Farage Wins Clacton Byelection, Beating Count Binface

14 hours ago, mrfill said:

Horses live in stables. Barns are used to store things, not to house horses.

Now now mrfill, you know that the righturds on here can’t handle facts.

On 8/15/2026 at 4:12 PM, RayC said:

I wouldn't vote for Badenoch but by the sounds of things, she has achieved what she has by studying and working hard.

None of which changes the fact that what britman and rocketman said was 100% true.

On 8/15/2026 at 4:53 PM, BritManToo said:

There's video clips of her speaking with a not so posh Nigerian/English accent when addressing black audiences. She's just another fake politician like the wannabe German Farage.

https://www.nairaland.com/8672863/kemi-badenoch-speaks-yoruba-video

Hilarious!

Never seen that before. What a charlatan.

Reminds me of DEI Harris and her famous "Yo' bedda thank yo' union memba, fo' vacation tiiimmeeeee". blackspeak performance during her pathetic run at the Presidency. 😄

Badenoch is taking the Tories further down the toilet, which is fine by me. Just like the Dems, they are paying for having a DEI token as leader. Go Woke, Go Broke.

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

None of which changes the fact that what britman and rocketman said was 100% true.

What they said may well be true but what is the relevance of it? Does Badenoch's background or colour make her an unsuitable choice as Tory leader? If not, what's the point of mentioning these facts.

13 hours ago, RayC said:

What they said may well be true but what is the relevance of it? Does Badenoch's background or colour make her an unsuitable choice as Tory leader?

That would depend on whether she was chosen on merit or because of her background/colour.

Personally, I believe she was chosen so the Tories could say "Look, we're not racist or sexist and our leader proves it". If her background/colour is the reason she was selected then Yes, that makes her unsuitable.

She appears to be yet another DEI selection like Kamala Harris, and predictably failure follows for The Tories - just like the Dems.

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That would depend on whether she was chosen on merit or because of her background/colour.

Personally, I believe she was chosen so the Tories could say "Look, we're not racist or sexist and our leader proves it". If her background/colour is the reason she was selected then Yes, that makes her unsuitable.

She appears to be yet another DEI selection like Kamala Harris, and predictably failure follows for The Tories - just like the Dems.

No, to be fair, if you listen to what each of these women actually say when they are speaking in some kind of "official" capacity, it becomes immediately obvious that Harris is as thick as two short planks, whereas KB has most of the trappings of a good education.

Also, KB did not sleep her way up the greasy pole.

14 hours ago, RayC said:

What they said may well be true but what is the relevance of it? Does Badenoch's background or colour make her an unsuitable choice as Tory leader? If not, what's the point of mentioning these facts.

You better have a word with Badenoch, just like Anthony Joshua, she isn't buying into your "black people in England are ethnically English" spiel. 😄

Kemi Badenoch’s Yoruba Identity Meets Inconvenient Truths - Notes From Atlanta

Please put her straight Raymond. You clearly know her ethnicity better than she does. Please educate her according to your Liberal ideals, she seems to be getting above her station with all this nonsense talk about her true identity being "Yoruba", pffttt. The nerve...

Have a word with AJ while you're at it. 😄

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

That would depend on whether she was chosen on merit or because of her background/colour.

Personally, I believe she was chosen so the Tories could say "Look, we're not racist or sexist and our leader proves it". If her background/colour is the reason she was selected then Yes, that makes her unsuitable.

She appears to be yet another DEI selection like Kamala Harris, and predictably failure follows for The Tories - just like the Dems.

Imo it's unlikely that Tory MPs - let alone the wider Tory membership - saw the need to select Badenoch simply to be able to say, 'Look at us. We are a not a racist/ sexist party', especially given that she is the fourth woman and second (consecutive) non-white individual to lead the party.

But hey, why let those facts get in the way of your sense of grievance.

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

Imo it's unlikely that Tory MPs - let alone the wider Tory membership - saw the need to select Badenoch simply to be able to say, 'Look at us. We are a not a racist/ sexist party', especially given that she is the fourth woman and second (consecutive) non-white individual to lead the party.

But hey, why let those facts get in the way of your sense of grievance.

No grievance here Raymond, I'm more than happy for the Tories to fail after they sold out the electorate under Johnson and Sunak.

