This is a lengthy post but I fully commend you read all of it below the fold because it is a wonderful dissection of the current BBC series fronted by Professor Diarmaid Macculloch which aims to subvert everything we know about being British. Biased BBC’s Alan writes…

‘It is only now at the beginning of the 21st Century that history is being rewritten.’

The Story of Maths – 2. The Genius of the East.
Oxford professor Marcus du Sautoy on the BBC.

History is indeed being rewritten…by the BBC.
Stalin’s propaganda chief Willy Munzenberg: “All news is lies and all propaganda is disguised as news.”

The BBC has broadcast what must be one of the ugliest and nastiest pieces of racist polemics outranking anything you might think the BNP could publish….a nastiness that is hidden and given a respectability by the veneer of BBC authority and backed up by the appearance of profound, credible scholarship.

It is a highly sophisticated and polished propaganda drive worthy of Goebbels or Willie Munzenberg, driven by the politically correct imperative to support and excuse mass immigration. It is aimed at the very heart of this nation with the sole intention of destroying national identity and sense of belonging and unity that has for so long held this nation together and provided the world with political, scientific, industrial and social progressive ideas that have made the world a better place.

‘Everything you know about British ancestry is wrong.’

The BBC has put together a three part programme with the intent to challenge every notion you had about what it means to be English and to undermine your very beliefs and identity. Even at face value it is clearly designed to shake a few convictions and beliefs but the deeper meaning is more startling, shocking in its aims and dangerous in its intended consequences. It fully intends that you no longer believe in your own national identity, your ethnicity, your own culture and history.  It sets out to destroy the idea of Englishness, that nation state and loyalty to such ideas.

Why? If you no longer believe you are English, you no longer believe in loyalty to a nation or a culture, you no longer have a unique history to be proud of, then you can not have any objections to the vast waves of immigrants now coming here.
As the Left try to insist you are all immigrants….there is no such thing as the ‘English’….there is no such thing as a unique culture, or language or national character that developed in these Islands.

The beauty of this for the Left is that not only does it attack the basis of the nation state and a ‘People’s’ identity it allows immigrants to come here and say ‘Well look, there is no such thing as ‘Englishness’, or English culture…so I have no need to assimilate, no need to become ‘English’, no need to follow their laws or customs…..I can create my own little Pakistan or Somalia in inner city Bradford or Blackburn.’ The Multi-cultural bandwagon rolls on with the BBC at the wheel….’celebrating diversity’.

Diarmaid Macculloch has been wheeled out yet again by the BBC to dispense his peculiar take on history. Macculloch is a BBC favourite, he ticks nearly all their boxes…being gay, anti-Iraq war, anti-Israel, and though a Christian does not really like Christianity…or at least the ‘Western’ version of it.

‘Professor MacCulloch identifies three broad traits commonly associated with the English – the idea that the English think they are better than others, the idea that they are a specially tolerant people and the idea that to be English, quintessentially is to be white, Anglo-Saxon and Church of England Christian.’

‘A Chosen People?

In this first episode, Professor MacCulloch chronicles the roots of the idea that the English think themselves better than others and duty-bound to play a leading role in world affairs.’

‘A Tolerant people?

Professor MacCulloch challenges the commonly held assumption that the English have a long and glorious tradition of tolerance. Rather, history shows that until recently the English were among the least tolerant peoples in the world.’

‘A White and Christian People?

The final programme of this series examines the idea that there is an ethnic core to Englishness. Is there any basis for the claim that to be truly English you have to be Anglo-Saxon? And what about the fact that until very recently being English also meant being Church of England Christian?’

Are these initial claims valid…do we think we are a chosen people, are we tolerant?, are the English purely white and Christian? Macculloch claims not but that we think this is so. I doubt whether anyone really thinks along the lines Macculloch suggests….but it is without doubt that Britain, England, was shaped by a Christian heritage and up until very recently was populated by ‘white’ people almost completely.

Before looking at the particulars of the programmes and especially the last on English identity I will put down what the BBC’s intentions were in the making of these programmes….their social and political effects.

These programmes are not just ‘history’, they are not just an interesting look at our national background…they are intended to have radical political and social effects.

The target audience is not really the flag waving EDL member…though the BBC would be more than delighted to put their noses out of joint by ‘rubbing those noses in diversity’.

The audience is firstly the Liberal ‘elite’, the politicians, the media heavy weights, the academics and intellectuals, lawyers, judges, senior police officers, the teachers, professional people, all those who control the power and influence.

Its second audience is the ‘intelligent’ viewer who takes an interest in such things but doesn’t have time to look too deeply but may be open to suggestion. The BBC hopes to let such programmes and radical ideas wash over them, slipping into their sub-conscience and altering their beliefs, even if merely in a slight shift of their perceptions, so that they come to accept certain attitudes and thence political policies favoured by the Left.

The whole premise of the programmes is based upon a ‘fact’ manufactured by Macculloch….taking something that has a semblance of truth and remoulding it for his own effect.

Macculloch claims that the 7th Century historian, the venerable Bede, invented the idea of Englishness in his history ‘The Ecclesiastical History of the English People’.
A reading of this tome will reveal that is not so….the real inventor of the English or British nation was Christianity in the shape of the Catholic church, namely Pope Gregory, Gregory the Great….. ‘The main theme of the History was the progression from diversity to unity….This was an idea worked out by Gregory the Great.’

Catholicism was growing in Britain and most people followed this faith but not all conformed to a common system but Britain became ever more united by Christianity when common dates were agreed for Christian events such as Easter and their common celebration.

And Bede tells us…’At the present time there are in Britain, in harmony with the five books of the divine law, five languages and four nations – English, British, Irish and Picts….all united in the study of God’s truth by the fifth – Latin – which has become a common medium through study of the scriptures.

Finally Bede clearly tells us that Gregory was the instigator of the concept of national unity….
‘….the blessed Pope Gregory died and was taken up to his eternal home in Heaven. And it is fitting that he should receive fuller mention in this history, since it was through his zeal that our English nation was brought from the bondage of Satan to the faith of Christ, and we may rightly term him our Apostle….for he transformed our still idolatrous nation into a church of Christ.’

