There is a story in the UK media (see here for the Daily Mail version) about how local residents in the Bournemouth area of southern England have banded together to form “vigilante” groups – working with local police, it should be noted – to deal with crime.
When temperatures hit the mid-30s last month, brawls broke out in broad daylight, while a woman in her late teens was raped in a beachside public toilet just days later leading to the arrest of a man who has now been released on bail.
And many residents have had enough, with more than 200 volunteers including security professionals and first aiders signing up to the Safeguard Force to tackle the tourist hotspot’s descent into lawlessness.
The group, set up by local businessman Gary Bartlett, aims to ‘protect the most vulnerable in our town – especially women, children and the elderly’.
They have already raised more than £3,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy body cameras, stab vests and radios.
It would be easy to focus on the continued degradation and decline of the UK, the nastiness, nihilism, scruffiness and genuine shitty state of it all. Reeves. Starmer, etc. But I want to take a slightly different tack.
The tack – hauling in the mainsail, lads! – is that this shows that when pushed sufficiently, people can and do band together to bring certain outcomes about, and seek to frustrate others. A few weeks ago I re-read, after many years, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book, Democracy in America. He noted the enthusiasm with which American citizens formed associations of all kinds, from the frivolous to the deadly serious. Around the time he wrote that book (in two volumes, the first was completed in the 1830s, the second in the 1840s) the UK had gone through the experiment, under Sir Robert Peel, of forming official police forces, starting with the Metropolitan Police, aka “The Met”. His principles of how a police force should operate are still referred to. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were societies for the “prosecution of felons” – a classic case of a private provider of a “public good”.
There is, in most developed countries, a sort of social compact: The State will take on the role of seeking to catch and deter criminals, and in return, the citizens will abjure the freedom to take the law into their own hands. This compact has to work to a certain level of effectiveness. When police become distracted by politically motivated rubbish, such as “non-crime hate incidents” and so forth, and morale is damaged (many coppers have left the forces, because they are angry about such nonsense), you get a problem. Crime clear-up rates are low; I come across complaints that people rarely bother to log crimes out of cynicism that not much will be done. And then there are worries that crimes against persons and property appear to be treated more leniently than fashionable concerns. Result: the compact is fraying to the point of breakdown.
And so we have what is happening in Bournemouth. This will spread. I can expect to read more articles about people learning self-defence, increased community patrols, and controversies about what the limits are in being able to enforce laws. (It is worth remembering that at this point, it is legally difficult for UK citizens to use lethal force in self-defence.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, in public policy as much as anything else. There are going to be consequences. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” are going to be more in evidence.
Ah yes…….the war torn & dangerous streets of Bournemouth.
I’ll believe in the “little platoons” when I see them out actively confronting in Central London/Birmingham/Liverpool/Manchester & Newcastle….
It’s actually the smaller towns where, very often, really bad things happen…
Gradually, then all-at-once . . . .
llater,
llamas
NickM, exactly. I thought David Morris’ comment was dismissive, to be polite.
In any event, Bournemouth is worth noting precisely because its image in the past was that of a genteel seaside town. No longer.
Check this out:
Considering that the police, as well as the policial class, has capitulated by and large to the muslim invaders what’s the use of working with the local police.
I almost cited this:
It is my belief Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.
-Sherlock Holmes.
Yes, JP, many of our resort towns have indeed become utter dens of iniquity. God knows what Basil would make of it…
I suspect they had no alternative to do so.
Never thought I’d see the day when my entrepreneurial friends would be discussing smuggling stuff into . . . England!
But here we are.
My mother had an expression: “why have a dog and bark yourself?” which I suppose in retrospect is rather rude.
It seems a very sad indictment of Britain that they have a fully paid professional police force and criminal investigation squad, but need to resort to the posse as if they were in the lawless wild west.
And the saddest thing of all? I’d suggest that they should NOT work closely with the local police since they are probably more likely to get arrested themselves for some inappropriate remark or trivial violation than any actual criminal.