A DEI leader increases the chances of that. Let them shoot themselves in the foot like Cambridge University did with DEI Arday and like the Democrats did with DEI Harris. No skin off my nose. 😄

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You better have a word with Badenoch, just like Anthony Joshua, she isn't buying into your "black people in England are ethnically English" spiel. 😄

Kemi Badenoch’s Yoruba Identity Meets Inconvenient Truths - Notes From Atlanta

Please put her straight Raymond. You clearly know her ethnicity better than she does. Please educate her according to your Liberal ideals, she seems to be getting above her station with all this nonsense talk about her true identity being "Yoruba", pffttt. The nerve...

Have a word with AJ while you're at it. 😄

How many more times do I have to correct you your deliberate lies, Jonathan?

I have never claimed that black people in England are ethically English. What I have said is that the concept of 'Ethnic English' has little practical meaning in 21st century England, given that all but an infinitesimally small number of living Englishmen can trace their family lineage completely back to one of the indigenous tribes of England. What I have also said that if a black person is either 1) born in England or 2) naturalised British AND 3) identifies as English, then as far as I'm concerned they are English.

Your redefinition of 'English ethnicity' to include the descendants of white immigrant groups/ invaders such as the Romans, Normans, etc as ethnic English, but not the descendants of non-white groups such as black Roman legionnaires, black slaves and black traders is nothing more than a feeble attempt to draw a false divide between white and non-white Englishmen.

Using your revised definition of ethnicity, you would be forced to label the Pilgrim Fathers as 'ethnically American', members of the First Fleet as 'ethnically Australian' and the early 19th century ragtag group of traders, runaway sailors and missionaries as 'ethnic New Zealanders'. Good luck convincing descendants of the Native American, Aboriginal and Maori tribes of that.

Your misuse of semantics and genealogical terminology is simply a failed attempt to provide a pseudo-intellectual justification for your racism.

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No grievance here Raymond, I'm more than happy for the Tories to fail after they sold out the electorate under Johnson and Sunak.

A DEI leader increases the chances of that. Let them shoot themselves in the foot like Cambridge University did with DEI Arday and like the Democrats did with DEI Harris. No skin off my nose. 😄

I was referring to your misplaced sense of grievance about being born white in England, Jonathan, not your disappointment that the Tory party hasn't embraced racism as a policy.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

England was fantastic in the late 70s 80s and 90s. Other than the 60s I saw the best of it and I'm grateful.

I saw the writing on the wall in the early noughties and left for an expat opportunity that arose here. Best decision I ever made.

So no grievance from me about being born white in England like 99.999% of all people born in England over the ages. I was lucky as were you.

Its the next generation of white people that will suffer. Denied opportunities i had due to their race. Called privileged. Made to feel shame. Discriminated against in racist anti white schemes you consider positive.🤮

I'll be fine Ray. Enough money for 2 lifetimes in nationalistic, patriotic, largely homogenous Thailand. Fortunately, stupid white Liberals will never have the power to ruin Thailand like they have the UK. You "white guys for Harris" types are thankfully restricted to posting your nonsense on forums like this. 👍 😃

Viva Thailand. 🍾

Grievance on behalf of others. Very altruistic, Jonny.

3-day working weeks, endless strikes, rubbish piling up on street corners, a decline in Britain's industrial base, racist police units, civil war in N. Ireland, bombs on the British mainland, mass unemployment, riots in the inner cities, etc. Yes England (the UK) really was fantastic in the '70s and '80s. Oh, for a return of those halcyon days.

Given that you are so enamored with the homogeneity of Thailand and so obviously disillusioned by the heterogeneity of the UK, wouldn't you feel more comfortable becoming a naturalised Thai and renouncing your British citizenship? Although, of course, you could not expect to be accepted by some of your new countrymen given that you are not ethnically Thai.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by RayC

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Given that you are so enamored with the homogeneity of Thailand and so obviously disillusioned by the heterogeneity of the UK, wouldn't you feel more comfortable becoming a naturalised Thai and renouncing your British citizenship?

Nah, I haven't given up on Britain yet, you guys have some way to go yet before destroying it. So I'm quite happy as a British expat with an LTR visa. I pay lower tax.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Although, of course, you could not expect to be accepted by some of your new countrymen given that you are not ethnically Thai.

