NationStates Jolt Archive

Story here. (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6294643)

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?

Mostly it means not being Muslim I suspect.

i wonder exactly what they think they're going to be teaching. it's not like anyone agrees as to what 'britishness' entails. it should be enough to just make sure kids can speak english, including the english kids.

Sounds like something the NBIP would pull.....I wonder, could Ilaer be Tony Blair?

I am certainly not British but I do believe that it should be taught in schools. As well I think that nationalism belongs in the 21st century in every respect.

Over here in the United States I would support "United States of America-ness" to be taught in our school.

Mostly it means not being Muslim I suspect.

Well, I suppose we should teach it to the whole free world in that case.

I am certainly not British but I do believe that it should be taught in schools. As well I think that nationalism belongs in the 21st century in every respect.

Over here in the United States I would support "United States of America-ness" to be taught in our school.

Enjoy paying extra taxes to conduct a research study into what exactly "USA-ness" is and how best to teach it.

Mostly it means not being Muslim I suspect.

That's sort of what I was thinking. And, as the people who write these textbooks usually are of the Liberal, Left-Leaning variety, it'll probably teach them never to be Tory either.

*Pictures the average lesson*

"Alright guys, that's our course on Hitler finnished. But now things are going to get pretty grim... Please take out your Thacther Books and open on page 34..."

It strikes me as weird, because they say teaching kids another way to seperate themselves from the rest of the world will bring greater community cohesion..

the only Britishiness i know is this

i say old chap thats not cricket

Enjoy paying extra taxes to conduct a research study into what exactly "USA-ness" is and how best to teach it.

Better than wasting tax dollars to research and teach "Multiculturalism".

Better than wasting tax dollars to research and teach "Multiculturalism".

No, because we couldn't dare have diversity in North America.

Better than wasting tax dollars to research and teach "Multiculturalism".

Why, expecting all the other cultures to just go away?

Better than wasting tax dollars to research and teach "Multiculturalism".

touché.

Why do we have to teach people either end of this? I don't see what I could gain by being taught how to be an American at a young age, and having multiculturalism shoved down my throat since I could read has led me to believe that the only differences that matter are the ones that you can see.

No, because we couldn't dare have diversity in North America.

Or we shall become as Europe.

Or we shall become as Europe.

The world should be so fortunate.

No, because we couldn't dare have diversity in North America.

I mean, it's not like the U.S. was founded on ideas such as that.

I am certainly not British but I do believe that it should be taught in schools.
It's probably because you're not British that you think that, let's be honest.

Although The Blessed Chris is going to have a fucking field day with this one.

"Lesson one - no black people, they are horrible, and although I went to Eton and hence will never have to worry about unemployment, I can only assume that they steal jobs from good, white men."
As well I think that nationalism belongs in the 21st century in every respect.
In the same way as Holocaust Memorial Day, yes.

"This was stupid, let us never, ever do this again, but let's remember it nonetheless"

It's probably because you're not British that you think that, let's be honest.

I'm not sure if I count as British, seeing as it's Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in my mind all I can see these lessons being on is how to que and teaching childern very to complain about service. Not that that's how British people are, but that is (in my mind) what "Britishiness" is. Silly concept anyway.

What might be better is some sort of "Current Affairs" class in schools, in the hope that Britain will never have the type of people that the World stereotypes America as.

I'm not sure if I count as British, seeing as it's Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in my mind all I can see these lessons being on is how to que and teaching childern very to complain about service. Not that that's how British people are, but that is (in my mind) what "Britishiness" is. Silly concept anyway.
I argee. What is "Britishness"?

For the Scots it might be "being dour about things"

For the Welsh, it might involve numerous sheep-based comments

For the Northern Irish (if this is "UK studies" or something), it might involve whatever being Northern Irish stereotypically entails (urmm hating the English, I'd assume)

For us Englishers, it involves flat caps and indeed wippets up north, being rich and working as a civil servant down south and the Midlands and Devon/Cornwall = farmers.

Ludicrous. "Britishness" includes a whole load of things - we're as multicultural as can be, really, and unless that's in there, then there's no point in this stuff at all.

Hopefully it won't just be "Britain is a land of engineering and white-ness", which is what I fear it might be like.
What might be better is some sort of "Current Affairs" class in schools, in the hope that Britain will never have the type of people that the World stereotypes America as.
Aye, if we had an hour a week to debate current issues or whatever I'd be up for it, but I think that certain people would be into that and others wouldn't be arsed at all.

Mostly it means not being Muslim I suspect.

Fat chance, Tony Blair is as left as they come.

Great, British history, another plague on society.

Black pudding.

It's the sine qua non of british.

Fat chance, Tony Blair is as left as they come.
No he certainly isn't. He may have been in 1997, but he's been quite right-wing lately. Nowadays the left get put in charge of the Home Office until they have to resign.

Blunkett, Clarke et al may have been left once, but after about 4 weeks in the Home Office they usually take a massive swing to the right and then have to leave. See Reid at this point, and probably Red Ken in the near future, if Tony can get him there, too.

Story here. (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6294643)

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?

Ariddia already covered this story.

No he certainly isn't. He may have been in 1997, but he's been quite right-wing lately. Nowadays the left get put in charge of the Home Office until they have to resign.

Blunkett, Clarke et al may have been left once, but after about 4 weeks in the Home Office they usually take a massive swing to the right and then have to leave. See Reid at this point, and probably Red Ken in the near future, if Tony can get him there, too.

REALLY? Well, I'm not from the UK, but what party is he now?

REALLY? Well, I'm not from the UK, but what party is he now?

He's still in the Labour Party which is no longer left wing, but centrist

I guess it's a good idea to teach about free speach and stuff like that, but not a very good idea to call them "British" values.

REALLY? Well, I'm not from the UK
Ah, right. Well he used to be left wing but is now quite right-wing.
but what party is he now?
He's still in New Labour as its leader, but they are moving to the centre-right nowadays, when they used to be left.

What was once Labour is now really the Respect Party, which is headed by George Galloway.

Ah, right. Well he used to be left wing but is now quite right-wing.

He's still in New Labour as its leader, but they are moving to the centre-right nowadays, when they used to be left.

What was once Labour is now really the Respect Party, which is headed by George Galloway.

I see. The same thing is happening over the pond.

I see. The same thing is happening over the pond.
In terms of the Democrats, I assume you're on about?

I see. The same thing is happening over the pond.

What seems to be happening in America is quite the opposite, complete polarisation of the Parties as we had in the 1980s but not quite on the same scale. US politics differs greatly from Eeuropean, in the sense that there is no American "left wing" in the European sense - the Democrats would be seen as broadly Centrist and the Republicans (at the moment) would be seen as very right wing. Your Parties are moving further apart, ours are moving closer together.

Ah, right. Well he used to be left wing but is now quite right-wing.

He's still in New Labour as its leader, but they are moving to the centre-right nowadays, when they used to be left.

What was once Labour is now really the Respect Party, which is headed by George Galloway.

But there is hope though. If Jack Straw or John Reid gets the leadership instead of Brown, Old Labour may be back with avengance.

And THAT would be an interesting election against Cameron.

But there is hope though. If Jack Straw or John Reid gets the leadership instead of Brown, Old Labour may be back with avengance.
Red Ken is the real hope for the left at the moment, but to be honest, Brown would make a perfectly adequate leader, and he is to the left of Blair.
And THAT would be an interesting election again Cameron.
Cameron'd still win. Although if he doesn't, the conservatives'll doubtless try and pick another new leader, showing why they'd be even weaker than the Lib Dems if they actually got into power.