Such groups of ordinary people have a long tradition in this land – far older than police forces, which only became compulsory in 1856.
Sometimes they acted on their own bringing criminals to justice – there was no such thing as “Public Prosecution”, apart from offenses directly against the Crown, before the 1870s. And sometimes they acted because a Justice of the Peace or a Sheriff of the County appealed for aid.
Neither unpaid J.Ps. or the unpaid Sheriffs had any forces of their own – to enforce the law they had to call on the people to help them.
In 1911 (yes as late as that) police in London, finding themselves outgunned by criminals, called upon armed passers-by to help them.
In London in 1911, unlike New York, there were no “gun control laws”.
A follower of Jeremy Bentham, Sir Edwin Chadwick, attacked private action to uphold justice – and wrote reports to try and discredit private action.
Sadly some historians still take the reports of Sir Edwin Chadwick, on a wide variety of matters, as objective truth – in reality they are ideological documents designed to promote a larger and more active state.
Such thinkers as Chadwick and Bentham seem to have drawn their inspiration from the Prussia of Frederick the Great.
By what law should the people act?
By the non aggression principle – natural law, natural justice.
As Bracton (Judge as well as Churchman) pointed out back in the 1200s even the King is not above the law – on the contrary he is under the law, and “Parliament” did not exist in the time of Bracton.
No “Rex” (King) if WILL replaces LEX (the law – specifically the principles of natural justice).
Two questions arise – was the act a violation (was it an aggression against the body or goods of another person) and was the action voluntarily chosen, by someone who could have chosen to do otherwise (determinism and the fraud of “compatibilism” are not compatible with justice) – if they did not CHOOSE to do what they did, there may be a tort (damages for an accidental action), but there is no crime – for there is no “guilty mind” as Bracton put it.
In effect Bracton refuted Thomas Hobbes (and later philosophers such as Hume and Bentham) centuries before Thomas Hobbes was born.
And law is NOT the whims of judges – for judges themselves are under (not over) the principles of law.
“But Paul such principles of natural justice are no longer taught – indeed they are mocked by the modern legal establishment”.
Perhaps – but if (if) that is the case, then this system will eventually collapse – and rightly so.
With all due respect, from the other side of the Atlantic it looks like Britain is lost to the invaders. If your local Committees of Vigilance become in any way effective; you can surely expect that the Coercive Organs of State Power will be exclusively aimed at the Committees. And I expect that deadly force will by used by said Organs.
Subotai Bahadur
I can’t really tell if they’re lost to the invaders, or to the Bringers Of The Invasion.
I suspect they could win a civil war against the invaders and still face national ruin – the invaders are more of a symptom of ruin – but a civil war against the government could actually result in a national restructuring.
I see my maxim of “Police do not exist to protect citizens from criminals, but criminals from citizens” is being proven true. Again.
The European Convention of Human Rights, by instituting an elitist kritocracy, has all but negated these “Little Platoons” before they have even started.
I agree with the Paul Marks, more likely these people, however well meaning, are going to be primary victims of the police under non-crime crimes.
Your little platoons will be called right wing death squads, the official police will be asked to hunt them down.
And being civil servants the official police will try, badly, and fail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/08/police-warn-wrexham-shopkeeper-thieves-scumbags/
This is the sort of thing British Plod cares about.
Marius,
True. But it is so much easier than actually catching violent criminals isn’t it? Anyway, even if they do… This happens…
Look at the plight of that! It identifies as a “woman”. It can’t even be arsed to shave.
Fred_Z,
Already anyone who is more liberal* than of Ed Davey is “far right”. So, they’d be “FAR Right Death Squads”.
*I mean that in the classical sense. William Gladstone was a NAZI, right?