Macculloch also claims that King Alfred united the English and defeated the Danes by creating a book of laws and uniting the disparate people with demands to follow this only. Unfortunately Alfred’s book came from the famous book of laws by his predecessor King Inas as well as from Biblical references and his own ideas. What really defeated the Danes was when ‘Alfred capitalised on the relatively peaceful years immediately following his victory at Ethandrun by focusing on an ambitious restructuring of his kingdom’s military defences. When the Viking raids resumed in 892, Alfred was better prepared to confront them with a standing, mobile field army, a network of garrisons, and a small fleet of ships navigating the rivers and estuaries.’

In other words it was reorganisation of his military forces and new strategy and tactics that won the battle….not a symbolic book of laws.

Macculloch’s final programme on English identity is a much more serious piece of trouble making.

It is apparent though that he is making it up as he goes along, grabbing useful ‘facts’ here and there to lend a spurious support to whatever idea he is currently pushing.
He claims using highly selective history and scientific evidence that the Anglo Saxons were merely an elite social strata that had no genetic or cultural inheritance in Britain…indeed that no ‘invaders’ had any serious impact on the indigenous peoples.
This kind of dents his claim to Britain not being of one major identity.
But he then conversely goes on to claim that ‘waves of foreigners were stirring up English identity’….including the Anglo Saxons, the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans….because he wants you to think, taking up the Left’s battle cry that we are all immigrants, that we are indeed just a nation of immigrants with no national identity….that no unique culture, language and character developed in these Islands….denying you and undermining your ethnic identity and cultural heritage for his own political ends.

You are not who you think you are!

Macculloch uses the work of Stephen Oppenheimer to back up his theories.
Oppenheimer uses genetics to ‘prove’ that there is no significant Anglo-Saxon influence in English identity.
‘Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.’
He states that the majority of Britons are descended from hunter gatherers who arrived from Iberia 6000 years ago.

The white skinned, blue eyed Macculloch almost dances for joy when told he is ‘Spanish’ not English.

Oppenheimer though seems confused…because he tells us that we are not Celts….and that there are hardly any Celtic words in our language….but then that ‘Given the distribution of Celtic languages in southwest Europe, it is most likely that they were spread by a wave of agriculturalists who dispersed 7,000 years ago from Anatolia, travelling along the north coast of the Mediterranean to Italy, France, Spain and then up the Atlantic coast to the British Isles.’

So the Celts did come here.

But he also tells us…’So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.’

The question is where are these ‘Basques’ and where is their culture, where is their language?  The answer is Wales.

If you want a near contemporary witness to the times look to the venerable Bede again:
‘These newcomers were from the three most formidable races of Germany, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. From the Saxons – that is, the country now known as the land of the Old Saxons – came the East, South and West Saxons. And from the Angles – that is the country known as Angulus, which lies between the provinces of the Jutes and Saxons and is said to remain unpopulated to this day – are descended the East and Middle Angles, the Mercians, all the Northumbrian stock, and the other English peoples.’

These people who had no effect upon us?…strange we speak their language and live in places named after them:
Sussex from the Old English Sūþsēaxe (‘South Saxons‘), is an historic county in South East England corresponding roughly in area to the ancient Kingdom of Sussex.

That is the reliable observation of Bede….but is Oppenheimer the only geneticist who has studied this area?

And note these geneticists have evidence that backs up Bede’s observations about the various distributions of peoples.
Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
‘The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent.’
‘When we compared our data with an additional 177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway, we found that the Central English and Frisian samples were statistically indistinguishable. Using novel population genetic models that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England.’
‘…no significant differences exist between Friesland and any of the Central English towns.
Furthermore, bootstrap tests revealed that the Central English (all five towns combined) are significantly more closely related to the Frisians than they are to the North Welsh.
Taken together, these results suggest considerable male-line commonality between Central England and Friesland.’
‘Further comparisons of these British samples with Basque data suggested that the male Celtic genetic component was Paleolithic in origin, and therefore, that subsequent cultural transitions in North Wales were not associated with substantial incoming male gene flow….in contrast to the Central English towns, the two North Welsh towns show highly significant differences, both from each other and from the five Central English towns.’

What this evidence points to is that the Welsh are the inheritors of the Basque/Celtic genetics in the main and that England did indeed have a mass migration from Northern Europe….archaeology tells us that whole areas were abandoned in Norhtern Europe…and Bede himself reports that….’Angulus (Original home of the Angles)…is said to remain unpopulated to this day’

This could be why most ‘English’ are fair, blue eyed and speak the Germanic language of ‘English’ which has negligible words of Celtic origin.

In other words there is a significant ethnic imprint that arrived here from Northern Europe and has dominated over the original inhabitants…who may now be the ‘Welsh’.

That various mix then of immigrants merged into one adopting one faith, one language and eventually one culture.

So Britain does have a unique culture and character and even an ethnic identity of its historical inhabitants deriving from mostly Northern European immigrants, one kept fairly individual over the course of the last 1000 years in which that identity and culture developed into the ‘British’ Character…individual character that other nations also possess……the French and Germans are well known for their own distinct personality and behaviours….No Japanese can be said to be in any way the same as a Yorkshire farmer.

To deny this is using highly selective and misleading, one sided scholarship is merely dishonest or incompetent. To deny it for political purposes, to push a pro-immigrant agenda is highly questionable morally….stripping a man of his identity and beliefs is the first stage to saying he doesn’t matter…..he is just a number….he is of no value.

A dangerous, slippery path towards what happened in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. beness says:

    First they came for the English…


  2. john in cheshire says:

    David, I’m pleased you have taken the trouble to examine these bbc programmes. I tried to watch all three but found myself shouting at the tv after a few minutes and had to switch over to something less dangerous to my blood pressure.
    Socialists are nothing if not persistent. We have had them trying to destroy or national fibre for 50 or so years and the 13 years of the labour government were unpleasant in this matter. The bbc is as always in the vanguard of spreading this pernicious propaganda and until the organisation is destroyed it will continue on its course. I would recommend Churchill’s The History of the English Speaking Peoples as an antidote to this socialist rubbish.