Tory Hopeful - "I hate your tie, Mr. Current Conservative Leader"
Tory Leader - "Bring it on with your vote of no confidence, then"
Tory Hopeful - "Fair enough, I will..."
Tory Leader - "Oh shit, I lost... urmm... didn't see that coming"
The Public - "This is effing ridiculous"

Fat chance, Tony Blair is as left as they come.

In a way he is. He is authoritarian. Not quite a Stalinist in this regard but still is very much in favour of using legislation to control people lives in a draconian manner. Look at who he has had as Home Secretary and you gain an insight into his thinking with regard to policing and civil rights.

However his political philosophy is as far removed from Old Labour (Socialist) as he has taken Conservative voters. He is a rightist. His Premiership has turned the UK into the 5th largest economy in the world. It has also given rise to massive personal debt.

REALLY? Well, I'm not from the UK, but what party is he now?

New Labour. Catchy huh?

Story here. (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6294643)

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?

I think nationalism can be very beneficial, if used in the right ways. Some might consider me a nationalist.

I think nationalism can be very beneficial, if used in the right ways. Some might consider me a nationalist.
Beneficial in what fashion?

Tory Hopeful - "I hate your tie, Mr. Current Conservative Leader"
Tory Leader - "Bring it on with your vote of no confidence, then"
Tory Hopeful - "Fair enough, I will..."
Tory Leader - "Oh shit, I lost... urmm... didn't see that coming"
The Public - "This is effing ridiculous"

Then again, imho the less faith the Public has in the Tories the better.

Lib Dem/Labour coalition next year ftw!

Beneficial in what fashion?

In the sense of identity it creates

As long as it is not diluted with xenophobia, it is fine

In the sense of identity it creates

As long as it is not diluted with xenophobia, it is fine
That would be super spiffing, were it not for the fact that there isn't really a British "identity" to speak of. We have Scots, Northerners, Southerners, Islanders, Welsh people, etc. etc.

And nationalism has almost inherent xenophobia - "them" and "us" etc.

That would be super spiffing, were it not for the fact that there isn't really a British "identity" to speak of. We have Scots, Northerners, Southerners, Islanders, Welsh people, etc. etc.

And nationalism has almost inherent xenophobia - "them" and "us" etc.

And where I'm from is a perfect example of this...

No, no, no. Silly Blair!

You don't *publicly* state that you want more "<insert nationality here>ness" taught in schools, you slowly and quietly slip it into the school curriculum in the first 230 or so odd years of your nation's existence! :rolleyes:

Or we shall become as Europe.

You know, I used to live in Europe (though only for two years and from ages 4-6), but it's actually not so bad there.

Or we shall become as Europe.

You wish....

Anyway all this "Britishness" thing is bullshit. It seems like Nationalism is being taught and I don't like it. Britain is a multicultural nation and so teaching Britishness is stupid. First define Britishness...yeah its not going to happen. I'd understand if this was introduced if UKIP of the BNP were in power.

British:
http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/prince-charles.gif

Un-British:
http://www.visitbritain.com/VB3-en/Images/DBSKL052-375x268_tcm64-144144.jpg

Learn kids. Learn and be like Charles!

British:
http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/prince-charles.gif

Un-British:
http://www.visitbritain.com/VB3-en/Images/DBSKL052-375x268_tcm64-144144.jpg

Learn kids. Learn and be like Charles!
we must embrace our greek/german heritage. britishness lessons: learn to stomach retsina and sauerkraut :p

http://www.born-today.com/Today/pix/lydon_j.jpg

This is Britishness.

You wish....

Anyway all this "Britishness" thing is bullshit. It seems like Nationalism is being taught and I don't like it. Britain is a multicultural nation and so teaching Britishness is stupid. First define Britishness...yeah its not going to happen. I'd understand if this was introduced if UKIP of the BNP were in power.

Time for a new British lapdog, methinks.

Teaching Britishness is something that I normally would be in favour of, but I sure as hell don't trust this government with it. Blair and his cronies have done more to undermine Britain's identity than any other government in our history. They've managed to culturally undermine this country to the point where 'Britishness' has absolutely no substance whatsoever, the usual stuff we hear is tolerance, multiculturalism, diversity, blah blah blah. I'd be in favour of it if it would be used by a more responsible government who wouldn't use it to push a cultural marxist agenda.

Teaching Britishness is something that I normally would be in favour of, but I sure as hell don't trust this government with it. Blair and his cronies have done more to undermine Britain's identity than any other government in our history. They've managed to culturally undermine this country to the point where 'Britishness' has absolutely no substance whatsoever, the usual stuff we hear is tolerance, multiculturalism, diversity, blah blah blah. I'd be in favour of it if it would be used by a more responsible government who wouldn't use it to push a cultural marxist agenda.

The way I see it is, Tony Blair is the British lapdog of the Bush administration in the US. If Tony wants schools to teach Britishness, then he can live up to his lapdog potential and do it the American way.

btw, that was meant to be sarcastic, I'm totally against nationalism being taught in schools

Britishness is strongly linked with multiculturalism. So hey, not a bad idea.

Britishness is strongly linked with multiculturalism. So hey, not a bad idea.

For a minute I thought you were preaching nationalism and was going to flame you for it. :p

My apologies. :fluffle:

BTW, welcome noobie! :fluffle:

I'm a reincarnation of a reincarnation of a reincarnation of an August '04 nation. :D

I'm a reincarnation of a reincarnation of a reincarnation of an August '04 nation. :D

Ah.

I've done this thread already (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515823), y'know.

Queing like a punk.

I say good chap, I would really like some tea! Earl grey with two sugars please!

If the students wear top hats and monocles then I'm all for it.

I say good chap, I would really like some tea! Earl grey with two sugars please!

Sugar? Earl Grey?

What is this heresy?

I say good chap, I would really like some tea! Earl grey with two sugars please!

:eek: sugar!?!? that is sacrilege. earl grey gets a slice of lemon or a tiny dash milk if you really must.

"Alright guys, that's our course on Hitler finnished. But now things are going to get pretty grim... Please take out your Thacther Books and open on page 34..."

Rightly so! :D

Jolly Good Show! (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/44643869/)

But there is hope though. If Jack Straw or John Reid gets the leadership instead of Brown, Old Labour may be back with avengance.

And THAT would be an lost election against Cameron.

Fixed.

Besides where did all this 'John Reid' is a champion of the Left come from? He is one of the nastiest, whorish, authoritarian dickworms in the entire government.

And @OP:

I, personally, am quite for this. Teaching Britishness would actually go quite a way towards de-clawing the stupid and dangerous "Enguhland-Enguhland-Enguhland"-style nationalism that has been plaguing this country for too long.

Britishness is all about rationality, responsibility, tolerance and respect for the freedoms of others. Something that people really need to have drilled into them.

(Obligatory anti-Blair side note: But I'm not sure if I trust Blair and New Labour to do this, perhaps if there was some sort of independent body of academics deciding what should be on the curriculum...)

http://www.thechap.net/

Everything you need to know about the British gentleman

Story here. (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6294643)

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?

I make no apologies for being a fully paid up Brit. God knows its amorphous enough, and impossible to define, but 'Britishness' ought to be embodied in Colonial England.

I for one agree with it. I don't like Blair, but there are very few of us in Britain who are patriotic and I think something must be done! We've got more to be proud of than any other nation in the world! I am proud to be English! God save the Queen! Rule Britannia!

I for one agree with it. I don't like Blair, but there are very few of us in Britain who are patriotic and I think something must be done! We've got more to be proud of than any other nation in the world! I am proud to be English! God save the Queen! Rule Britannia!

We used to have something to be proud of.

Fixed.

Besides where did all this 'John Reid' is a champion of the Left come from? He is one of the nastiest, whorish, authoritarian dickworms in the entire government.



