pedantic uncertaintist duck

This is Tanweer Ikram , he refused Danny Tommo bail at Basingstoke Magistrates on September 25th saying he was satisfied there was a real possibility of an immediate custodial sentence. Tommo had elected Crown Court trial , his barrister offered GPS tagging and a package of conditions and Ikram still remanded him. Four days later at Portsmouth Judge Newton Price refused bail again but at least he said on the record he was setting politics aside. Ikram however never said that. He is deputy chief magistrate , sits on Judicial Appointments Commission that picks new judges and has publicly said he went to Bradford specifically to recruit Pakistani lawyers to the bench! He is also listed as an advisor to the British Pakistan Foundation , which attacked Suella Braverman over her grooming gang comments . A senior judge with that portfolio hearing a politically explosive case involving an anti immigration activist ...That's the question worth asking !

Being English is not defined by skin colour. But the census says the only English ethnicity is "White English". Josh Babarinde has proposed a law to change that. The colour of someone's skin should never determine whether they belong here or how far they can go.

no one wants to have this conversation, however this is the root of almost aӏӏ of our problems we face in the west.

The real people that build England

Joe Martin MS has now put it in writing. British culture is “clearly superior” to Pakistan’s. Some “peoples” haven't learnt that lying is wrong. And he fears being “out-reproduced” by people who marry cousins. This is acidic racism dressed up as principle.

It is funny seeing how European right-wingers have copied American rhetoric on illegal immigration, even though it isn't nearly as big an issue in Europe. The vast majority of immigrants come to Europe completely legally:

Thanos, you've managed to write an entire essay about English ethnogenesis whilst seemingly misunderstanding what ethnogenesis actually is. You acknowledge the Angles, Saxons, Britons, Danes and Normans, yet somehow conclude that because these populations contributed to the formation of the English people, English ethnicity is merely a social construct that anyone can acquire through residence. That is an extraordinary leap in reasoning. Ethnogenesis is precisely the historical process through which distinct populations develop into a people, establishing shared ancestry, language, traditions, cultural inheritance and a collective consciousness of themselves. Nobody is suggesting the English emerged fully formed one morning, genetically identical and untouched by history. Quite the opposite. Our formation was an historical process, and those origins remain part of our inheritance. Your reference to Æthelred in 1002 is particularly amusing because the English were already recognised as a people centuries earlier. Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English People around AD 731. The English did not suddenly materialise under Norman rule, nor did the Norman Conquest somehow abolish the people who preceded it. Conquest, assimilation and cultural development are not evidence against ethnogenesis. They are part of the very historical processes through which peoples develop. Then we arrive at your polling argument. YouGov tells us that people hold different contemporary understandings of Englishness. Fascinating. But since when did public opinion determine historical ancestry? If 84% of respondents adopt a civic or cultural understanding of Englishness, that tells us something about contemporary attitudes. It does not retrospectively alter the ethnogenesis of the English people. Interestingly, the same YouGov research found that approximately a third of white adults in England considered English family heritage necessary to English identity. You conveniently overlook that distinction when presenting your figures. And your argument concerning seventy years of elections is equally questionable. Voting Labour or Conservative is not an individual referendum on every immigration decision, constitutional development or demographic consequence of their governments. You're treating electoral outcomes as proof of collective philosophical consent. They are nothing of the sort. The distinction I've repeatedly made is quite straightforward. Englishness can be discussed as a national, cultural or historical ethnic identity. These meanings overlap, but they are not necessarily interchangeable. A modern state may recognise different forms of national belonging. That does not give it the power to alter the historical ancestry of the people from whom England takes its name. You are perfectly entitled to advocate a civic conception of Englishness. What you cannot reasonably do is pretend that the historical ethnic dimension ceases to exist because you prefer a different definition. You have confused the historical formation of a people with the contemporary politics of belonging, and then mistaken public opinion for historical evidence. That is not a refutation of English ethnogenesis. It is a failure to distinguish the very concepts you are attempting to discuss.

'DEI is good because I simulated a world in which DEI is good.' We need a term for this type of argument where you simulate something unlike the real world to try to argue something about the real world.