  3. Cassandra King says:

    Take away a peoples racial identity and its easy to then remove their right to a recognized homeland isnt it? The aim is to de legitimize the English race and consequently remove their claim to the land. It is a very clever strategy isnt it? De legitimize the English and remove their legal and moral claim to their own homeland, this cunning plan is actually laying the legal framework for the coming incorporation of England into a new EU nation state.

    At present international law supports the rights of an indigenous population to a secure and recognized homeland, taking away or at least removing the belief that the English are an indigenous native people is essential for those who wish to destroy England and see it handed over to the EU.

    If these scum can prove that the English people do not actually exist as a native recognized racial group then it means it practice that the English people can be denied their rights to their won homeland and it also means that any immigrant on arrival has just as much claim to the land as an English person whose ancestors lived here a thousand years ago, but more importantly it means that if it can be established that in fact there is no such nation called England and no such people called English it means the removal of any protection and privilege we may enjoy under international law.

    They are in effect trying to justify stealing our land and identity from us.


    • james says:

      Funny how the BBC seems to be all for Scottish Independence or Welsh Independence. So they recognise these to groups. But when it comes to the English they do not exist.

      “You can take my identity away, but you can never take my FREEEDOM!”


    • Phobic-cist says:

      First ever comment on this site, which I recently discovered through almost losing my mind at the sneaky leftie thought grenades the BB bloody C are forever stirring into their output, thus prompting a search for those of similar beliefs on the web. And it is that yes, they are very happy to promulgate this trash, chipping away at ‘Englishness’ and will continue to do so because they hate us, but I despair at what can actually be done other than to campaign to see ‘Auntie’ cast adrift in a proper commercial sea without our TV tax to keep her afloat.


      • Wayne X says:

        Hello and welcome.
        It’s nice and snug in here and you are with friends.

        However I remind myself of the tale where a few old friends are sitting around a nice warm fire on a cold night enjoying a glass of ale and a little light banter when someone comes in and just throws a bucket of water on the fire for no good reason other than to be contrary.

        Unfortunately blogs also have such folk, they are called trolls and we have one. You will be able to spot him/her by the perverse posts. Be not afraid, keep calm and carry on and everything will be fine and Dandy.


        • ROBERT BROWN says:

          Correct Wayne, Mr Dandy has not commented thus far, i’d like to see his comment[s] though, i get the impression he feels morally ‘superior’ to the rest of us, a common trait of the left. But i like to think the left read our posts and welcome their views.


  4. Biodegradable says:

    A dangerous, slippery path towards what happened in Germany in the 1930′s and 40′s.

    Indeed, I’m struck by the similarity with the campaign to delegitimise Israel and the Jews by claiming that Jews are really “Kazars” from eastern Europe, the accusations of Israel “Judaising” Jerusalem (for heaven’s sake!) and that Rachel’s Tomb is a Muslim holy site, and of course the claim that Jesus was a “Palestinian”.


  5. As I See It says:

    I watched roughly 50% of this 3 part series. I admit that I was at first lured in by MacCulloch’s apparent middle England reasonableness and the picturesque locations.

    However, it was not long before I cottoned on that this series was nothing but quintessential agenda-driven BBC non-history from the multi-culti glee club.

    A cod-history primer for left-wing apparatchiks.

    In its breathless rush to prove the English have been intollerant but are now diverse, that our idea of Christianity is a mirage but that Christianity makes us inclusive and that afterall there is no such thing as the English – it was both internally contradictory and silly.

    This BBC approved idea that there is no substance to Englishness just won’t wash. Not when, for instance, Neil Oliver can bang on about unique braveheart vintage Scottishness until he is blue in the face!

    Remember Michael Wood? The Story of England? You know, on the history of the Leicestershire village of Kibworth? You should recall it – the book is still for sale in the BBC shop! (Although one wonders for how much longer?)

    ‘The village of Kibworth in Leicestershire lies at the very centre of England. It has a church, some pubs, the Grand Union Canal, a First World War Memorial – and many centuries of recorded history….enlisting the help of the current inhabitants of Kibworth, with a village-wide archeological dig, with the first complete DNA profile of an English village and with use of local materials like family memorabilia, Michael Wood tells the extraordinary story of one English community over fifteen centuries, from the moment that the Roman Emperor Honorius sent his famous letter in 410 advising the English to look to their own defences to the village as it is today. The story of Kibworth is the story of England itself, a ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ for the entire nation.’

    But for MacCulloch’s series the eventual money shot is no a scene of the English landscape, nor even a colourful Hindu festival taking place on the Mersey ferry. Nope, its an interview from MacCulloch’s ultimate source – Rowan Williams the Arch-druid of Canterbury on why The CofE needs to take a back seat and let other religions take over.


  6. demon1001 says:

    Alan this is a fascinating dissection of a piece of vile BBC propaganda. I didn’t watch these programmes as I now watch very little BBC – I instinctively don’t believe a word they say anymore, and I am always convinced that anything they do say contains hidden distortions for propagnda effect.

    I regard myself as English although I have no Anglo-Saxon blood in me at all (my mother, as far as we have been told, is Celtic Irish and my father was a refugee from the continent with one Jewish parent and one of “Germanic” blood) but I regard myself as full English. I believe that the Common Law as practised in this country for centuies up to joining the EU is something for all citizens. Anybody coming to this country (as my father did) must be prepared to adapt to our country’s laws and customs or return to a place that they feel more adequately supports their requirements.

    Any leftie thinking that unpleasant, imported customs are more worthy than our democracy are also free to leave and go to the hell-hole of their choice. The concept of freedom and democracy in this country should remain paramount and there is no equivalence to any other culture that believes the opposite.


    • hippiepooter says:

      I too have a bit of an exotic blood mix – I had a Ceylonese great-great Grandmother. I also have some Scottish blood (but we prefer not to talk about that in the family :p).

      I have imbibed what it means to be an Englishman from the cradle, and the values that McDruid was referring to in his mocking tone make my heart burst with pride.


  7. Oppenheimer… There’s a good English name for you. I would totally buy into whatever an irish chap like him says about a race and culture for whom he has nothing but hostility. Especially since, as luck would have it, it is the English and more broadly the British who gave the world common law, the concept of spiritual equality of all men and women (as opposed to Frankfurt School socialist PC), flushing toilets, a common language, the concept of both the modern nation state and sovereignty…

    Attacking England and attempting to complete the white genocide is a transparent agenda of insuring the EUrocrat plans from the 1950s- to create (their words) a “European-Negroid” population “similar to Ancient Egypt” (and complete with a heathen religion!) takes place.


