RRAct. 

CRE and the Environment Agency - it’s kicked off!

The Ethnic English Trust

On March 2007 the Ethnic English Trust, a charitable company limited by guarantee, issued a claim form (formerly known as a writ) in the High Court of England against the Commission for Racial Equality.  The Trust alleges that the Commission has in relation to the English racial group (a) issued guidance in its codes for employers and public bodies which is wrong in law so as to conceal the legal recognition awarded to the English racial group; (b) acted outside its legal powers by seeking to redefine the English racial group, and (c) maintained, contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, a policy, practice or rule of racial discrimination against the English racial group. The matter has gone before a high court judge who will in September 2007 decide whether to grant the Trust permission to proceed.  Upon the grant of such permission the Trust will issue a press release for the benefit of persons outside the English Community.

The Wycliffe Trust
Abigail Howarth and the Environment Agency
The Environment Agency advertised a traineeship but on enquiring about the post Abigail Howarth was told that she should not apply because she is English. Members of every other ethnic group could apply, including “White-Scottish”, “White-Welsh” and “White-Irish”, but not “White-English”.A letter has been sent from the Wycliffe Trust to the Environment Agency concerning the lawfulness of the traineeship referred to and the way it was advertised under the Race Relation Act 1976. Information has also been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Unless the Environment Agency can show that the traineeship appointment advertised and the process for filing it is within the exemption of s37(1) or s38(1) of the Race Relations Act, or the Environment Agency agrees to remedy the situation and/or pay some form of compensation, the Wycliffe Trust will issue an application for judicial review proceedings.The Wycliffe Trust is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Application for charitable status is pending.