Interesting that you waive the 'purity' rule for Thai ethnicity but not English ethnicity. Sounds pretty racist to me. 😄

But even with a Thai passport every Thai would know I'm not "really" Thai, not ethnically Thai, and I would agree. I wouldn't need to erase or rewrite their ethnic identity to feel validated. That would be nefarious and dehumanizing. I'd be ethnically English with Thai nationality. Just as Kemi Badenoch and Anthony Joshua are ethnically Yoruba/Nigerian with a British passport.

Are you seeing how it works yet? 😄 Or are you still trying to rewrite/erase English ethnicity just because people point out Black England footballers aren't ethnically English?

You're showing your double standards and hatred of the ethnically English again Raymond. Not a good look for one of the #bekind brigade.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Interesting that you waive the 'purity' rule for Thai ethnicity but not English ethnicity. Sounds pretty racist to me. 😄

For the umpteenth time, I have no idea how you can logically arrive at a particular conclusion?

I seem to have inadvertently become your educator, Jonny. It's not a role I particularly cherish, but while I've got it would you please try to understand the facts and then think about what rational conclusions you can derive from them. Thanks.

There are parallels between Thailand and England. Not that some Thais would like to admit it but most Thais living today are mongrels; perhaps, not to the same degree as the English but mongrels nonetheless.

The original indigenous 'Thais' were Mon, Khmer, Malay and other associated hunter-gatherer tribes. The Tai-Kadai tribes moved south from China between the 8th and 12th centuries and - like the Romans, Vikings and Normans in England - interbred with the local populations at the time.

You may well find more 'pure' Thais than 'pure' Englishmen, but the Thai JonnyF trying desperately to justify his racism is standing on ground that is almost as shaky as yours.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

But even with a Thai passport every Thai would know I'm not "really" Thai, not ethnically Thai, and I would agree. I wouldn't need to erase or rewrite their ethnic identity to feel validated. That would be nefarious and dehumanizing. I'd be ethnically English with Thai nationality. Just as Kemi Badenoch and Anthony Joshua are ethnically Yoruba/Nigerian with a British passport.

Are you seeing how it works yet? 😄 Or are you still trying to rewrite/erase English ethnicity just because people point out Black England footballers aren't ethnically English?

You're showing your double standards and hatred of the ethnically English again Raymond. Not a good look for one of the #bekind brigade.

And there's the rub. You insist that you could never be 'Thai' no matter how hard you try to integrate and how much of a good citizen you are. In the same way, you could never view a black man as 'English' no matter how well they integrate and no matter how much they contribute to society. As I have said many times before, you try to justify this by redefining the meaning of ethnicity.

You then use this false dichotomy to air your perceived grievances and blame the groups who are not like you for England's - you don't seem much bothered by the rest of the UK - problems. That attitude is de-humanising and racist, Jonny.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

For the umpteenth time, I have no idea how you can logically arrive at a particular conclusion?

I seem to have inadvertently become your educator, Jonny. It's not a role I particularly cherish, but while I've got it would you please try to understand the facts and then think about what rational conclusions you can derive from them. Thanks.

There are parallels between Thailand and England. Not that some Thais would like to admit it but most Thais living today are mongrels; perhaps, not to the same degree as the English but mongrels nonetheless.

The original indigenous 'Thais' were Mon, Khmer, Malay and other associated hunter-gatherer tribes. The Tai-Kadai tribes moved south from China between the 8th and 12th centuries and - like the Romans, Vikings and Normans in England - interbred with the local populations at the time.

You may well find more 'pure' Thais than 'pure' Englishmen, but the Thai JonnyF trying desperately to justify his racism is standing on ground that is almost as shaky as yours.

And there's the rub. You insist that you could never be 'Thai' no matter how hard you try to integrate and how much of a good citizen you are. In the same way, you could never view a black man as 'English' no matter how well they integrate and no matter how much they contribute to society. As I have said many times before, you try to justify this by redefining the meaning of ethnicity.

You then use this false dichotomy to air your perceived grievances and blame the groups who are not like you for England's - you don't seem much bothered by the rest of the UK - problems. That attitude is de-humanising and racist, Jonny.

From that confusing lesson, it seems that the educator himself holds his own definition of ethnicity.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

From that confusing lesson, it seems that the educator himself holds his own definition of ethnicity.