  8. Mike says:

    Preparations for the United States of Europe?


  9. james says:

    The BBC have been pushing their pseudo-history for quite some time. As for Mr MacCulloch’s tolerance, tolerance is just a code word for cowardice.

    Allowing bearded maniacs to spit at returning troops, that’s tolerance, allowing bearded maniacs to march through London threatening to cut off peoples heads, that’s tolerance, allowing bearded maniacs to burn a poppy on Armistice day, that’s tolerance, covering up for bearded maniacs who defile your children, that’s tolerance.

    Mr MacCulloch also has a weird Nazi belief that race is some how genetic. Bede and all other real Englishmen did not think so, for them race was a mixture of language and culture.

    But the BBC have done this before with their slander of Florence Nightingale a master statistician and who single handedly created the modern nursing movement. According to the BBC she was an sexually frustrated evil white racist.

    Anyway to get over the contemporary BBC’s pseudo-history I just watch Kenneth Clark Civilisation on DVD (from a time when the BBC was actually good). Now who am I going to believe, the contemporary BBC or my lying eyes?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Yes, fans of eugenics were of the Left, with plenty of Socialist intellectuals among them. Not unlike the BBC….

      But hasn’t the BBC been pushing the notion that tolerance is a key trait of being “British”, and that Little Englanders are intolerant for wanting to remain English? So where does this tolerance come from, if not the English? The Welsh? Scots?


    • David says:

      “MacCulloch also has a weird Nazi belief that race is some how genetic.”

      Unless it comes to immigrants to England who apparently are as English as you or I – in this instance genetics are waycist.

      The contortions the left has to exercise in order to perform such dissonance is quite remarkable.


  10. Dave s says:

    Compare and contrast the BBC’s and the rest of the fellow travellers’ insistence that the Palestinians are a distinct people with a homeland and a way of life stretching back into the distant past.
    This self hating liberal attitude towards the notion of England is doomed to failure. Do they really imagine an ancient people is so easily stripped of it’s past?
    The time will come when we take back our culture from these weak and pathetic creatures.
    When Harold fell the English locked their shields around his body and fought to the bitter end. That is our way and that is what we need to tell our children and grandchildren.
    These idiots who purport to lecture and spout about us do not know us.


  11. GCooper says:

    Gramsci meets the Frankfurt School.

    Invert every established belief and the revolution happens like magic.


  12. beness says:

    A genocide of the English would reverberate around the world. What language would the international language be?
    The international language of the Airlines and Maritime vessels is English. How would they contemplate getting rid of this?


  13. chrisH says:

    Fine song by Leonard Cohen is called “Everybody Knows”.
    And , having read the posts above…I think we all DO know what the game is.
    The BBC are that predictable….Gramsci and Marcuse etal by rote, by numbers…because the BBC itself is so F666in thick, lazy and unschooled itself that it just churns it all out by the metre….yards now being wished out of existance by the BBC.
    They just wind up the Frys, Mc Diarmids etc and pay them to churn it out…we could all know in advance what the narrative, context…and of course the conclusions…were going to be.
    Hats off to those who persevered…I saw the first ten minutes of the first show…looked as a few iPlayer bits and random…and joined the dots….
    No danger of England going anywhere either. The tossers who peddle this Europap don`t speak for me-and we need to sue a few of them for treason.
    The Enemy Within…reckon a Maggie hat to go with the Union Jack waistcoat and Daily Mail under my arm ought to do it for today!


  14. DavidLamb says:

    Interesting how genetics can be trotted out to support pernicious political theories. As if the meanings associated with our practices, arts, culture, relgion, morality, etc are reducible to genes.


  15. Sultan says:

    The British Celts are not the same as the European Celts, which is probably why Macculloch’s message is so confused (besides, obviously, trying to undermine the cultural and national heritage). The Celts that came over from Iberia to the British Isles X,000 years ago were probably even less European Celtic than the Germanic Angles and Saxons are German.

    It seems rather bizarre to me that people oppose the genetic evidence that suggests our genetic and cultural heritage is more unique and ancient than generally thought.

    As an aside, the idea that tolerance is a national trait seems to me to be a recent invention to try and placate opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism.


  16. Span Ows says:

    comment disappeared again, what’s the problem?


  17. Invicta 1066 says:

    I have recorded but not watched any of the McCulloch programmes as yet.
    I have the Oppenheimer book and have read it.

    Surely the point Oppenheimer makes about the relatively little change in our DNA after the ‘Anglo Saxon Invasion’ less than 5% in most areas is due to the fact that ‘Anglo Saxon’ DNA was already here because we are, basically the same people- Northern Europeans. It is just that we happen to live where we do, now cut off from our neighbours with whom our ancestors probably roamed over what is now the North Sea. There was time when it was possible to walk from the Ural Mountains in Russia to the far west and beyond, what is now Ireland.

    Our ancestors moved south before the advance of the Ice Age, Paviland Cave in the Gower S Wales contained the Red Lady (actually a boy) skeleton is dated some 27,000 ago. Modern Europeans moved back north from the areas they had occupied as the ice retreated but not through the same routes or to the same places. Once again they farmed and hunted in what is now the North Sea before it flooded. Some when east some west and some south.
    Invasions by Vikings (very little DNA even in York, more in Cumbria) Normans-no more than 12-15,000 ever settled here, have had little effect on DNA.
    I go with that guy from Somerset ; a 9,000-year-old skeleton who lived in a cave, and who has a living distant male relative, a Mr.Targett, who was born in Bristol, just 15 miles away, there are others.
    Cheddar Man was a Stone Age hunter-gatherer who lived in south-western England. Scientists from Oxford University’s Institute of Molecular Medicine, led by Dr. Sykes, analyzed mitochondrial DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man’s molar teeth. The results were compared to those of 20 people in the area. Researchers say that it shows that Britons descended from European hunter-gatherers rather than Middle Eastern farmers.
    Nine thousand years that will do for me. Trumps the Maoris who lay claim to New Zealand having arrived there about the time of the Norman Invasion.
    I’m a Northern European with long traditions and history who lives in a particular area of Northern Europe as have my ancestors who struggled and lived and died here to make my country what it was about 30 years ago that will do for me.