It’s easy to focus on those things if you spend too much time cooking your brain by doomscrolling social media. Fraser Nelson makes a good case against the ‘broken UK’ narrative
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/violent-lawless-broken-britain-reform-dt0skh6wf
Mila s
Sadly Fraser Nelson is mistaken – as will become increasingly obvious over the coming years.
Milas, I haven’t a Times sub so I’ll take your word for it that the article says crime data and fears of broken Britain are overwrought. Fraser Nelson is a good journalist and not someone to underestimate problems. He has done important work about the horrendous dependency culture in the country, truancy and the devastation of lockdowns.
But I don’t think worries about crime can be pushed aside. Petty crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism seem to be bad in some towns and cities. It also affects poor by pushing up prices.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/24/shoplifting-uk-crime-retail-police-ons-data
Here are official crime statistics. The government notes the caveats about police reporting. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2024
The citizens of Bournemouth aren’t necessarily going to parse official reports. They’ll look at what they see in front of them. And that’s why they’ve acted. If you or anyone else want to convince them that they’re delusional, good luck.
There’s another point. Even if overall crime levels are down in the U.K., the sense of things coming apart isn’t just about doomscrolling or whatever. Based just on my own experience as a Londoner, it does seem scruffier and more weighed down. Some of that maybe that as I’ve aged and become more intolerant of slovenly behaving more alert to stuff I didn’t really notice in my younger days. But I dint think that’s the only factor.
Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph argues for NY-style zero-tolerance policing that cracks down on stopping vandalism, theft and antisocial behaviour. A reason is to shift expectations across a culture about what’s acceptable.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2024
From what I’ve read the crime stats Fraser Nelson cites omit shoplifting, which is rather convenient if you’re trying to present crime as falling. The fact that pretty basic items like coffee have security tags on in supermarkets just illustrates how bad shoplifting is in many parts of the UK. It’s not as bad as it is in many US cities, but it is definitely worse than it used to be.
I keep seeing stats that purport to show how we are safer than ever from crime. But, I wonder.
In some states, the numbers of crimes seem stable. But it is important WHERE crimes are occurring within those states, too.
Used to be, the Violent Underclass victimized their own neighborhoods. High stats, but most normies merely read about it – it didn’t happen where we were.
But now, the VU has branched out, and few places are immune from their efforts.
So all of us normies are now seeing it. Our enclaves – i.e., anywhere where the VU don’t live – are approaching the crime levels of the worse places.
Bank robber Willie Sutton supposedly said that he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. The VU has now figured that out for its own benefit.
Apologies for commenting off-topic, but i fear that i’ll forget about this by the time i can post on-topic.
NY Post via Instapundit:
This bears on previous discussions on this forum, about freedom of speech: its ideal limits, if any; and its actual limits in the US.
It also bears on my previous rants about mental health, if you think about it.
Johnathan Pearce – crimes are often not even reported any more, as it is considered pointless to report them to police forces who will not try and solve the crimes and bring the thieves to justice.
Fraser Nelson is a good man – but, like so many conservatives of a certain age (and I know the feeling) he wants to pretend to himself that the nation he grew up in still exists – sadly (tragically) it, increasingly, does not.
Snorri – should people be allowed, for example, to chant “gas the Jews” – perhaps people SHOULD be allowed to chant this, certainly that would be more honest than what the Sydney (Australia) police did, namely pretend that the mob had NOT chanted “gas the Jews” – and threaten to arrest anyone who told the truth, i.e. said that the mob (of Muslims and allies of theirs) had chanted that.
There have been many attacks, on Jews and on Christians – and on people who are neither, by the forces of Islam in Western nations – and the reaction of Western governments (and corporations) has been to condemn “Islamophobia” and to redouble efforts to “educate” and “train” non Muslims to admire Islam (His Majesty here in the United Kingdom is very supportive of such efforts).
The more attacks there are from the forces of Islam – the more “Islamophobia” will be condemned (and punished), and the more concessions will be made to the forces of Islam. What is it you say about how people respond to incentives Snorri – what should we expect to see in terms of the number of attacks, when attacks are REWARDED?