Reid is the New Labour bruiser. Trotsky-ite enforcer for the communist run SU at Stirling Uni.

A very unpleasant and nasty piece of work.

We used to have something to be proud of.
Agreed, I don't see how anybody could think these lessons could be a good thing when it's introduced by this government. They've been screwing this country over more than anyone. They'd just be talking about crap like multiculturalism and diversity. Which is nothing to be proud of, as the social cesspool this country has become is testament to.

I find it ironic that the Britishness involves not making a fuss about being British, so the whole idea is self defeating.

Well, I suppose we should teach it to the whole free world in that case.

You really have no idea do you? This is why British-ness should be taught (or American -ness etc)

You honestly think all Muslims are wrong to believe in their faith? I dont support radical terrorists, but thats all they are, radicals. Christianity has had them. Need i talk about Adolf Hitler, the Inquisiton etc. Time for the lecture, boyos.

1) Not all Muslims are evil. Yes i know for you Americans its a hard idea to get your head around, but most of them are just like you, except they speak a different language and they look more well...Whoever they are.

2) Muslims have pretty much the same beliefs as Christians. Which is why there are radicals in both religons. (You dont hear much about radical Hindu's do you).

3) Muslims are a valued member of society. They study their scriptures (mainly the Qur'an - like the bible) and act upon them. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it mention about blowing up 'heathen white folk' or whatever. They are some of the most descriptive writers of the age, learned men and women of the age, and revolutionary revolutionaries of the age.

Im not Muslim. Im a 14 year old schoolboy who is outraged at the views you have said there. America says it allows free speech, if you wont allow what i have just proved to be an extremely peaceful religon, and valued people then you need to be re-educated i believe, about what free speech is.

I would also like to disprove a common myth, Jihad does not mean pointless killing of stuff,quite the opposite. Jihad means struggle. Jihad is usually used to get land that has been stolen back from them or something they owned which has been stolen from them. Thus, 9/11 wasnt a jihad, however it could be argued that the war in Iraq is.

I hope you feel extremely abashed with yourselves now.

I make no apologies for being a fully paid up Brit. God knows its amorphous enough, and impossible to define, but 'Britishness' ought to be embodied in Colonial England.

Meaning?

Come now, tell us what it is to be British..

I make no apologies for being a fully paid up Brit. God knows its amorphous enough, and impossible to define, but 'Britishness' ought to be embodied in Colonial England.
Surely Englishness should be embodied in Colonial England?

Britishness is all about fighting wars against the French, drinking tea, wearing monocles and having awesome moustaches.

You really have no idea do you? This is why British-ness should be taught (or American -ness etc)

You honestly think all Muslims are wrong to believe in their faith? I dont support radical terrorists, but thats all they are, radicals. Christianity has had them. Need i talk about Adolf Hitler, the Inquisiton etc. Time for the lecture, boyos.

1) Not all Muslims are evil. Yes i know for you Americans its a hard idea to get your head around, but most of them are just like you, except they speak a different language and they look more well...Whoever they are.

2) Muslims have pretty much the same beliefs as Christians. Which is why there are radicals in both religons. (You dont hear much about radical Hindu's do you).

3) Muslims are a valued member of society. They study their scriptures (mainly the Qur'an - like the bible) and act upon them. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it mention about blowing up 'heathen white folk' or whatever. They are some of the most descriptive writers of the age, learned men and women of the age, and revolutionary revolutionaries of the age.

Im not Muslim. Im a 14 year old schoolboy who is outraged at the views you have said there. America says it allows free speech, if you wont allow what i have just proved to be an extremely peaceful religon, and valued people then you need to be re-educated i believe, about what free speech is.

I would also like to disprove a common myth, Jihad does not mean pointless killing of stuff,quite the opposite. Jihad means struggle. Jihad is usually used to get land that has been stolen back from them or something they owned which has been stolen from them. Thus, 9/11 wasnt a jihad, however it could be argued that the war in Iraq is.

I hope you feel extremely abashed with yourselves now.
Good post! Quoted for truth!

BTW: I think Britishness would include having one national soccer* team.

*yes, I know you call it football, I did not wnt to confuse the Americans.

Quite recently I discovered that one of my closest friends, a guy I thought to be as English as me, had never eaten a chip butty and didn't really know what one was.

"What? You means chips in a sandwich?!" He asked incredulously "With butter?"

If these classes put an end to such educational and cultural travesties as that I'm all for them.

Quite recently I discovered that one of my closest friends, a guy I thought to be as English as me, had never eaten a chip butty and didn't really know what one was.

"What? You means chips in a sandwich?!" He asked incredulously "With butter?"

If these classes put an end to such educational and cultural travesties as that I'm all for them.

nice hot chips or smith chips on fresh bread mm

Quite recently I discovered that one of my closest friends, a guy I thought to be as English as me, had never eaten a chip butty and didn't really know what one was.

"What? You means chips in a sandwich?!" He asked incredulously "With butter?"

If these classes put an end to such educational and cultural travesties as that I'm all for them.

Treason!!! Into the Tower with him!

2) Muslims have pretty much the same beliefs as Christians. Which is why there are radicals in both religons. (You dont hear much about radical Hindu's do you).

BJP etc

I hope you feel extremely abashed with yourselves now.

Brilliant! LOL ;)

We used to have something to be proud of.

Not directed at you, but your comment brings out an irony.....people want to be proud of what their ancestors did, something done long before they were even born but still they are proud because ostensibly they enjoy the fruits of their ancestor's labour or whatever...

but when it comes to the wrongs of their ancestors, it is

"I will never apologise for something I have not done and something which happened long before I was even born" (comments from black history month thread).

Well you can't have it both ways.

nice hot chips or smith chips on fresh bread mm

With lashings of butter melting it's way between them and just enough Daddies to make the resulting stain on your shirt stand out like a sore thumb!

Treason!!! Into the Tower with him!

Well, he's got to put with his wife constantly nagging him to try one, which may be worse!

Well, they could learn things like playing cricket, drinking tea, speak with the right accent, to love Lizzie, ...

These are the real important things about being British.

With lashings of butter melting it's way between them and just enough Daddies to make the resulting stain on your shirt stand out like a sore thumb!



Well, he's got to put with his wife constantly nagging him to try one, which may be worse!

i never get that when i make one and have your wife on your back is worse case for some

Well, they could learn things like playing cricket, drinking tea, speak with the right accent, to love Lizzie, ...

These are the real important things about being British.

So is it going to be a Britishness class, or is it going to be quietly slipped into the curriculum in the (ironically) American way? ;)

I'm all for this, but only if one condition is met: Morrissey writes the textbooks.

I'm all for this, but only if one condition is met: Morrissey writes the textbooks.

Oh, Fuck NO!! britain doesn't need to be anymore whiney than it is already. if we're going to have musicians write textbooks for kids at least get someone with some teeth and balls. morrissey might have a sharp tongue but all he uses it for is moaning.

Agreed, I don't see how anybody could think these lessons could be a good thing when it's introduced by this government. They've been screwing this country over more than anyone. They'd just be talking about crap like multiculturalism and diversity. Which is nothing to be proud of, as the social cesspool this country has become is testament to.

Have the largest cookie in existance.:)

The kids should learn about the great british tradition of hunting with dogs.

Princess Tony's hypocracy knows no limits it seems.

Not directed at you, but your comment brings out an irony.....people want to be proud of what their ancestors did, something done long before they were even born but still they are proud because ostensibly they enjoy the fruits of their ancestor's labour or whatever...

but when it comes to the wrongs of their ancestors, it is

"I will never apologise for something I have not done and something which happened long before I was even born" (comments from black history month thread).

Well you can't have it both ways.