    • Mice Height says:

      N.Z Maoris – 730 years
      Tibetans – 3000 years
      N.American Indians – 9000 years
      Amazon & S.American Indians – 6500 years
      A lot of the people of the British isles have roots going back 12,000 years, and in many cases further.


      • David says:

        Exactly. I’ve mentioned this to many friends and you can visibly see the progammed chip in their heads begin to overheat. They never give a response because they can’t, or they revert to the slavery meme as a diversion, to which I always ask if they think punishing people for the sins of the past is right. This causes further confusion for them. But the left are slippery customers and they will not be pinned down to answers.


  18. Johnny Norfolk says:

    I can never understand how Conservatives in government can let them get away with it. Just when will they stand up to the BBC and its left wing agenda as its there for all to see.


    • Robin Rose says:

      The answer is never. Call Me Dave has no political philosophy and no discernible beliefs, apart from the belief that he should be Prime Minister. He is the antithesis of a conviction politician.


    • Cassandra King says:

      We do not have a conservative leader or government.

      What we have is a social democrat centrist Cameron and a party of vetted centrist political class elites masquerading as right wing. Calling Cameron a right winger is like calling Bliar a socialist.


  19. TigerOC says:

    What Invicta says is quite correct. Geneticists at Oxford did a random DNA sample of the population and found that 95% of ethnic Britons descend from the original hunter gatherers that settled the British Isles 20 000 years ago. The various invasions that the BBC “scientists” like to refer to as immigrants has made insignificant change to the population. These earliest settlers could not have settled earlier because the place was covered in ice.

    The Celts and Anglo-Saxons have made contributions to things like language, religion and scientific progress just as the Romans did later.

    The Celts and local indigenous people seem to have co-existed and worked together fairly well as Stone Henge testifies. The Vikings seemed to enjoy raiding here but few actually settled except the Northern Isles.

    So the indigenous people have been around for some 20 000 years and seem to have fared pretty well so far. We don’t need or want those whose progress has been somewhat retarded in other regions of the World upsetting our genetic heritage thanks.


  20. geyza says:

    Why is every other race, creed or group allowed to have a “culture”? Not only have one, but have it protected and defended by the traditionally, tolerant British?

    Yet whilst we are expected to defend and protect every other culture, the cultural marxists in the BBC, the politically correct fascists and racist “anti-racists” continue to engage in cultural denial of the traditional British heritage and culture.

    It is a political attack aimed at creating a cultural genocide of the British culture. We should stand up to it and protect our British culture from all attacks, foreign and domestic.


    • TigerOC says:

      This is actually a conundrum. The more stable and affluent a society is the more likely they are to be relaxed and satisfied with the stability and strength of their society. i.e. less likely to be nationalistic.

      There is another factor at work here I believe. Many of the elites derived their wealth from the industrial revolution of the mid-1800’s. Since Britain is an island they were forced to draw a great deal of their raw materials from areas other than the UK and hence the colonisation of many other parts of the World.

      The elites are still very wealthy and many have more money than common sense. They therefore navel gaze and now feel guilt and remorse for the way their ancestors made this wealth. They feel the need to express the remorse by “repaying” the debt in the form of allowing their former colonial subjects access to their homelands and the opportunities afforded them by the wealth of the homeland.

      Have no fear the elites still perceive the local peasantry as just that. Nothing has changed on that score and whilst they endorse the so-called democracy here, the elites still rule. Note Cameron has employed someone to investigate how the Cons can connect with the “ordinary man”. i.e. the elites still rule the place but they need better guidance on how to pull the wool over the peasants eyes so that this democracy things doesn’t get out of control.


      • RGH says:

        While they flit from wateringhole to wateringhole to gated exclusivity following the sun through its seasons while the ‘Hegelian Universal Homogenous State’ sorts out for order. Nationalism is a no no for this dream. It must be squeezed out lest it spoil the inevitable.

        Seems they’ve tired of ‘Englishness’, a mere construct as their tame philosophers tell them. Time to move on.

        The Brave New World of ‘Information’, Globalisation beckons.

        Theme Parks for Englishness…safely encapsulated and firmly in the past.

        This ‘identity’ battle is well underway.


  21. Keith Newman says:

    I couldn’t bear to watch as after a few minutes I was very angry indeed.

    Instead, I had an early night reading Margaret Thatcher ‘The Downing Street Years’ I went to sleep happy!


    • chrisH says:

      Well said sir!
      I`m going through Margaret Thatchers speeches in Iain Dales compilation.
      Her speeches at the time of Callaghans squalid era-printing money, devolution, unions bullying, divide and rule class envy and dismantling of education…are quite brilliant, and as relevant now (sadly) as they were then…even more so in that we`re supposed to have a Tory in charge…
      No wonder Mrs T is so hated by the BBC and the liberal elite ,now more than ever…her scorn and contempt for them is timeless and hits them right where it hurts them.
      God Bless that great lady…only wish I`d had the sense to realise it at the time.
      A real prophet


  22. Invicta 1066 says:

    Sorry to be a bore but I wonder if the BBC could be persuaded to do a programme about the ancestry of the Native American Indians?
    The starting point could be the DNA Haplogroup X which is found in 4% of Europeans and in wait for it Ojibwa and Sioux Indians!
    The particular mutation can be determined as about 27,000 years old. The highest concentrations are found in the eastern Mediterranean area, although it is thought the people originated in the Caucasus Mountains
    Twenty-seven thousand years brings back to the last Ice Age when the sheet ice stretched from what is now southern England across to N America. It seems highly likely that some of this tribe migrated along the shelf edge and reached N America…now did they get there before or after the ’Native Indians’? Clearly they interbred.
    The migrants would probably have left from what is now England or Ireland so does that make them British-does N America really belong to us?
    Interesting how keen the Native Indians are to scupper any archaeology, all ancient bones are dubbed Native Indian and buried without more ado, no scientific investigation-just in case it turns out they lose their claim to ancestral rights.

    BBC programme on thisJust a thought!