As for AOC and the other Progressives in the United States – when they accuse the Jews of “genocide” it is an exercise in “Projection” – in that they, the Progressives, want to exterminate (commit genocide upon) the Jews. The Progressives accuse the Jews of the crime that they, the Progressives, wish to commit against the Jews (and others).
It would not stop with the Jews – the Progressives make it clear that all “exploiters and oppressors” must be destroyed – by “exploiters and oppressors” they mean traditional Americans, no matter how poor the traditional Americans are – or how rich the Progressives are. You can call this position a mental illness if you wish to do so (and perhaps you are correct), but genocide (under such names as “the destruction of whiteness”) is very much the Progressive agenda, and not just in the United States.
As for the traditional (“conservative” – small c) part of the establishment, such as King Charles in the United Kingdom, they do not grasp the fundamentals of the situation, and keep trying to make friends with people who want to plunder (and murder) them. I remember, years ago now, Prince Charles (as he then was) gushing with fawning praise concerning the author of the “Horrible Histories” agitprop (sub Marxist agitprop) book series for children – Prince Charles seemed to be unable to understand the message of the works, a message that the author has never tried to hide – namely the agenda to get-rid-of people such as Charles (remove them from this world).
The Islamic candidate for Mayor of New York City does not call street food “street food” he calls it “Halal” (which, of course, means Islamic food – food that is in line with Islamic food) – it would be like a Jewish candidate for Mayor of New York insisting that all food be Kosher.
Yet the media seem to have no problem with this agenda in he case of Islam.
Mental illness.
Marxism and Islam are not logically compatible – so, yes, the efforts (of a lot of people in the modern West) to combine them, may indeed be mental illness Snorri – or……
Or it could be a deception.
For example, the former Islamic First Minister of Scotland spoke very differently to his fellow Muslims than he did to the general public.
To the general public he was full of support for abortion, “Gay Rights”, and so on – but to his fellow Muslims he condemned (in very strong terms) the very same things.
Many other people in public life, in various countries, are the same.
Are they really mentally ill – or are they engaged in a deception of the public?
I remember, for example, the reaction of President Bush (the second) to 9/11 – namely to the murder of thousands of Americans.
Almost the first thing he did was to condemn bigotry against Islam (what is now called “Islamophobia” – as if opposition to Islam was a mental illness) and to proclaim (without evidence) that Islam was peaceful.
President Bush then launched wars, incredibly expensive wars, in the Middle East – wars based upon the theory that Islam had been “twisted and perverted” by a few evil people, and that true Islam was about peace and tolerance.
Neither President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, or any other establishment person, ever presented any evidence to back up their theories – nor any counter arguments to oppose people who disagreed with them.
The only response, then and now, from the Western establishment, to people who held a different opinion of Islam (held it to be the teachings and actions of Muhammed) was, and is, punish-punish-punish.
Perhaps Snorri is correct – perhaps Western societies are dominated by an establishment that is made up of mentally ill people.
Martin:From what I’ve read the crime stats Fraser Nelson cites omit shoplifting, which is rather convenient if you’re trying to present crime as falling.
Without getting access to the Nelson article I cannot be sure that he has done that. I’d be surprised if he has dismissed it, though, since he is not the sort of journalist (contrary to what Paul Marks, on the basis of no evidence, seems to state) to brush uncomfortable figures under the carpet out of a desire to delude himself about the state of the country. He was one of the few mainstream journalists to push for more and better data on the costs of lockdowns, such as truancy and lost education. (Such a topic remains badly under-analysed.)
Not everyone accepts the proposition that the UK is irreversibly screwed. And in fact, the actions of the good folk of Bournemouth suggests as much.
“contrary to what Paul Marks, on the basis of no evidence, seems to state”.