Yes I fucking well can, since, whilst retrospective apologies are facile, I would acknowledge that atrocities did occur under the empire.

Surely Englishness should be embodied in Colonial England?

Not realy, given that we essentially forced "Britishness" upon the other states of the Union.

Yes I fucking well can, since, whilst retrospective apologies are facile, I would acknowledge that atrocities did occur under the empire.

So you acknowledge what the empire achieved and feel pride and acknowledge what it did to acomplish that and yet not feel shame and your comfortabe with that?

So what is it to be british Chris?

*yes, I know you call it football, I did not wnt to confuse the Americans.

You could do without the condescension. Believe it or not, most Americans (especially those on a forum like this) are well aware that the rest of the world calls it football.

Sigh. Britain slips more toward fascism.

"I know, let's make a course specifically designed to fail Muslim immigrants!"

Trilby63;12288298']So you acknowledge what the empire achieved and feel pride and acknowledge what it did to acomplish that and yet not feel shame and your comfortabe with that?

So what is it to be british Chris?

Frankly, I see "Britain" embodied in empire. However, I can more accurately define what "Britishness" is not.

It is not indefatiguably tolerant, multicultural, mediocre and authoritarian. In short, the multicultural cesspool Labour have created is an anathema to Britain.

I'm not sure tolerance and respect are things that can be taught in schools? How does one give a tolerance exam? Or write a paper on resect?

However, I can more accurately define what "Britishness" is not.

That's because you, the concept of a national culture is nothing more than a tool with which you can conveniently hate other people:

It is not indefatiguably tolerant, multicultural, mediocre and authoritarian. In short, the multicultural cesspool Labour have created is an anathema to Britain.

See.

Frankly, I see "Britain" embodied in empire. However, I can more accurately define what "Britishness" is not.

It is not indefatiguably tolerant, multicultural, mediocre and authoritarian. In short, the multicultural cesspool Labour have created is an anathema to Britain.

Ooooooh, where to start............

Firstly Britain is not embodied in Empire and has not been for about 50 years. We now live in the 21st Century. Deal with it.

Secondly, Britain is undeniably tolerant (in terms of racially, compared to our European neighbours at least), mulit cultural (go to any city or large town and look around) and mediocre (in terms of military, economic and world power we are not a superpower or even a major player).

the only one I will give you is authoritarian, although we are starting on the slippery slope.

That's because you, the concept of a national culture is nothing more than a tool with which you can conveniently hate other people:


I confess that the aspiring politician in me sees "National Identity" as the modern equivalent of popular religion, however, that I see New Labour Britain as an Anathema to colonial glory does not render "Britishness" a singularly negative tool. The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.

I confess that the aspiring politician in me sees "National Identity" as the modern equivalent of popular religion, however, that I see New Labour Britain as an Anathema to colonial glory does not render "Britishness" a singularly negative tool. The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.

Exactly what century do you live in?

Frankly, I see "Britain" embodied in empire. However, I can more accurately define what "Britishness" is not.

It is not indefatiguably tolerant, multicultural, mediocre and authoritarian. In short, the multicultural cesspool Labour have created is an anathema to Britain.

Those four words seem to me to be a very good description of the British Empire!

Labour did not create the multicultural cesspool, that is Britain. And it always has been.

The irrational hatred that you profess, that is the true anathema to Britishness.

I confess that the aspiring politician in me sees "National Identity" as the modern equivalent of popular religion,

And politicians see you as the tool you are. You can't even define your "identity" except in terms of who you hate the most.


however, that I see New Labour Britain as an Anathema to colonial glory does not render "Britishness" a singularly negative tool. The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.

Whatever. You have a romanticized version of the past that probably has nothing to do with the reality. I mean to you of course, there wasn't "multiculturalism" during the Blitz, right? Only pure white, christian British folk endured the Blitz and showed "britishness."

And politicians see you as the tool you are. You can't even define your "identity" except in terms of who you hate the most.



Whatever. You have a romanticized version of the past that probably has nothing to do with the reality. I mean to you of course, there wasn't "multiculturalism" during the Blitz, right? Only pure white, christian British folk endured the Blitz and showed "britishness."

Well, far be it from me to point out that commonwealth immigration occurred in the post-war years, or that post-colonialism is a direct response to the pre-suppositions that under-pinned colonialism.

Those four words seem to me to be a very good description of the British Empire!

Labour did not create the multicultural cesspool, that is Britain. And it always has been.

The irrational hatred that you profess, that is the true anathema to Britishness.

Tolerant? Provided one as white and European.

Multicultural? Once more, see the above.

Mediocre? Hence why we controlled a quarter of the world.....

Authoritarian? In the colonies yes. Domestically, no.

1 - Tolerant? Provided one as white and European.

2 - Multicultural? Once more, see the above.

3 - Mediocre? Hence why we controlled a quarter of the world.....

4 - Authoritarian? In the colonies yes. Domestically, no.

1 - Compared to our European neighbours yes we are. Compare election results for far right wing parties. You can't ignore facts.

2 - We have lots of different cultures in this country and are therefore multi cultural. Saying "no we arn't" doesn't change that.

3 - "Controlled". Note, past tense.

4 - For the last time, THE COLONIES DON'T EXIST ANYMORE!!

Well, far be it from me to point out that commonwealth immigration occurred in the post-war years

Far be it from me to point out that you're only proving my point. According to you, only White Pure British Christians endured the Blitz. Because you've invented a mythology to go hand in hand with your need for hatred.

, or that post-colonialism is a direct response to the pre-suppositions that under-pinned colonialism.

Add-ing ex-tra hy-phens doesn't make your point look more eru-dite. In fact, it makes you look like a blood-y re-tard.

The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.

And defined practically every other group that has seen such hard times. Seriously...

Yes I fucking well can, since, whilst retrospective apologies are facile, I would acknowledge that atrocities did occur under the empire.

Really ? Mind telling me what atrocities are those that you are ready to acknowledge ?

Since the 60's there hasn’t really been a sense of "Britishness", since then the home counties (apart from N.I) have had an increasing percentage of people in them wanting independence and separation from England. So if we are looking at true "Britishness" there is indeed racism and nationalism, both over-rated if you ask me. Even in the blitz regular British people were suspicious blacks (for want of a better word) because they were relatively new in England (unheard of in Scotland and Wales) and were still seen as "heathen savages" that we had defeated all those years ago. Only after the race riots in the 70's and the generation that were used to blacks had reached maturity were they truly accepted in society, sort of.

P.S "heathen savages” is perhaps overkill, but you get the drift.

Tolerant? Provided one as white and European.

Compared to other historical empires, Britain seemed to go the furthest in recognising that tolerating difference saves you a lot of conflict.

Multicultural? Once more, see the above.

Wrong. If anything, outward displays of another European culture would be seen with more suspicion than displays of colonial culture (due to the fact that conflict often existed between the British Empire and its European neighbours). Indophilia was a widespred cultural phenomenon, British people could not get enough of the colonial cultures.

Mediocre? Hence why we controlled a quarter of the world...

Territory an Empire does not make. The Empire was mediocre in many ways, indeed, that could by given as a reason as to why it succeeded for so long, by not causing offence amongst its peoples.

Authoritarian? In the colonies yes. Domestically, no.

I am a Liberal. To me, Authoritarianism in anything amounts to willingness to be Authoritarian in everything. And indeed, domestic Britain did have its share of laws that unfairly curtailed individual rights.

British:
http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/prince-charles.gif
Learn kids. Learn and be like Charles!


I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE CHARLES!!! If I have to stick BRITISH Education until the 30th of June 2012- I don't know what I'll do...!!

Compared to other historical empires, Britain seemed to go the furthest in recognising that tolerating difference saves you a lot of conflict.



