The English Icons project is a classic soviet-style propaganda
operation whereby a propaganda unit is set up ostensibly to give voice
to the wishes of the people but whose real purpose is to produce a
pre-ordained propaganda scenario.

In the case of English Icons the pre-ordained propaganda scenario is to
portray England and the English as a happy-clappy multicultural
heaven.
This was signalled by the choice of The Windrush as one of the original
panel chosen Icons.

When the first icons which were supposedly determined by the
public's nominations and voting were chosen in April they included
The
Notting Hill Carnival and Brick Lane. I used the Freedom of Information
Act to get the actual voting figures. - see Phil Clapp's letter below.
The Notting Hill Carnival was chosen by the panel despite 84.5% of the
public voting NO. Brick Lane was chosen with a mere 20 people taking
part in the vote. The choice of the two Icons was pre-ordained and
made
despite the public's actual voting, the purpose of The Notting Hill
Carnival being to include blacks: that of Brick Lane to include
Asians.

When the first publicly nominated Icons were selected the English Icons
section within the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport announced (Daily
Telegraph 28 April) that the Notting Hill Carnival and Brick Lane had
been included as an English icon because they are "one of the 21 most
voted for icons suggested by the public since the website was set up in
January"Â . Clearly neither were and have been selected simply to
progress the multicultural agenda.

That is the political manipulation which in a sense is a form of
censorship because the truth is hidden. But English Incons is also
censoring the comments made about icons. Here is the project's
director
Daniel Hahn writing to me concerning the Windrush comments: " Thank you
for your e-mail and your continuing interest in our site. At present we
have three comments published, and ten which have been submitted and
rejected. As you'll see if you browse through the other icons on the
site, we are happy to include debate on our site by publishing comments
that don't support a particular thing's iconic status; we are not,
however, prepared to publish anything we believe to be obviously racist
or in any other way offensive, into which category I'm afraid those ten
rejected comments fall. "


Dept of Culture, Media and Sport
Our Ref:

FOI case 44288
22 June 2006

Phil Clapp
Head of Arts Division
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Telephone: 020 7211 6205
Fax 020 7211 6230
Mobile: 0794 195 7835
Website: www.culture.gov.uk


Dear Mr Henderson

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000: ICONS PROJECT
Thank you for your e-mail of 2 June in which you refer to earlier
e-mails submitted to the DCMS website seeking information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 about the ICONS project. The answers to
your questions are below:

The total number of votes on 28 April 2006 for and against each of
the
recently launched 21 icons, with their percentages, is given in the
enclosed table.

Following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have
established that DCMS does not hold any information relating to the
comments made for each icon, either the number of comments submitted or
the number of comments posted on the ICONS website. We are not required
under the Act to obtain information that we do not hold in order to
answer a Freedom of Information request.

I hope this is helpful.

If you need any help or advice or have any questions about this
letter, please contact Fiona Cameron (Communications) on 020 7211 6266
or  fiona.cameron@culture.gsi.gov.uk. Alternatively, please write to her
at the above address. Please quote the above reference number in any
communications.
If you remain unhappy with the way DCMS has handled your request
potential avenues open to you are explained in the attached Annex.

Phil Clapp
Arts Division


Department for Culture Media and Sport

VOTING FIGURES FOR ICONS LAUNCHED ON 28 APRIL 2006

Total
Icon name votes % yes Yes Votes No Votes
Big Ben 3321 87.70% 2913 408
Blackpool Tower 1090 65.20% 711 379
Brick Lane 20 65.00% 13 7
Cricket 2650 87.80% 2327 323
Domesday Book 1126 80.90% 911 215
Eden Project 597 30.80% 184 413
Globe Theatre 637 73.20% 466 171
Hadrian's Wall 1040 74.60% 776 264
Hay Wain 610 70.80% 432 178
HMS Victory 1378 82.10% 1131 247
Lindisfarne Gospels 245 61.20% 150 95
Mini-skirt 933 45.30% 423 510
Morris Dancing 6923 88.30% 6113 810
Notting Hill Carnival 2189 15.30% 335 1854
Origin of Species 727 69.60% 504 223
Pride and Prejudice
by Jane Austen 790 65.80% 520 270
Pub 4353 87.90% 3826 527
Queen's head stamp
design by Machin 596 68.60% 409 187
St George Flag 2265 87.80% 1989 276
Sutton Hoo Helmet 661 64.10% 424 237
York Minister 735 68.20% 501 234?


COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

If you are unhappy with the way DCMS has handled your request you are
entitled to ask for an internal review of its handling. In these
circumstances, you should contact the Information Management Unit,
Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London,
SW1Y 5DH.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you
have the right to take your complaint to the Information Commissioner.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner=E2=80=99s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF.


Â
On 16 Mar 2006, at 09:35, Robert Henderson wrote:

To:
Daniel Hahn
Editorial Director
Icons Online
Tel: 01273 821 275

Dear Mr Hahn,

This is a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.

How many comments have been made about the Windrush Icon, i.e., not how
many have been posted on the site (2 at the last count) but the number
submitted to the site?

You have twenty working days to respond, although the information
sought
is so simple, i.e., a number, that you should really be able to
give it
to me by return.

I would remind you that it is illegal to delete pertinent data after
receiving an FOIA request.

Please supply the information by email in plain text.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

In message , Daniel
Hahn writes

Dear Mr Henderson,

Thank you for your e-mail and your continuing interest in our site. At
present we have three comments published, and ten which have been
submitted and rejected. As you'll see if you browse through the other
icons on the site, we are happy to include debate on our site by
publishing comments that don't support a particular thing's iconic
status; we are not, however, prepared to publish anything we believe to
be obviously racist or in any other way offensive, into which category
I'm afraid those ten rejected comments fall.

Best wishes,

Daniel



Â
Robert Henderson to :
Hugo Swire MP
Shadow Minister
For Culture, Media and Sport
House of Commons
 3 July  2006
Â
Dear Mr Swire,
Â
I send you irrefutable evidence that the English Icons project is
being dishonestly manipulated by the Government.
Â
You will find enclosed two documents. The first is an exchange of
emails
I had with the editorial director of the English Icons website Daniel
Hahn. In his reply to me  Mr Hahn admits censoring comments made about
the Windrush as an English Icon.
Â
The second document is the response of the DCMS to my FOI request
for  the voting percentages and actual votes cast for the supposedly
most popular  Icons nominated by the public and voted for by the
public . The DCMS letter  gives the figures for the 21 nominated Icons
considered for actual Icon status of which  12 were selected.
Â
These twelve selected  Icons included The Notting Hill Carnival and
Brick Lane. As you will see from the DCMS FOI letter 84.5% of those
voting on the Notting Hill Carnival  voted NO, it is NOT an English
Icon. Yet it was chosen regardless.
Â
As for Brick Lane only twenty votes in total, 13 for and 7 against,
were cast. According to the English Icons press release at the time
Notting Hill Carnival and Brick Lane were included because they were
each  "one of the 21 most voted for icons suggested by the public
since the website was set up in January"Â (Daily Telegraph 28 April).Â
This is a straightforward lie, because the Carnival vote was
 overwhelmingly against the Carnival being an English Icon, while
 Brick Lane attracted hardly any votes - none of the other nominated
Icons in the DCMS list
has less than 245 votes, most have many more.
Â
The censorship of comments to the Icons website  continues: I posted
these comments  to the Brick Lane and Notting Hill Icons on 30 June:
Â
Why has Brick Lane been chosen as an English Icon when only 20 people
(13 for and 7 against) voted on the question is this an English Icon?
Â
 Why has The Notting Hill Carnival been chosen as an English Icon
when 84.5% of those voting on the question is this an English Icon
voted
NO?
Â
 As of today, neither has been posted on the Icons site.
Â
Clearly the English Icons exercise  is   being used  by this
government as a means to push the multicultural agenda forward
regardless of the expressed wishes of the English as reflected in their
nominations for Icons and the voting. Â This is not merely a political
scandal for it  also has criminal implications because taxpayers'
money is being used for  purposes other than those  which
Parliament
has agreed to, in this case  to fund a project to allow the ordinary
Englishman and woman to express their sense of national identity.
Â
In addition to the pushing of the multicultural agenda, the Icons
Website has also manipulated the fox hunting Icon  nomination. This
has
been changed from “ fox hunting “(as nominated by the public)  to
“
hunting and the banâ€, something which was never nominated by the
public nor voted for.  ( The Icons website still has it as “fox
hunting†but their press releases have it as “hunting and the
banâ€).
Â
I urge you to expose this serious scandal forthwith.
Â
Yours sincerely,
Â
Â
Â
Robert Henderson