Here's what Google AI answers to the question, 'Are ethnicity and race the same thing?':

"No, race and ethnicity are not the same thing. While both are social concepts used to group people, they refer to different aspects of identity. Opinions on Reddit's r/sociology reflect that while users often see both as social constructs, they distinguish them by physical traits versus shared culture.

Race

• Based on outward physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features.

• Assigned by society based on how people look

• Lacks a distinct biological or genetic basis.

  Ethnicity

• Based on shared culture, such as language, religion, traditions, and history.

• Rooted in a common geographic origin, ancestry, or heritage.

• Often self-identified and connected to a group a person feels they belong to.

  Key Differences

• Overlap: A person can have both. For example, someone can be of the Black race while having a Jamaican or Irish ethnicity.

• Flexibility: Ethnicity can sometimes change or be adopted over time as people connect with different cultural practices, whereas race is typically externally imposed by society.

(Note: My bolding)

Hope that helps explain things a bit more clearly for you. The above definition of ethnicity is slightly different to my view as I stressed the common geographic origin as being the main factor. Nevertheless, I'd argue that the AI reply is pretty much consistent with my view that ethnicity can't be used to justify racism. Of course, you might disagree and still want to act as an apologist for racists.

14 hours ago, RayC said:

For the umpteenth time, I have no idea how you can logically arrive at a particular conclusion?

I seem to have inadvertently become your educator, Jonny. It's not a role I particularly cherish, but while I've got it would you please try to understand the facts and then think about what rational conclusions you can derive from them. Thanks.

There are parallels between Thailand and England. Not that some Thais would like to admit it but most Thais living today are mongrels; perhaps, not to the same degree as the English but mongrels nonetheless.

The original indigenous 'Thais' were Mon, Khmer, Malay and other associated hunter-gatherer tribes. The Tai-Kadai tribes moved south from China between the 8th and 12th centuries and - like the Romans, Vikings and Normans in England - interbred with the local populations at the time.

You may well find more 'pure' Thais than 'pure' Englishmen, but the Thai JonnyF trying desperately to justify his racism is standing on ground that is almost as shaky as yours.

And there's the rub. You insist that you could never be 'Thai' no matter how hard you try to integrate and how much of a good citizen you are. In the same way, you could never view a black man as 'English' no matter how well they integrate and no matter how much they contribute to society. As I have said many times before, you try to justify this by redefining the meaning of ethnicity.

You then use this false dichotomy to air your perceived grievances and blame the groups who are not like you for England's - you don't seem much bothered by the rest of the UK - problems. That attitude is de-humanising and racist, Jonny.

More nonsense from racist Raymond.

I could be a Thai national, but I could never be ethnically Thai. That fact that Thai ethnicity is not 100% pure (no ethnicity is 100% "pure") does not change that.

Same as Kemi Badenoch can be a British national, but she can never be ethnically English. The fact that English ethnicity is not 100% "pure" does not change that either.

English ethnicity exists. Thai ethnicity exists. Your attempts at ethnic erasure to create some kind of "one world, one people" narrative is absolute nonsense Raymond. You can't make the case for black players being ethnically English, so instead you claim there is no such thing as English ethnicity on the basis it is not 100% "pure". It's pathetic. Ludicrous. Deeply flawed.

You better tell Anthony Joshua that he is not in fact ethnically Nigerian as he claims because Nigerians are "mongrels" as you so impolitely put it. Tell Badenoch she is not ethnically Yoruban as she claims because Yorubans are mongrels - Raymond knows better. You could also try and get a slot on Thai TV, announce to the Thai audience they are not ethnically Thai because Thais are "mongrels" and Thai ethnicity does not even exist. Book your flight first though... 😄

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

From that confusing lesson, it seems that the educator himself holds his own definition of ethnicity.

He denies the existence of ethnicity, since none are 100% pure. He's on a campaign of ethnic erasure, something considered deeply immoral. He refers to ethnic groups as "mongrels".

Like I said, it's part of a "one world, one people" narrative that leftists love to push.

RayC "educating" anyone is a scary thought. That goodness he isn't black, autistic, neurodivergent and gay, he'd end up lecturing students at Cambridge. 😄

Instead, he pushes his profoundly immoral ideology on here.

You can sum up most of Raymond's arguments in the summary below. Forced assimilation in particular stands out, since it is essentially what is happening in the UK right now.