Wrong. If anything, outward displays of another European culture would be seen with more suspicion than displays of colonial culture (due to the fact that conflict often existed between the British Empire and its European neighbours). Indophilia was a widespred cultural phenomenon, British people could not get enough of the colonial cultures.



Territory an Empire does not make. The Empire was mediocre in many ways, indeed, that could by given as a reason as to why it succeeded for so long, by not causing offence amongst its peoples.



I am a Liberal. To me, Authoritarianism in anything amounts to willingness to be Authoritarian in everything. And indeed, domestic Britain did have its share of laws that unfairly curtailed individual rights.


That last point is awful.

I will concede I'm a nasty right wing reactionary, and would stop immigration and essentially attempt to turn the clock back to the 1950's in that respect, however, in issues such as religion, sexuality and the like, I would advocate full personal freedom.

Trilby63;12288455']And defined practically every other group that has seen such hard times. Seriously...

But we're not discussing other such groups, and the Blitz is employed as a seminal moment in "Brtain".

I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE CHARLES!!! If I have to stick BRITISH Education until the 30th of June 2012- I don't know what I'll do...!!

Including University?:eek:

If not, I pity you deeply.

That last point is awful.

I will concede I'm a nasty right wing reactionary, and would stop immigration and essentially attempt to turn the clock back to the 1950's in that respect, however, in issues such as religion, sexuality and the like, I would advocate full personal freedom.

Or so you say. But how can anyone seriously believe you if you have already demonstrated that you show no remorse whatsoever in infringing the rights of another set of people.

Territory an Empire does not make. The Empire was mediocre in many ways, indeed, that could by given as a reason as to why it succeeded for so long, by not causing offence amongst its peoples.

If not territory then how about a 3rd of the world’s population. And not causing offence, what a joke. The people of the empire were essentially British as most of the native's (armed with sharpened kiwi's) were killed of and those that remained were oppressed. Look at the Indian mutinies. Also the main bits of the empire (Canada, New Zeland and Australia) saw no reason to break away from the empire, hence the fact that there was no violence for their independence and they stayed part of the commonwealth.

But we're not discussing other such groups, and the Blitz is employed as a seminal moment in "Brtain".

Your point? How is a trait that is common to most of humanity british?

To TBC...

Do you not realise that what you call "Britishiness" has actually decended into different groups of hoodies standing in various street-corners drinking various substances, some middle-aged minded men and women living in the countless numbers of Suburbias up and down the country, complaining at every opportunity about what is on their television and a select number of celebrities who's claim to fame is flatulance in Big Brother?

Do you really WANT to take pride in that nation, or do you want to look past outdated stereotypes and see that there is no longer anything that resembles a National Idenity in Britain (or anywhere else in the developed, globalised world) anymore? And that's a good thing.

We're all individuals now, and lets be grateful for it.

Including University?:eek:

If not, I pity you deeply.

Not including University. 2012 is when I leave Secondary School. :(

To TBC...

Do you not realise that what you call "Britishiness" has actually decended into different groups of hoodies standing in various street-corners drinking various substances, some middle-aged minded men and women living in the countless numbers of Suburbias up and down the country, complaining at every opportunity about what is on their television and a select number of celebrities who's claim to fame is flatulance in Big Brother?

Do you really WANT to take pride in that nation, or do you want to look past outdated stereotypes and see that there is no longer anything that resembles a National Idenity in Britain (or anywhere else in the developed, globalised world) anymore? And that's a good thing.

We're all individuals now, and lets be grateful for it.

I do appreciate that, as Geoffrey Hoskings (minor Russian historian) contends, the era of the nation-state is closing. I just don't bloody well like it, and if I feel disaffected with multi-culturalism and modernity, why not seek to change the world back to something I can identify with?

i wonder exactly what they think they're going to be teaching. it's not like anyone agrees as to what 'britishness' entails. it should be enough to just make sure kids can speak english, including the english kids.

Come on, we all know exactly what Britishness entails:

-Tea
-Funny Hats
-Gin
-Battleships
-Hating (in good humor) the French/Boche (depending on what day of the week it is)

I do appreciate that, as Geoffrey Hoskings (minor Russian historian) contends, the era of the nation-state is closing. I just don't bloody well like it, and if I feel disaffected with multi-culturalism and modernity, why not seek to change the world back to something I can identify with?

Because you're a bigot who shoud have no say in how this country should be run? Seriously, minority rights are one of the fundamental tenents in which modern democracy is based. But feel free to dream and fantasise about the way your books tell you it was..

Trilby63;12288816']Because you're a bigot who shoud have no say in how this country should be run? Seriously, minority rights are one of the fundamental tenents in which modern democracy is based. But feel free to dream and fantasise about the way your books tell you it was..

Democracy is a joke. What entitles people with substandard intellects, poor education, little awareness of political principles, and a number of others flaws, a vote?

Ancient Athens consistenly demonstrates the inherent fallibility of democracy, yet we follow them into the abyss.

Democracy is a joke. What entitles people with substandard intellects, poor education, little awareness of political principles, and a number of others flaws, a vote?

Ancient Athens consistenly demonstrates the inherent fallibility of democracy, yet we follow them into the abyss.

Indeed it is. And am I wrong in assuming that you have a better idea of how to do it?

Trilby63;12288843']Indeed it is. And am I wrong in assuming that you have a better idea of how to do it?

Of course. Personally, I see no problem with a council or dictator, but that seems to offend people's "freedom". Would you rather follow a democracy into the gutter with your freedom, or sacrifice certain rights and live in a state that achieves progress?

Of course. Personally, I see no problem with a council or dictator, but that seems to offend people's "freedom".
Oh yes, and how do these idiots reach these positions of power?
Would you rather follow a democracy into the gutter with your freedom, or sacrifice certain rights and live in a state that achieves progress?

Well considering I don't consider todays problems to be a symptom of democracy itself, considering that progress is such a loose term and also that those two are not the only choices the question is quite stupid.

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/england/morrisman3.jpg

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/england/morrisman3.jpg

Are those... ninja morris men?

Of course not! You can see them!

Trilby63;12288894']Oh yes, and how do these idiots reach these positions of power?


Well considering I don't consider todays problems to be a symptom of democracy itself, considering that progress is such a loose term and also that those two are not the only choices the question is quite stupid.

Not at all. The question is entirely fair. Admittedly, progress is a subjective term, and so, why not try "prosperity" or "security" or "stability".

In any case, I never thought that pedantry was a mark of intelligence.

Not at all. The question is entirely fair. Admittedly, progress is a subjective term, and so, why not try "prosperity" or "security" or "stability".

In any case, I never thought that pedantry was a mark of intelligence.

Neither is bigotry. Nor is that verbal wankery that your so fond of.

Are you going to argue that it's the style of governance that determines how well a nation progresses? I mean that's just an opinion for which there is no clear evidence either way.

Besides, when you say "prosperity" who do you have in mind to be prosperous? Who do you want "security" and "stability" for?

Trilby63;12289057']Neither is bigotry. Nor is that verbal wankery that your so fond of.

Are you going to argue that it's the style of governance that determines how well a nation progresses? I mean that's just an opinion for which there is no clear evidence either way.

Besides, when you say "prosperity" who do you have in mind to be prosperous? Who do you want "security" and "stability" for?

Strangely, one tramp in a carboard box outside Saffron Walden.....

The entire population, oddly, might have been the group I referred to. Not that I ought to have expected anybody to make an inference....

In any case, form of government is not a signifier of progress. However, it is a signal of regression, stupidity and other such afflictions.

Strangely, one tramp in a carboard box outside Saffron Walden.....