Â
--
3 July 2006
To: Tessa Jowell
Minister For Culture, Media and Sport
House of Commons

Dear Mrs Jowell,

I have previously written to you about the manipulation of the English
Icons project. I now have categoric proof that the selection of Icons
nominated by the public is being manipulated.

I have already sent you the exchange of emails I had with the editorial
director of the English Icons website Daniel Hahn. In his reply to me
Mr
Hahn admits censoring comments made about the Windrush as an English
Icon — for your convenience I enclose another copy of my email
exchange with Mr Hahn.

The second document I send you is the response of the DCMS to my FOI
request for the voting percentages and actual votes cast for the
supposedly most popular Icons nominated by the public  and voted for
by
the public . The DCMS letter gives the figures for the 21 nominated
Icons considered for actual Icon status of which 12 were selected.

These twelve selected Icons included The Notting Hill Carnival and
Brick
Lane. As you will see from the DCMS FOl letter 84.5% of those voting on
the Notting Hill Carnival voted NO, it is NOT an English Icon. Yet it
was chosen regardless.

As for Brick Lane only twenty votes in total, 13 for and 7 against,
were
cast. According to the English Icons press release at the time, Â the
Notting Hill Carnival and Brick Lane were included because they were
each “one of the 21 most voted for icons suggested by the public
since
the website was set up in January†(Daily Telegraph 28 April). This
is
a straightforward lie, because the Carnival vote was overwhelmingly
against the Carnival being an English Icon, while Brick Lane attracted
hardly any votes - none of the other nominated Icons in the DCMS list
has less than 245 votes, most have many more.

The censorship of comments to the Icons website continues: I posted
these comments to the Brick Lane and Notting Hill Icons on Why has
Brick
Lane been chosen as an English Icon when only 20 people (13 for and 7
against) voted on the question is this an English Icon? Why has The
Notting Hill Carnival been chosen as an English Icon when 84.5% of
those
voting on the question is this an English Icon voted NO? As of today,
neither has been posted on the Icons site.

Clearly the English Icons exercise is being used by this government as
a
means to push the multicultural agenda forward regardless of the
expressed wishes of the English as reflected in their nominations for
Icons and the voting. This is not merely a political scandal for it
also
has criminal implications because taxpayers’ money is being used for
purposes other than those which Parliament has agreed to, in this case
to fund a project to allow the ordinary Englishman and woman to express
their sense of national identity.

In addition to the pushing of the multicultural agenda, the Icons
Website has also manipulated the fox hunting Icon nomination. This has
been changed from “fox hunting “(as nominated by the public) toâ€
hunting and the banâ€, something which was never nominated by the
public nor voted for. (The Icons website still has it as “fox
huntingâ€
but their press releases have it as “hunting and the banâ€).

I call upon you to expose this behaviour and to ensure that (1) all
comments are posted to the Icons website and (2) Icons are chosen on
votes by the public.
Yours sincerely,


Robert Henderson