19 hours ago, RayC said:

Here's what Google AI answers to the question, 'Are ethnicity and race the same thing?':

"No, race and ethnicity are not the same thing. While both are social concepts used to group people, they refer to different aspects of identity. Opinions on Reddit's r/sociology reflect that while users often see both as social constructs, they distinguish them by physical traits versus shared culture.

Race

• Based on outward physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features.

• Assigned by society based on how people look

• Lacks a distinct biological or genetic basis.

  Ethnicity

• Based on shared culture, such as language, religion, traditions, and history.

• Rooted in a common geographic origin, ancestry, or heritage.

• Often self-identified and connected to a group a person feels they belong to.

  Key Differences

• Overlap: A person can have both. For example, someone can be of the Black race while having a Jamaican or Irish ethnicity.

• Flexibility: Ethnicity can sometimes change or be adopted over time as people connect with different cultural practices, whereas race is typically externally imposed by society.

(Note: My bolding)

Hope that helps explain things a bit more clearly for you. The above definition of ethnicity is slightly different to my view as I stressed the common geographic origin as being the main factor. Nevertheless, I'd argue that the AI reply is pretty much consistent with my view that ethnicity can't be used to justify racism. Of course, you might disagree and still want to act as an apologist for racists.

Explanations, especially those excuses in your latest bold but condescending effort at educating us, are not helpful.

Human races were, until recently, reasonably sorted by physical, historical, cultural and territorial attributes. Yes, most of these might also be used to classify ethnicity. Today the definition of race has been overwritten by modern "scientists" to become more dependent on the societal rules of the day, rather than biological or behavioral similarities and common geographical homelands.

I think that any human race category (or ethnicity) can also be elected by those within that group, as well as by those outside it.

To me, all this woke fabrication, editing and cancellation of definitions has produced more racists, not less.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by nauseus

On 8/20/2026 at 12:56 PM, nauseus said:

Explanations, especially those excuses in your latest bold but condescending effort at educating us, are not helpful.

Of course, your response to my post wasn't in the slightest bit condescending!

"From that confusing lesson, it seems that the educator himself holds his own definition of ethnicity".

You should know by now to expect replies in kind from me.

On 8/20/2026 at 12:56 PM, nauseus said:

Human races were, until recently, reasonably sorted by physical, historical, cultural and territorial attributes. Yes, most of these might also be used to classify ethnicity. Today the definition of race has been overwritten by modern "scientists" to become more dependent on the societal rules of the day, rather than biological or behavioral similarities and common geographical homelands.

I think that any human race category (or ethnicity) can also be elected by those within that group, as well as by those outside it.

To me, all this woke fabrication, editing and cancellation of definitions has produced more racists, not less.

I have read these paragraphs a few times and I cannot understand your point(s). Imo you seem to support the premise that race can be defined by such outward traits as skin colour and ethnicity by such things as a shared culture. Am I incorrect in my interpretation?

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

Of course, your response to my post wasn't in the slightest bit condescending!

"From that confusing lesson, it seems that the educator himself holds his own definition of ethnicity".

You should know by now to expect replies in kind from me.

I have read these paragraphs a few times and I cannot understand your point(s). Imo you seem to support the premise that race can be defined by such outward traits as skin colour and ethnicity by such things as a shared culture. Am I incorrect in my interpretation?

This was a reply to your post, which I'm sure you might recall.

I'm sorry if you can't understand my post. Everyone else seemed to have no trouble.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

This was a reply to your post, which I'm sure you might recall.

I'm sorry if you can't understand my post. Everyone else seemed to have no trouble.

Yes, a condescending reply.

This discussion appears to consist of you and me, so it is a bit presumptuous to assume that no one else had any trouble understanding what point you were trying to make.

On 8/20/2026 at 2:39 AM, JonnyF said:

More nonsense from racist Raymond.

I could be a Thai national, but I could never be ethnically Thai. That fact that Thai ethnicity is not 100% pure (no ethnicity is 100% "pure") does not change that.

Same as Kemi Badenoch can be a British national, but she can never be ethnically English. The fact that English ethnicity is not 100% "pure" does not change that either.