  23. Mark Conway says:

    While I realise and understand that the BBC’s charter commitment which calls on the corporation to ‘Inform’ is inevitably going to cross over to become ‘Influence’, the frightening thing (and I use ‘frightening’ after careful thought) is that it (the BBC) has become so powerful as to be able to pursue its own agenda, politically and historically, as described here, with very few checks and balances.

    My own view is that Englishness is considerably more than a geographical accident, but is something that has arisen based on people coming together in a place where their shared purpose and shared values have created something of distinction both locally and as far as the wider world is concerned. Of course the teaching of the Catholic church has played a massive part in this process, given its use as a powerful tool of governance and control immediately after the Roman occupation and ever since, but one of the attractions for the Romans, and subsequent occupiers/conquerors was that England/Britain already had a coherence and a degree of order that was absent elsewhere in continental Europe. So more recent developments have built upon, but not created from nothing, what we are today.

    I don’t wish to become the stereotype here, but I do believe that some ‘British or English’ values such as fairness, respect, manners and consideration/help for those less able/fortunate than ourselves is at the core of Englishness and that unless incomers realise, understand and accept this, Englishness is in danger.

    In addition, one would question why incomers want to come here in the first place, if not to ‘join’ a common goal and set of beliefs, but instead to make use of our tolerance to enable their own intolerance to grow and flourish unchallenged.

    I would recommend Peter Ackroyd’s Brilliant recent book, ‘the History of England, Volume 1, Foundation’, as a source of further information.

    Thank you for a thought-provoking piece.


  24. Jeff says:

    Like many others I thought I would give this series a try, but was very dubious, this being on the Beeb.
    I managed about fifteen minutes before my blood pressure reached dangerous levels and I hit the off switch. There is a constant meme amongst the liberal/left, that the English are a “bastard” race. This pejorative term would never be used against any other group of people. It recalls the repulsive Greg Dyke’s, “hideously white” remarks. Tragically most young people are so historically illiterate that this sort of propaganda is probably effective.
    Please remind me, which Nazi war criminal said, “if you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth.”?


  25. Dave666 says:

    I didn’t watch it because I just knew what it would be like. However I have witnesed the BBC re- write history that has occoured in my own life time. Constantly put ethnics in time periods that make no sense I’m waiting for them to show an Asian caveman helping to build Stonehenge. This rubbish makes no difference to me I know my identity and my history and my heritage nothing they do will change that. I’ve even had my own Mother tell me that “we are all Immigrants” guess how well that went down I didn’t speak to her for three years after that..


  26. Leftie-Loather says:

    More like Professor McEunuch! The bloke’s just a complete and utter bamboozling clown, absolutely typical of the EU adoring and traitorous as hell British(lol!!)BrainwashingCorporation.
    How much longer in a supposed democracy do we British have to legally fund this utterly embarrassing and misrepresentative CRAP?!!!


  27. Reed says:

    “stripping a man of his identity and beliefs is the first stage to saying he doesn’t matter…..he is just a number….he is of no value.”

    Socialism in a nutshell. Unless of course you are one of the favoured groups, in which case your identiy and beliefs render you more equal.


  28. SteveB says:

    It’s wearying, it’s frightening, it goes on and on – but what are WE going to do about it?
    The analogy of boiling frogs in a progressively-heated pan of water – they just stay there until they die – is appallingly apt it seems to me.
    Yet where is the organised political opposition to the degradation of our English culture? Where can we go to express our rage at what is happening?
    We appear to have no representation at all. EDL? Poisoned by thugs. BNP? Even more so, unpleasant in the extreme. Neither organisation has the articulate, intelligent, informed speakers who could command the support of the mainstream majority in this country who are crying out for representation. UKIP? Too single-issue.
    What do others think? I’m at a loss.
    The real danger, it seems to me, is that the bottled-up rage of the otherwise tolerant will eventually have no option but to explode. It’s happened before in Europe – think it can’t happen here?


  29. hippiepooter says:

    I haven’t caught the last two in this series. Will have to.

    I caught Paxo’s last instalment on the British Empire on iplayer a couple of nights ago.

    I found the first 3 a mixed bag of a not unreasonable romp through our imperial history coupled with wincing at his insufferableness.

    Instalment 4 ‘Doing good’ though was different.

    He was in hushed awe at the good that had been done through Empire. It really was quite incredible.


  30. St Bruno says:

    Could it be that Diarmaid Macculloch is paraded before us with all his baggage as a counter
    weight to the disgraced David Starky?

    I was reminded of the attempted subversion of the west
    by the USSR as seen on Youtube but seems to be still in place under the
    guise of the EU.
    The speaker is Tomas Schuman aka Yuri Bezmenov who defected in 1971 from the Novosti-KGB.

    It’s a bit on the long side at one hour and three minutes. Still, you don’t have to watch it, as I choose not to watch BBC ‘History’ or listen to BBC World Service climate change propaganda at every verse end.


  31. Ian says:

    Three points –

    It seems odd that the BBC pushes Scottish and Welsh identities, whilst negating the English one, when both Celtic countries’ “nationalist” parties seem to think that just living there is all that it takes to make you one of them.

    The beeb’s latest genetic analysis of the English has improved from the time it proclaimed that we have a large dollop of negro Roman soldier in us (not that the Romans ever took over the negro part of Africa).

    The English-led British Empire saved Hindus from islamic Mogul oppression, toleration of other faiths being a European rather than an Asiatic trait. When will al-Beeb be mentioning this?


    • Pah says:

      The Roman army was very cosmopolitan and even contained elephants during Claudius’ invasion.

      Negroes, Syrians, Italians, Germans and whatnot they were all there.

      Did they stay? Did they breed with the locals? Does it actually matter?


  32. Mice Height says:

    Of course they’ll be following it up with a series telling us that there’s no such thing as Kenyan culture, as they’re made up of 42 different ethnic groups/tribes, or Indian culture because of the Caste system!?
    These anti-English bigots should ask themselves what would be missing from the world if you were to take away all the works that were written in the English language.