The Tesco on London Road Kettering was robbed twice whilst I have been in there (NOT “robbed twice” – robbed twice whilst I have actually been present and seen it being robbed). Once just after I had talked to a policeman I know (only a few hundred yards away – and only a few minutes before) who told me they were in danger of losing control of the center of town. A very average town – most of other towns have much the same decay.
The art shop I volunteer in has also been robbed – only a couple of days ago.
I can do without patronizing people telling me I have no evidence.
I am reminded of the Institute of Economic Affairs saying that new housing estates (in every town I visit), i.e. physical houses and flats, were NOT evidence of house building – that the only acceptable evidence was documents or computer records, not the physical evidence of actual houses and flats being built. And this electronic “evidence” (i.e. official statistics) proved that the Planning Laws were preventing houses and flats being built.
“Do not believe your lying eyes – believe the official statistics” is the position.
As for Fraser Nelson – this was the Gentleman who did not understand (or at least claimed not to understand) that “English”, unlike “British”, is an ETHNIC identity.
Being loyal to the Crown is not the defining feature of what it is to be “English” – otherwise Oliver Cromwell would not have been “English”. He cut the King’s head off – that did NOT mean that Oliver Cromwell was not English.
Suella Braverman explained that although being born in England, and being politically loyal to Britain, she was not, obviously was not, “English”.
Mr Nelson was either incapable, or (more likely) unwilling, to understand even this simple point.
Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
You can be English without being born in England – and be born in England and not be English.
True “ethnic” is not quite the same thing (at least not always) as biological race (we can think of such cases as former Bishop Ali of Rochester – a man who was born and brought up in Pakistan but became “more English than the English”, or Ben Habib, and there are other such cases) – but it is NOT just a matter of where you were born either. And after three generations now, the idea that assimilation of the post World War II migrations is going to happen can be put to bed – it has not happened, and there is no reason to suppose that it will happen. Why should people from the Middle East or Africa, or their children or grandchildren, want to “assimilate” into a culture which is dying?
The Bell Beaker folk did not assimilate into the population of neolithic farmers – the genetic evidence is clear, they did not assimilate they REPLACED. There was at least a 90% genetic replacement down the male line. 90% genetic replacement Fraser Nelson – still want to say it was just cultural change?
Thousands of years later, the Germanic tribes did not “assimilate” into the Romano-British population in the south eastern parts of this island. No matter how many generations they were here.
This is important – because failing to understand it, means that Mr Nelson does not grasp that the English are starting to be outnumbered in various cities and towns. And are increasingly angry about that.
As his definition of “English” is quite different from that of most ordinary people – he does not see the problem.
A journalist can not really report well about things they do not understand.
And saying “it can not happen here – not on this island” is silly – because it has happened here (on this island) previously in history.
In fact it has happened several times.
I can’t access the Nelson article, but even this Telegraph article, which is somewhat friendly to Nelson’s position, says this about the Crime Survey stats Nelson apparently cites:
For example, the survey doesn’t ask respondents about crimes against businesses, such as shoplifting, and those undertaking the research only interview households – effectively excluding crime-vulnerable groups such as the homeless, tourists or students living in halls.
In this day and age of mass government gaslighting I’m not going to give the ONS the benefit of the doubt that they omit such data about crimes against businesses and ignore populations more vulnerable to crime for entirely innocent reasons.
Nelson in this interview admits shoplifting is at record levels so fair play.
I don’t think Britain is irreversibly screwed. I do think there is plenty of internet hyperbole. Narratives of ‘Britain is fallen’ on twitter seem often exaggerated and many are spread by slop accounts ran from abroad that seem to be targeting mostly American audiences. But when Nelson also says in the same interview ‘I would make the rather unpopular argument that this is an amazing country and broadly speaking, there has never been a better time to live in it’, the only charitable thing I can say is it might be great for people like him but he’s on a different planet to most people in the country.
Maybe but he has his own blind spots. Massively deluded about immigration and integration for example.