English ethnicity exists. Thai ethnicity exists. Your attempts at ethnic erasure to create some kind of "one world, one people" narrative is absolute nonsense Raymond. You can't make the case for black players being ethnically English, so instead you claim there is no such thing as English ethnicity on the basis it is not 100% "pure". It's pathetic. Ludicrous. Deeply flawed.

You better tell Anthony Joshua that he is not in fact ethnically Nigerian as he claims because Nigerians are "mongrels" as you so impolitely put it. Tell Badenoch she is not ethnically Yoruban as she claims because Yorubans are mongrels - Raymond knows better. You could also try and get a slot on Thai TV, announce to the Thai audience they are not ethnically Thai because Thais are "mongrels" and Thai ethnicity does not even exist. Book your flight first though... 😄

Typical evasion.

You insist that Englishmen of white, immigrant extraction are 'ethnically' English but state that those of black, immigrant extraction cannot be 'ethnically' English.

That is not an attempt at erasing ethnicity on my part, it is racism on yours.

On 8/20/2026 at 2:46 AM, JonnyF said:

He denies the existence of ethnicity, since none are 100% pure. He's on a campaign of ethnic erasure, something considered deeply immoral. He refers to ethnic groups as "mongrels".

Like I said, it's part of a "one world, one people" narrative that leftists love to push.

RayC "educating" anyone is a scary thought. That goodness he isn't black, autistic, neurodivergent and gay, he'd end up lecturing students at Cambridge. 😄

Instead, he pushes his profoundly immoral ideology on here.

You can sum up most of Raymond's arguments in the summary below. Forced assimilation in particular stands out, since it is essentially what is happening in the UK right now.

Absolute nonsense from someone who knows that his position is untenable.

I am not denying ethnicity. The native peoples of North America. Australasia and Oceanic amongst others are testament to its existence. What I am denying is your logically flawed, racist definition of 'English ethnicity'.

What would be truly scary if your ilk ever gain power in the UK.

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

Yes, a condescending reply.

This discussion appears to consist of you and me, so it is a bit presumptuous to assume that no one else had any trouble understanding what point you were trying to make.

Presumptuous? You mean like assuming that I would accept an "education" from you?

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Presumptuous? You mean like assuming that I would accept an "education" from you?

" .. it is a bit presumptuous to assume that no one else had any trouble understanding what point you were trying to make".

I would have thought that the meaning of the above sentence was clear even if the context wasn't. However, perhaps now I am the one guilty of presumption?

My turn to apologise. I don't know how to express the sentence in question more clearly.

On 8/18/2026 at 8:52 AM, RayC said:

Imo it's unlikely that Tory MPs - let alone the wider Tory membership - saw the need to select Badenoch simply to be able to say, 'Look at us. We are a not a racist/ sexist party', especially given that she is the fourth woman and second (consecutive) non-white individual to lead the party.

But hey, why let those facts get in the way of your sense of grievance.

Members, like myself, cast our vote for Kemi on the basis she was not a d*ckhead like Jenrick. Our suspicion was confirmed by the way he flounced and left the Party. Jenrick apparently stood because he thought he could do the best job leading the Party in Opposition, and into the next election. A majority of members disagreed. If he had any courage of his convictions he would have hung around until the next leadership election. Jenrick was a Remainer, but has joined a Brexit party. He is a duplicitous political chameleon, only on the lookout for personal advancement.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Typical evasion.

You insist that Englishmen of white, immigrant extraction are 'ethnically' English but state that those of black, immigrant extraction cannot be 'ethnically' English.

That is not an attempt at erasing ethnicity on my part, it is racism on yours.

Did "JohnnyF" appear in that 2006 Ch4 documentary "100% English". Maybe he's Danny Blue, the Comedy Balloon Dancer.

Interviewer: When you think of England what is it that comes into your mind what pictures what what what's English that that you really value

Danny Blue: Do you know what England is to me yeah Sunday night, half past eight and I look at "Heartbeat" and they go up there and you see the old shop on the green there. All them old English cars and just England in the country. That to me is England.

Interviewer: When you say you're English through and through, what do you mean by that?

Danny Blue: I mean....I was born in England. Obviously I was born English, my parents were English, my grandparents were English and their parents are English and it goes back and back and back so I am English through and through. And if a black couple come over here and they live here for 20, 30, 40, 50 years, it doesn't matter how long they live here, and even if they have English citizenship they will never be English, because they was born in another country and the children that come from that marriage or from that unity, whatever, although they're born in England the blood roots, they are not they're not true English.