The entire population, oddly, might have been the group I referred to. Not that I ought to have expected anybody to make an inference....

Please, you don't really think like that..


In any case, form of government is not a signifier of progress. However, it is a signal of regression, stupidity and other such afflictions.

Yeah, so what do you call your council dictators then?

Trilby63;12288972']Are those... ninja morris men?

Of course not! You can see them!

they are the secret weapon on the war on terrorism

Trilby63;12289096']
Yeah, so what do you call your council dictators then?

The Royal Family of course! :rolleyes:

Democracy is a joke. What entitles people with substandard intellects, poor education, little awareness of political principles, and a number of others flaws, a vote?



Presumably the same thing that entitles bigoted pedants to one.....

Story here. (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6294643)

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?
He did outline it; it means tolerance, free speech and other such good things.

I think its pretty obvious and I am surprised no one has mentioned it yet.


So called faith schools. They are becoming hugely popular. Of course these schools need something to tie their students to the State.

Hello 'Britishness courses'.

The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.
In other words, every country that was bombed in its history is British?

You realise that the British didn't react any different to the Polish did, or the Germans did a few years later. You suffer, but you can't change anything about it, so you try and go on with your life as well as possible.

And considering that modern Britain's response to a bombing attack in its capital was to shoot an innocent Brazilian man, I think the spirit of the Blitz has long since made way to the same irrational suburban culture of fear we see all over the Western world.

The collective effort seen in the Blitz embodied, indeed defined, Britishness, yet was a benign force.

Britishness is thus defined as a crime wave accompanied by a massive rise in the conception of illegitimate children.

In other words, every country that was bombed in its history is British?

You realise that the British didn't react any different to the Polish did, or the Germans did a few years later. You suffer, but you can't change anything about it, so you try and go on with your life as well as possible.

And considering that modern Britain's response to a bombing attack in its capital was to shoot an innocent Brazilian man, I think the spirit of the Blitz has long since made way to the same irrational suburban culture of fear we see all over the Western world.

There was a lot of myth building that came out of the Blitz. There were large crimewaves...and on the other hand the King and Queen stayed in London...

actually....that could well be the key to Britishness....*urk*

There was a lot of myth building that came out of the Blitz. There were large crimewaves...and on the other hand the King and Queen stayed in London...

actually....that could well be the key to Britishness....*urk*

British gangsters - best gangsters in the world, pal. Best gangsters in the world.

Democracy is a joke. What entitles people with substandard intellects, poor education, little awareness of political principles, and a number of others flaws, a vote?

Ancient Athens consistenly demonstrates the inherent fallibility of democracy, yet we follow them into the abyss.I wanna be just like you!

Like hell I do. The greates amount of freedom & prosperity for the greatest number of peoples. That's what buys security & happiness. I submit recorded history as evidence.
What you propose might be prosperous for a few. It might even include freedom for a few. Yet it's at the expense of the many, who'll regard you as an oppressor. The only way you can obtain any measure of security in that situation, is by arming yourself to the teeth, to discourage the oppressed from tearing you to peices & mounting your head on a wall.

But hey, fantasy worlds are great. Keep living the dream. Just be carefull who you call stupid, under educated & whatnot, come election time.

British gangsters - best gangsters in the world, pal. Best gangsters in the world.

salt of the earth...The Krays were ever so nice...Biggs only offed a bloke etc etc...

(we did make the best gangster flick ever though....)

salt of the earth...The Krays were ever so nice...Biggs only offed a bloke etc etc...

(we did make the best gangster flick ever though....)

...loved their mum.. etc. etc.

The Italian Job? Get Carter? Long Good Friday? The Lavender Hill Mob? The Ladykillers?

British gangsters - best gangsters in the world, pal. Best gangsters in the world."I'm a plastic gangster, they call me a crown and anchor..."

I wanna be just like you!

Like hell I do. The greates amount of freedom & prosperity for the greatest number of peoples. That's what buys security & happiness. I submit recorded history as evidence.
What you propose might be prosperous for a few. It might even include freedom for a few. Yet it's at the expense of the many, who'll regard you as an oppressor. The only way you can obtain any measure of security in that situation, is by arming yourself to the teeth, to discourage the oppressed from tearing you to peices & mounting your head on a wall.

But hey, fantasy worlds are great. Keep living the dream. Just be carefull who you call stupid, under educated & whatnot, come election time.

Thats just bollocks. Absolutism does not necessarily lead to economic injustice, nor would it, I imagine. Political freedom should not be equated to economic prosperity and happiness, or social freedom.

...loved their mum.. etc. etc.

The Italian Job? Get Carter? Long Good Friday? The Lavender Hill Mob? The Ladykillers?

...looked after their family...great with the kids...etc etc

LGF...but the rest you mention beat any other gangster flick as well. Am very glad you did not include Smoking Guns...

...looked after their family...great with the kids...etc etc

LGF...but the rest you mention beat any other gangster flick as well. Am very glad you did not include Smoking Guns...

Damn. Forgot Performance.


Edit: Blow-Up may or may not qualify as another great British (well, British/Italian) gangster movie, depending on how you watch it.

Absolutism does not necessarily lead to economic injustice, nor would it, I imagine.
Except of course that it has every single time it was tried.

The reason being that because there are no checks and balances, the individuals in power can make laws and give advantages to their friends and families, and their friends and families. So a ruling class of people close to the government appears, while everyone else has it that much more difficult (assuming that the government doesn't do the obvious thing and just enshrine the injustices in law, simply forbidding most people from trying to be successful).

Democracy is a joke. What entitles people with substandard intellects, poor education, little awareness of political principles, and a number of others flaws, a vote?
The fact that they're the majority of the population, so they're the people most affected, you cretin.

Thats just bollocks. Absolutism does not necessarily lead to economic injustice, nor would it, I imagine.In your fantasy world or in the real one?Political freedom should not be equated to economic prosperity and happiness, or social freedom.If the sum total of human history is anything to go by, the degree of political & social freedom is directly proportional to happiness, prosperity & security - assuming we're talking about populations (and not just the tiny fraction that makes up the ruling class).

The fact that they're the majority of the population, so they're the people most affected, you cretin.

Once more, wrong. Travellers on a plane are the people most affected, numerically, but it would be illogical to allow them to vote on what the Pilot should do.

Damn. Forgot Performance.


Edit: Blow-Up may or may not qualify as another great British (well, British/Italian) gangster movie, depending on how you watch it.

The Edward Fox bits when he is being a gangster are great...but then it gets too self absorbed...decent film but The Godfather is better.

What about Sexy Beast?

I also thought The Limey was pretty damn good...

Blow Up...not seen it mate :(

Except of course that it has every single time it was tried.

The reason being that because there are no checks and balances, the individuals in power can make laws and give advantages to their friends and families, and their friends and families. So a ruling class of people close to the government appears, while everyone else has it that much more difficult (assuming that the government doesn't do the obvious thing and just enshrine the injustices in law, simply forbidding most people from trying to be successful).

Fair point. However, to my mind absolutism incurs greater risk for greater potential achievement. Few Democracies exceed mediocrity for long.

Frankly, the Douglas Adams suggested the betd form of government. A dictatorship with policy dictated by a hermit untouched by civilisation.:D

Once more, wrong. Travellers on a plane are the people most affected, numerically, but it would be illogical to allow them to vote on what the Pilot should do.
Well that's what they did do by buying a ticket. Were there no demand, the plane wouldn't be flying.

That's essentially market-based democracy, is it not?

The Edward Fox bits when he is being a gangster are great...but then it gets too self absorbed...decent film but The Godfather is better.

Would Scum and Made In Britain count as gangster movies? Over here on this side of the pond we do teen-flicks a tad different to the way them yanks do 'em.