Simon Webb (“History Debunked” on YouTube) argues, and perhaps he is being too cynical, that the establishment have a special hatred for towns such as Bournemouth – because such towns have a large population of retired English people, resistant to the “Diversity and Inclusion” agenda of “Cultural Enrichment”.
It was not one rape – it was more than one, and the rapes were not carried out by English people – I am NOT saying that Englishmen do not rape (of course some DO), but these particular rapes were not carried out by Englishmen.
And the fighting on the beach was not Englishmen either – again Englishmen most certainly DO engage in rioting and so on, but in this particular case the disorder was from people of African ancestry.
The fact that the mainstream media tend not to report the basic facts (for fear of the dreaded charge of “racism”) makes ordinary people more-and-more angry.
People move to towns such as Bournemouth, in part, to get away from other ethnic groups.
In America this is called “white flight” – and, somehow, the people fleeing (fleeing from towns and cities their ancestors built) are supposed to be the bad-guys. They are, supposedly, wicked for leaving.
It is as if people who fled to what is now Wales to get away from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were somehow wicked for fleeing.
And if these English people are going to be followed, where ever they go, what are they supposed to do?
Are they all supposed to kill themselves?
“Well their ancestors took the land by force – so they deserve what they are getting, which is a taste, just a taste, of what they are going to get in the future”.
“Blood Guilt” is that it?
Because their distant ancestors took the land by force, they deserve what is starting (just starting) to happen to them now? What sort of “justice” is that?
I am reminded of the BBC, indeed the entire establishment, making a great fuss of “Cheddar Man” being black.
In reality there is little hard evidence that he was black – the genetic evidence for this is not strong at all.
But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that “Cheddar Man” was black – and that wicked white people (first Neolithic farmers, then, a thousand years later, the Bell Beaker folk Indo Europeans) stole the land from “black” (again we are assuming they were black – the genetic evidence is not strong) West European Hunter Gatherers.
How does it follow (even assuming all the above to be true) that white people should be destroyed?
They should be destroyed because of what their ancestors did thousands of years ago?
How is that just?
By the way…..
It is possible for political and cultural principles to unify people of very different ethnic, indeed very different racial (in a biological – genetic sense) backgrounds.
Some people point to Florida (not a small example – as tens of millions of people live there) as a case where different ethnic groups (indeed even different racial groups) are unified by a common culture of liberty-principles.
Some people say that this is what President Trump wants to do for the United States as a whole – perhaps he does (I do not know), and it would be a noble thing to unify different groups by principles of liberty – by saying “outside the United States they have Hate Speech laws, here were have Freedom of Speech, outside the United States they have “Gun Control” laws, here in the United States we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and-so-on – the “us and them” are the people inside the United States, regardless of their race, and the people outside the United States – we (the “us” – the supporters of certain basic principles) will build an economy, and a society, which is independent of them”.
But that is clearly NOT the case on this island.
There are no unifying political and cultural liberty principles here – there may have been in the past, but certainly not now.
“Freedom of Speech?” NO. “Right to Keep and Bear Arms?” NO – and so on. There is nothing to unify the various groups.
Watching a certain official broadcast at Christmas in 2024 – I (and many other people) were struck by how desperate it was, how it was so obviously an effort to clutch at straws, an effort to pretend there are unifying cultural principles now (in 2025) on this island – when there clearly no longer are.
Again I can understand WHY people (including Fraser Nelson) would do this – I understand and I have some sympathy for what they do, I really do.
But, in the end, it is false – and building a society on falsehood (on lies – no matter how good the intentions behind the lies are) is like building a house on sand.
Martin – it is starting, it is a process of destruction, it does not all happen in a day, or even in a generation.
For example, the Bell Beaker folk did not land one day and all the Neolithic farmer men drop dead the next day – it may have taken over a century.
Whether England (and it is specifically England that is most under threat) can be saved – I just do not know.
But I do know that to defeat a threat you have to first understand that it is a threat.