    One has to admire the ‘progress’ that the progressives have achieved through their mass-immigration policy though. You know, children being executed for witchcraft or for body parts to be used in medicine, the re-emergance of Tuberculosis, honour killings, post code gang shootings and stabbings.
    Who wouldn’t wish to live in this vibrant, diverse neighbourhood:


  33. Nibor says:

    The presenter of the programme who wants to be a Daygo left a lot of unanswered questions to his 3rd show .
    For example , why would all those Romano-British (Basque ?) tribes have wanted an Anglo Saxon to peacefully come into their villages and lord it over them , taking over the largest houses ? Where did the ones who lived in the advanced towns go ?
    Did it really happen that a fairly sophisticated society for its time , said to a band of incomers who had a different language , clothing and culture , “please settle at our expense ” ?
    Gramsci and the BBC weren`t around then .
    And can he do a genetics test on the Straw Man that appears on his shows ?


  34. Merlin says:

    “The BBC has broadcast what must be one of the ugliest and nastiest pieces of racist polemics outranking anything you might think the BNP could publish….a nastiness that is hidden and given a respectability by the veneer of BBC authority and backed up by the appearance of profound, credible scholarship.

    It is a highly sophisticated and polished propaganda drive worthy of Goebbels or Willie Munzenberg, driven by the politically correct imperative to support and excuse mass immigration. It is aimed at the very heart of this nation with the sole intention of destroying national identity and sense of belonging and unity that has for so long held this nation together and provided the world with political, scientific, industrial and social progressive ideas that have made the world a better place.”

    But David, are you really surprised by yet another attempt by the socialist filth to dismantle our heritage and identity? The urban ‘trendy’ middle class liberals who have sabotaged the BBC are utter scum, pure and simple. As my endless rants have pointed to, there will be blood spilt in this country, and violent blood. Depending on who wins, the history books will tell two differing stories; but only one will lay claim to the truth.


    • Backwoodsman says:

      If you want to read wonderful narative histories of England and these island people, pick up the works of Sir Arthur Bryant, written between the 1930’s and 1960’s and available at your local second hand book shop.
      Bryant’s books tell how we developed democracy and prospered as a Nation, safe from invasion behind our sea walls and how our mastery of the sea was translated into an empire.
      Interestingly, Bryant not very popular with the bbc’s new ‘revisionist’ historians, who hint darkly at ‘fascist sympathies’.


      • hippiepooter says:

        If BBC revisionist historians only ‘hint darkly’ at Sir Arthur Bryant having ‘fascist sympathies’, at least they retain classic English understatement.

        A bit of googling turns up that Andrew Roberts (not the most ‘revisionist’ of historians) maintains that Sir Arthur Bryant had indirect Nazi contacts up till 1940.

        In 1939 Bryant also published and wrote a favourable foreword to Mein Kampf.


  35. James S says:

    The BBC seem to be branching out into the field of ‘trolling’ , that’s the only explanation for these awful programmes that I can think of.
    Of course the good thing is that only liberal fools will swallow the crap that was in these programs, the rest of us have more common sense. It reminds me of that awful ‘The Power of Nightmares’ series they ran a few years ago, that too was utter nonsense.


    • hippiepooter says:

      ‘Power of Nightmares’ was worse, it was Treason.

      Overt enemy propaganda on the BBC at time of war. Those responsible should have been in cold, dank cells for a few years.


  36. zemplar says:

    The usual filthy rubbish from the Gramscian Marxist Broadcasting Society. Nothing new. Anyone see Rageh Omar’s predictable-as-f*ck whitewash of Mohammed? Or ‘The Crusades’, in which, after less than 40 seconds of the titles rolling in the first episode, the first Crusade was framed as a completely unprovoked attack on innocent, fluffy muslims? They intercut this with footage of contemporary muslims eating ice-cream with their children, while laughing and joking. Very slick, very clever, very Goebbels. Hey BBC, how about commissioning a series about how ‘The Protocols of The Elders of Zion’ are actually ‘true’ – come on, you know you want to…or maybe screen Herr Goebbels’ ‘The Eternal Jew’ on BBC4, masquerading as art?


  37. Merlin says:

    The rabid anti-Semite BBC will never let a small thing like truth get in the way of their weekly genuflections and craven groveling towards the Islamic community. They always choose political correctness over factual correctness, every time, without fail; alas, the left wing have repeated the same old commie mantras and platitudes so many times that they’ve become ingrained. But what I find even worse than the dissemblers at the top are those lowly floor staff minions who are all to eager to carry out their socialist masters’ foul bidding. These lowly BBC staff are like laboratory mice scrambling desperately to find a way up the left wing ladder in order to advance their repugnant careers in any way, shape or form – no matter what! Any allegiance or gratitude to those coerced into funding their loathsome Soviet-style indulgence faded a long time ago; what we see now is simply an astounding liberal free-for-all sausage-fest with all impartiality chucked out the window. The revolution is imminent brothers and sisters! Sharpen your pitch-forks and lock up your chickens!


    • Jim Dandy says:

      Dad’s Army was good though. And Portidge, I liked Porridge.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Yes, I regard it as tragic that the Gramscian descent of the BBC over the last 30 years leads to calls for its abolition. I want it to be what it once was, when it was producing classics like Dad’s Army and Porridge, and it’s journalism was a bye-word for integrity.


        • hippiepooter says:

          Yet those distinguished guests in the Vintners Hall could not have known what the expiry of the Fifty Year Rule and the subsequent opening of Bryant’ s private papers can now tell us; that far from being the patriot he so long and loudly proclaimed himself, Bryant was in fact a Nazi sympathiser and fascist fellow-traveller, who only narrowly escaped internment as a potential traitor in 1940. He was also, incidentally, a supreme toady, fraudulent scholar and humbug.”

          Andrew Roberts


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        It’s not easy to separate in one’s mind and heart the biased News division from the classic comedies, the orchestras, costume dramas, Coronation St., and Blue Peter, is it?


  38. Bob says:

    Started reading this because big fossil snakes are interesting. Half way through it morphed into an article on climate change. They can’t help slip it into almost everything they do can they. Every damned thing! It’s so boring.


  39. Richard Pinder says:

    In North America and Australia, the left clearly labels the whites as indigenous to Europe and everyone else as indigenous to places outside of Europe. So according to the left, I am not an indigenous English or British person because I am indigenous to Europe. All because people have moved into Britain from Europe since the last Ice age. Therefore, Multiculturalism must mean that integration is not possible because they are different from the immigrants that came before.