Few Democracies exceed mediocrity for long.
Depends on your measurement.

If you were to ignore the world, and just read history books all day in which "success" is conquering places and being big on a map, then maybe. But in pretty much all significant criteria, democracies provide excellent conditions for the people who live in them.

Well that's what they did do by buying a ticket. Were there no demand, the plane wouldn't be flying.

That's essentially market-based democracy, is it not?

So, therefore, by extension, they are entitled to tell the pilot to do a loop-the-loop since they caused the plane to fly?

Fair point. However, to my mind absolutism incurs greater risk for greater potential achievement. Few Democracies exceed mediocrity for long.

Frankly, the Douglas Adams suggested the betd form of government. A dictatorship with policy dictated by a hermit untouched by civilisation.:D

...yeah, but that was only in a hallucinatory universe created solely for the entertainment of one tired executive, no?

So, therefore, by extension, they are entitled to tell the pilot to do a loop-the-loop since they caused the plane to fly?

Do you really consider a commercial service comparable to which people are free to subscribe or not sufficiently equivalent to a system of governance to make such a comparison meaningful?

Depends on your measurement.

If you were to ignore the world, and just read history books all day in which "success" is conquering places and being big on a map, then maybe. But in pretty much all significant criteria, democracies provide excellent conditions for the people who live in them.

Mediocrity to my mind. In any case, standards of living tend to improve as the conduct of state improves, and no democracy maintains high standards of government for any great length of time. Truly perspispacious individuals with principles are dispensed with in favour of centrist demagogues.

So, therefore, by extension, they are entitled to tell the pilot to do a loop-the-loop since they caused the plane to fly?
If they voted on it, and it wasn't going to damage anyone else's property - absolutely.

Would Scum and Made In Britain count as gangster movies? Over here on this side of the pond we do teen-flicks a tad different to the way them yanks do 'em.

I saw Scum when it came out. Great coming of age film ;)

I guess in a way its a gangster film...like Lord of Flies...in that vein..

MIB...yeah....not seen it...

...yeah, but that was only in a hallucinatory universe created solely for the entertainment of one tired executive, no?

Sound principle though. A means of getting altruistic absolutism.

If they voted on it, and it wasn't going to damage anyone else's property - absolutely.

:D

Sound principle though. A means of getting altruistic absolutism.

Ah, but you have missed the point - the hermit's utterances were so gnomic that the visitors interpreted them according to their own biases and thus were in effect putting their own prejudices into action when it came to decisions of administration.

Truly perspispacious individuals with principles are dispensed with in favour of centrist demagogues.
And in absolutism you get extremist demagogues. Or just plain tyrants.

So, therefore, by extension, they are entitled to tell the pilot to do a loop-the-loop since they caused the plane to fly?It's a flawed analogy, but hey let's try it anyway.

Passengers buy tickets for destination X. They do this expecting the pilot to deliver them to destination X in the swiftest, safest manner possible. Should the polit fail to do it in a swift & safe manner, or decide to go to destination Y, the passengers can hold the pilot responsible.

So yea, the passengers have decided what the pilot can & cannot do. The polit has a limited amount of leeway in how he'll accomplish the task set him by the passengers, but that's all.

It's a flawed analogy, but hey let's try it anyway.

Passengers buy tickets for destination X. They do this expecting the pilot to deliver them to destination X in the swiftest, safest manner possible. Should the polit fail to do it in a swift & safe manner, or decide to go to destination Y, the passengers can hold the pilot responsible.

So yea, the passengers have decided what the pilot can & cannot do. The polit has a limited amount of leeway in how he'll accomplish the task set him by the passengers, but that's all.

But the democratic majority doesn't have a clue what is in its interests. It knows what it wants, but not what it needs.

And in absolutism you get extremist demagogues. Or just plain tyrants.

Poor use of the term tyrant. A tyrant is a dictator who follows popular policies and does so with popular support, but absolute control.

It's a flawed analogy, but hey let's try it anyway.


More to the point, it is flawed becuase the passengers only have a decision at the point of purchase as to whether they will fly with Quantas or BA or SAS or whoever, similarly in western representative democracy they only have a choice (referenda excepted, but even then the choices are already greatly limited) for which party they will elect for the next X amount of years - be they social democrats, liberals or conservatives or whatever. They do not directly get to chose whether the nation will go to war or cut back on health spending, just as the passengers don't get a choice in whether the pilot should fly higher, faster or perform aerobatics.

But the democratic majority doesn't have a clue what is in its interests. It knows what it wants, but not what it needs.

Who knows what the world needs now?

But the democratic majority doesn't have a clue what is in its interests. It knows what it wants, but not what it needs.
Have a read.

http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm
To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason — at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their anti-social ones, their envy or jealousy, their arrogance or contemptuousness: but most commonly, their desires or fears for themselves — their legitimate or illegitimate self-interest.

You're falling into precisely that trap. You have no business telling people what they should want. Don't pretend you're putting forward anything but your own need to make people conform to what you happen to think proper when you get out of bed in the morning.

But the democratic majority doesn't have a clue what is in its interests. It knows what it wants, but not what it needs.You're welcome to speak for yourself, but your ESP is quite obviously broken today, so kindly refrain from speaking for the rest of us.

It's bollox. If a some supreme overlord knows what people need, then so do the people. The supreme overlord is, after all, one of the people.
The democracies on this planet universally recognise that some individuals aren't capable of acting in their own best interest. To make up for this, the democracies recognise that some people will have to act on their behalf. The inept lot are called wards. The people tasked with acting on their behalf are called guardians. I suspect you're had many years to familiarize yourself with the concept already.

EDIT: By the way, are you seriously suggesting people buy plaintickets without knowing their destination?
Not saying it can't happen, but I very much doubt it's the rule.

But the democratic majority doesn't have a clue what is in its interests. It knows what it wants, but not what it needs.
Oh, of course, unlike Etonians such as yourself, who know absolutely everything, especially what the proletariat's own interests are?

Have a read.

http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm


You're falling into precisely that trap. You have no business telling people what they should want. Don't pretend you're putting forward anything but your own need to make people conform to what you happen to think proper when you get out of bed in the morning.

I don't tell people what they want. What they want is inevitbaly short-term prosperity, another series of Big Brother and cheap beer. What they need is sound economics, self-dependance prosperity.

Oh, of course, unlike Etonians such as yourself, who know absolutely everything, especially what the proletariat's own interests are?

I go to a grammar school. Admittedly, its the best state school in England, but that hardly qualifies me as Upper Class.

What they need is sound economics, self-dependance prosperity.
Which is gained, in part, by an economy that fuels itself with consumer goods such as beer and TV licences.

Which is gained, in part, by an economy that fuels itself with consumer goods such as beer and TV licences.

Or, low taxation, and the absence of an over-funded and inefficient NHS.:)

I go to a grammar school. Admittedly, its the best state school in England, but that hardly qualifies me as Upper Class.
I was under the impression that they'd phased those out, actually, but fair enough.

Oh and by virtue of getting into it, you're going to be at least middle class. The lower classes overwhelming go to Secondary Modern schools, as I'm sure you're aware.

Or, low taxation, and the absence of an over-funded and inefficient NHS.:)Ah, but those things buy security for the general population at a much lower price than they'd otherwise have to pay. Thus abolishing things like the NHS is detrimental to prosperity, security & consequently happiness.

i wonder exactly what they think they're going to be teaching. it's not like anyone agrees as to what 'britishness' entails. it should be enough to just make sure kids can speak english, including the english kids.

Oh no! Speaking English stabs at the very heart of what it means to be British. Why do you think there's a song about English called "why can't the English learn to speak."

I was under the impression that they'd phased those out, actually, but fair enough.