And I do not think Mr Nelson has got there yet – he may do (I do not know), but not yet.
John Enoch Powell was unusual, in terms of the political class, – as he understood what would happen long before it did happen, and actually tried to PREVENT it happening.
Most ordinary people agreed with his warnings, the opinion polls made that clear, and in a functioning democracy action would have been taken to head off the threat – but here it was not, indeed the governing class made it clear they despised the beliefs of ordinary people and made it their business to “educate” and “train” the people to have different beliefs – including about the past, the present and the future. This turns democracy on its head.
It is not impossible for a nation to save itself, for a people to save themselves.
For example, Denmark (with a leftist government – yes a Social Democrat government) and Hungary (with a conservative government) are both taking steps to try and save themselves – to try and prevent their replacement.
But here, on this island, the rulers take a very different position.
Paul, I wasn’t being patronising to you. You stated – in what I thought was actually very patronising – that a journalist (Fraser Nelson) had chosen to avoid a topic because he clung to an illusion. You just assumed this was the case; you presume to look inside FN’s mind and rat him out as a deluded fool. That, if I say so, is presumptious. It is a dismissal to suggest that someone avoids a topic consciously for some ignoble or evasive reason. Would you have said that to his face?
To be fair, this is a mistake all too easy to make when the blood is up and I am probably guilty of it.
Martin: to suggest FN is “massively deluded” about immigration is your point of view. He takes a more optimistic line than you do. It’s called having a different view about what you see in front of you.
Oh and Martin, I read the Sam Bidwell article in the Critic, which more or less repeats the claim, which is all that is really is, that Bidwell is certain that a person he criticises just evades an issue that he (Bidwell) has a particular view on.
@Paul Marks recycles the claim, made controversially by Konstantin Kisin a few months ago, that you cannot be English unless you are ethnically English, whatever that is, and that’s where the trouble really starts in terms of definitions.
A writer at CapX, Sunder Katwala (oh noes, a foreign name!) wrote a while back about the Kisin performance when interviewing Nelson: https://capx.co/what-does-it-mean-to-be-english
Kisin’s confusion about the English is easy to anatomise. Born in Russia, before coming here as a schoolboy, he is proud to have naturalised as a British citizen but does not believe Englishness is open to him. In this, he follows what most migrants who have come to England over the centuries have always done. His personal experience underlines something true: that being English is not quite so civic as a British identity. Having spotted that, Kisin mistakenly jumps to the binary assumption that it must be a blood-based ethnic identity instead.
English identity today is the product of a little recognised and paradoxical-sounding phenomenon, that of ‘inclusive nativism’. Kisin does not believe that his children, born in England, can identify as English, because of ‘blood’. But they may well come to do so, because of birthplace. While migrants invariably identify as British, rather than English, across most of the last ten centuries, the children and grandchildren of migrants have often felt a birth-right claim to Englishness too, often surprising their Jewish or Irish parents, or increasingly their black, Asian and perhaps, in time, Russian parents too.
So the common sense consensus is that people become English if they are both born in England and identify as English – and so are accepted as English by most English people on that basis.
Johnathan Pearce – it is clear from his writings, and from listening to him speak, that this is what Fraser Nelson does. He really seems to be unaware of what is now common knowledge to a very large number of ordinary people.
I am not angry with Fraser Nelson – I am much like him myself, a lot of the time.
Let us say, by some bizarre chance, I found myself talking to King Charles.
Would I say “Your Majesty – that was a really dreadful Christmas broadcast, for the following reasons…..”.
Of course not.
Most likely I would say how much I admired his creation of Poundbury (which I do – I would not be lying) and I would listen as the King talked about this achievement – and it is an achievement.
I would no more try and convince the King to defend his people in ethnic conflict than Fraser Nelson does.
I am not better than Fraser Nelson – if anything I am worse, as I know what is coming (he seems not to) and I do bugger all about it.