    There is another strange case of the left rewriting the history of Roman York. The Berbers are the indigenous white Caucasian people of North Africa, the black population has largely arrived through Islamic slavery in the last 500 years and from up the Nile before that. In the Roman period Tunisia was called the Province of Africa, the name Africa comes from a Berber tribe. The slaves obtained from Africa were White, because the Barbarian slaves were Berbers free of Roman rule to the south of Roman territory and North of the desert that was a barrier to black Africa. A skeleton found in York a hundred years ago with an ivory bangle was re-examined. Although it had Caucasoid features, they assumed it must have been a negro half cast because it had an ivory bangle and a skull shape described as more common in African Women. No mention of isotope or genetic tests, nor the possibility that she was born in North Africa of Roman, Greek, Phoenician or indigenous Berber dissent, or that the scull shape is not particularly rare in European women or unique to Black African women. In fact the scant and selective nature of the evidence provided indicates an agenda behind the re-examination. The confusion between the modern association of the word Africa with Black people and the reality of a relatively hideously white North Africa outside of Egypt in the Roman period means that she was most likely to have been a rich indigenous local lady who acquired Ivory trinkets through traded goods. This has been used to rewrite the history of York, with street scenes of Roman York teaming with people with Black African features, without a shred of genetic evidence for these people in the local population other than people of Caucasoid Mediterranean origin.

    I do not know if there is anything in this but I remember reading somewhere that the population of East Anglia was wiped out in the early sixth century by a Tunguska event centred on Norfolk. Also I would like to point out that we in York where never ruled over by Alfred the Great.


  40. Burkean Outlook says:

    Good Morning

    A very interesting article David.

    As always I to look a little deeper behind the motives of this production.

    Diarmaid MacCulloch is indeed a professor of history of the church at the University of Oxford.

    Indeed he has written a number of books on Ecclesiastical History.

    But as many have already deduced, Prof MacCulloch, is very much part of the cultural relativist movement that is very much a part of the mainstream within the intelligentsia.

    Prof MacCulloch is actually more famous for his involvement in “Queer Theology”, he was an early member of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in the 1970’s, and he describes his relationship with the established church

    “I was brought up in the presence of the Bible, and I remember with affection what it was like to hold a dogmatic position on the statements of Christian belief. I would now describe myself as a candid friend of Christianity.”

    ” was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn’t cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience”

    So this is a man who has challenged the whole notion of “orthodoxy”, and is indeed he viewed as a divisive figure within the ecclesiastical community.


  41. As I See It says:

    The point of programmes of this kind is to provide left-wing apparatchiks with a counter narrative. When a confused English person expresses alarm that suddenly it has come about that every second child born in London last year was named Mohammed, the likes of Dame Nicky Campbell and Richard Boom Bacon can retort – but didn’t you know?…the English are a nation of immigrants!

    A sensible reading of history will tell you that England has absorbed only one group of bona fide assylum seekers (people actually fleeing persecution and with nowhere else to go) the Huguenots. The Jews came later but by then there was also the USA as a more distant but alternative possible refuge. All the rest is economic migration. Our population is now 70 million and counting. Unemployment and under employment are growing. Incomes are falling. The BBC will still tell you that immigration is a very good thing.


  42. scoobywho says:

    What Doughnut Macculloch believes he can prove is irrelevant. Identity is the set of believes and values that we or anyone else chooses to associate themselves with. That’s why there are people from India or who’s parents are from India who by Doughnuts logic couldn’t be English yet who none the less still proudly identify with and have been accepted as being English through and through.

    For balance will we be hearing a party political broadcast by the BNP ?


  43. maturecheese says:

    It is sickening! Unless there is a massive turnout for an anti EU party (UKIP being the only viable one at the moment) at the next election, I fear it will be too late to change the course of this disgusting Marxist/Corporatist ( I’m struggling to find a name for the Evil that it is) juggernaut


    • Merlin says:

      I say it again, if those lying and anti-British Liebour worms regain power then mass violence will be the only remedy with the power to restore this country to some resemblance of a proud and cohesive nation. Socialism simply doesn’t bloody-well work and never will primarily because these movements are invariably hijacked by the middle-to-upper classes who simply can’t relate to or indeed understand the working classes and their struggles. These (often rich-kid) Islamo-Marxist commies in fact despise the British working classes, associating them with nationalist movements and regarding them as an obstinate obstruction impeding progress to the ‘enlightened’ multicultural ‘utopia’. They stonewall debate, censor and refuse to hear any perspectives that cannot be aligned with the left wing narrative; but history tells us that socialism will always fail because it aims to turn the state into a type of secular religion, a religion which knows best for the people. The BBC mirror this philosophy that ‘anything is justified if it is carried out for the common good of the state’. Oppose the the state behemoth and you will be ostracized and dealt with accordingly. Classic socialism!


  44. dha says:

    I didn’t think it was sophisticated at all. It was bafflingly blunt, and the arguments were mostly non-sequiturs.

    I think it was a mistake for the BBC to produce this programme. It is so clearly an attack on Britain and everything it stands for that they can no longer credibly deny that they are pushing an anti-British ideology.

    Either it was a mistake or they are so strong it doesn’t even matter anymore. I certainly hope not.


  45. Scrappydoo says:

    I did not watch the program because I had expected something along these lines, although it does sound far worse than usual. The BBC has become a dangerous joke. You know what limited subject areas will be being peddled relentlessly no matter when you tune in, For this reason I avoid the BBC where possible .


  46. DP111 says:

    From Wiki

    Cultural genocide is a term that lawyer Raphael Lemkin proposed in 1933 as a component to genocide. The term was considered in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples juxtaposed next to the term ethnocide, but it was removed in the final document, replaced with simply “genocide”. The precise definition of “cultural genocide” remains unclear.


  47. DNACowboy says:

    It is quite clear to any student of the BBC that it’s raison d’être is to corrupt knowledge rather than facilitate true understanding.
    At its core the BBC retreats from such concepts as national identity because it fears what that represents and what better way than to pervert and mold historical fact along ideological lines?
    The BBC is the very antithesis of all that Britain holds dear and given their way will bring it all tumbling down while desperately telling themselves ‘job well done’.