Interviewer: Does that mean you're going to take that measure, how many generation do you have to go back to count yourself English?

Danny Blue: Let's just get one thing straight. If you're Greek or Italians or Germans or wherever, whatever part of the world you're from, if your parents are born in that country and they're both German or both Italian or wherever they come from, that is your blood strain and I'm afraid that in my eyes that you're you're you're not true English. you you're Anglo, you will be Anglo German or Anglo Italian, Anglo American, Anglo Jamaican, or whatever. English to me is people that are white English people that have been that the parents go back.... it's it's like a pedigree.

Interviewer: So how many generations do you have to go back to be?

Danny Blue: 12 Generations ago. Anything anything past 12 Generations I'll accept as being English.

Interviewer: My mum's maiden name is De Villard and probably at the some time in the 18th century her family came over fleeing from France/

Danny Blue: so you're not true English are you?

Interviewer: Am I not?

Danny Blue: no, you're not 100% English.

Interviewer: So what about Ian Wright? I mean he's played for England. He's worn the England shirt, he's, you know, obviously patriotically English. Do you think he doesn't have the right to call himself English?

Danny Blue: I don't think he's English. He's born. I don't know obviously. Must have been born here. I don't know he was born here. I don't know where.

Interviewer: I'm pretty sure he was.

Danny Blue: If he was born here but an English person, an English person doesn't have black skin.

Interviewer: if he was here now what would you say to him?

Danny Blue: I'd argue with him, telling him he's not English......I'd argue with him say you're not English.

Interviewer: what do you think he'd say back?

Danny Blue: He'd probably call me racialist, I don't know what he'd call me, but I don't think he's English.

Interviewer: So even sort of 200 years from now Ian right's great great great grandchildren as far as you're concerned they couldn't be English?

Danny Blue: No, because I think that in, uh, 100, 200 years time and they if they done a genetic, the DNA genetic test on him they would go back and say oh actually you're not English your parents were born so and so.

Interviewer: So what about your DNA test that we've done on you?

Danny Blue: I'm pretty sure that's going to come back 100% English.

Then showed his results.

Interviewer: Should I give you your European DNA breakdown?

Danny Blue: Certainly.

Interviewer: 10% Middle Eastern, 11% South Asian, 37% Southeastern European and 42% northern European European.

Danny Blue: I'm bit of a mongrel aren't I? Not a thoroughbred after all. It's going to give me something to think about for a few days that will.

Interviewer: Your results might suggest that you have very strong ancestral links with the Balkans or even further east Russia or Georgia or Armenia and He suggests very strongly that that if you wanted to find your Origins you'd be looking East.

Danny Blue: That is amazing. I'm quite shocked by that really I'm quite shocked to think that.

Interviewer: I remember when we met before, I think you said to me that I couldn't be English because my mother and my mother has a has a French. I couldn't consider myself English because I didn't go back far enough in your book.

Danny Blue: And you ask me how far back you got to go and I think said 200 years.....12 Generations, that's right yeah....So maybe you're all English after all then.

Interviewer: Are you prepared to maybe sort of reduce the number of generations a bit from 12?

Danny Blue: Yeah maybe two or three generations I would go back and say you two or three generations you're English, maybe four no may be.

Interviewer: When we met before I asked you whether Ian Wright had any right to call himself English does this change your view at all about that

Danny Blue: Yes, I guess he can call himself English now. I still find it I still stand by what I say that if... two Jamaicans come over here and have a a child or Two Italians or two Germans come over and have children and they're born here, I still say that they're English bred from German from, yeah they're English bred but they're not, you this see this throws it all out the window now doesn't it? Cuz you think how far back can he go. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to say they're English.

https://youtu.be/jZ4rpe--i2Q?si=Z7aA0wYeNvCWHbnk

4 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Did "JohnnyF" appear in that 2006 Ch4 documentary "100% English". Maybe he's Danny Blue, the Comedy Balloon Dancer.

Then showed his results.

https://youtu.be/jZ4rpe--i2Q?si=Z7aA0wYeNvCWHbnk

Great post. Thanks.

However, you avoided answering the main question: Are you denying that Anthony Joshua is ethnically Nigerian?