Oh and by virtue of getting into it, you're going to be at least middle class. The lower classes overwhelming go to Secondary Modern schools, as I'm sure you're aware.

Life is difficult isn't it:)

Grammar Schools are the best form of secondary education possible. Half of my mates aren't that well off, I'm hardly Lord Rothschild, but we all have bright futures due to our ability.

Or, low taxation, and the absence of an over-funded and inefficient NHS.:)
When the poor start dying early, they're not going to be working in the offices, or buying drinks, or watching football for an extra twenty years, so that the people at the top get wealthy.

Oh look, the economy's up shit creek!

Ah, but those things buy security for the general population at a much lower price than they'd otherwise have to pay. Thus abolishing things like the NHS is detrimental to prosperity, security & consequently happiness.

I'm not so sure. I have no statistics to hand, but I would put money on the NHS being so profligate and wasteful that privatisation would be economically beneficial to the majority of the nation.

When the poor start dying early, they're not going to be working in the offices, or buying drinks, or watching football for an extra twenty years, so that the people at the top get wealthy.

Oh look, the economy's up shit creek!

Health Insurance, provided it was state regulated so as to provide affordable options, need not preclude medical care for the poor.

*gets the tea*

Health Insurance, provided it was state regulated so as to provide affordable options, need not preclude medical care for the poor.

Thats what National Insurance is there for. Remember the NHS is not a business. It cannot be run as a business.

Life is difficult isn't it:)

Grammar Schools are the best form of secondary education possible. Half of my mates aren't that well off, I'm hardly Lord Rothschild, but we all have bright futures due to our ability.
Life is indeed difficult, but on the other hand, it's not due to my education.

I went to a comprehensive, owing to my county not being a Thatcher relic, albeit one that is very good - in 2006 we got 55% rates of students (14.2% of whom have special ed. needs) getting 5A* - C grades - the national average is a mere 45.8%

I personally got 2A*s and 8As. My education is perfectly adequate.

Health Insurance, provided it was state regulated so as to provide affordable options, need not preclude medical care for the poor.
National Insurance is already here :rolleyes:

I'm not so sure. I have no statistics to hand, but I would put money on the NHS being so profligate and wasteful that privatisation would be economically beneficial to the majority of the nation.Last I checked - which admittedly was a couple of years ago - public healthcare both offered better service & was more cost-efective than any private healthcare. The British isn't the best in the world, but it still vastly outperforms the US, for example.

The main problems with public healthcare is the degree of political control & the tendency to privatize bits & peices of it. If you want a really efficient system, put it under the supervision of a bunch of business consultants & let them answer to the politicians.

Even if you're in favour of privatization for the sake of it, it should be obvious that bypassing a whole industry from making a killing off it, will result in cheaper & more efficient service for the end user. Incidently, the insurance industry is a large part of the reason the US model isn't at all competitive with your own.

Life is indeed difficult, but on the other hand, it's not due to my education.

I went to a comprehensive, owing to my county not being a Thatcher relic, albeit one that is very good - in 2006 we got 55% rates of students (14.2% of whom have special ed. needs) getting 5A* - C grades - the national average is a mere 45.8%

I personally got 2A*s and 8As. My education is perfectly adequate.


5a*, 4A, 2B. I didn't revise at all. Just missed out on Christ Church, Oxford. York, Warwick and Kings College London offers for History. Winner.;)

Sorry.....

Thatcherite education was the best thing to ever happen. Certain people, who will follow certain careers, do not require grammar school educations. Others do. Why preclude those with potential from fufilling it?

National Insurance is already here :rolleyes:

Extention as a replacement for the NHS would be far better than an inefficient, manifestly wasteful drain upon government resources,

Thats what National Insurance is there for. Remember the NHS is not a business. It cannot be run as a business.

Hence why it offers a manifestly deficient service.

I'm not so sure. I have no statistics to hand, but I would put money on the NHS being so profligate and wasteful that privatisation would be economically beneficial to the majority of the nation.


...of course, getting rid of the NHS is hardly a sure-fire road to success. Look to the States, where the government still manages to spend far more on healthcare per capita without even managing to provide it free at the point of delivery. My point? There are a great many far worse healthcare systems than the NHS.

5a*, 4A, 2B. I didn't revise at all. Just missed out on Christ Church, Oxford. York, Warwick and Kings College London offers for History. Winner.;)

Masters from Warwick. Heh. Heh. Heh.

...of course, getting rid of the NHS is hardly a sure-fire road to success. Look to the States, where the government still manages to spend far more on healthcare per capita without even managing to provide it free at the point of delivery. My point? There are a great many far worse healthcare systems than the NHS.

There simply cannot be many that are worse. In any case, penury in the US is, I am led to believe, far more prevalent and grevious than in the UK.

Hence why it offers a manifestly deficient service.

Similarly the universitys of York, Warwick and Kings College, London are not businesses, and cannot be run as businesses.

Masters from Warwick. Heh. Heh. Heh.

It has good night-life:D

Hence why it offers a manifestly deficient service.

The reason for that is because successive governments seem to think that running it as a business works.

Its not managers that run it...its the consultants. They are the real managers.

They have the requirements. They make the rules regarding patient care. They have regulations regarding health care that make financial directors of commercial organisations cry.

The biggest error was getting rid of Matrons.

It has good night-life:D

It has fuck-all if you don't go for drinking from the trough with all the other students at unimaginative clubs and gigs by bands whose only qualifications appear to be hype-of-the-week by the NME. The nearest population centre, Coventry, is a dead city and has never recovered from the mistakes the architects and civic planners made in the late-40's and early-50's when they attempted to rebuild it as a city for 'modern' living. Trust me: I know.

The reason for that is because successive governments seem to think that running it as a business works.

Its not managers that run it...its the consultants. They are the real managers.

They have the requirements. They make the rules regarding patient care. They have regulations regarding health care that make financial directors of commercial organisations cry.

The biggest error was getting rid of Matrons.

I agree with regard to matrons. However, the failure of the NHS is, to my mind, now irrevocable. Unless control is genuinely localised to county level managers, or councils of qualified doctors, the NHS will remain a beaurocratic nightmare.

5a*, 4A, 2B. I didn't revise at all. Just missed out on Christ Church, Oxford. York, Warwick and Kings College London offers for History. Winner.;)
Woohoo. We both did well enough to get into college. You did slightly better.

As a side-note - what the hell are you going to do with a history degree, though?

It's not the kind of thing that'll actually lead to a solid career, unless you want to be an archaelogist. And then, doing a GNVQ2 in Trowel Occupations (yes, it exists!) would be just as fruitful.

And if you say "politics" you should have done PPE, really.
Sorry...
No worries. By the way, your MySpace you posted in that other topic is absolutely horrible. Please sort it out. I don't think I can pin anything solely good about it, especially that insipid "Online" rainbow thingy. Eugh.
Thatcherite education was the best thing to ever happen.
Aye, about a day off a school week on average due to strikes must have been fantastic for those in the eighties, as far as their education went. My mother was absolutely loving it, that's for sure.
Certain people, who will follow certain careers, do not require grammar school educations.
Ah, keep the proles thick. I see.
Others do. Why preclude those with potential from fufilling it?
You don't "need" a grammar school education, that's a ludicrous idea. You might want one, so that you can feel intellectually superior, but really, you're confusing wants and needs.

Which you said is what the common man does. Hmm, seems you've accidently fallen on your own sword.

It has fuck-all if you don't go for drinking from the trough with all the other students at unimaginative clubs and gigs by bands whose only qualifications appear to be hype-of-the-week by the NME. The nearest population centre, Coventry, is a dead city and has never recovered from the mistakes the architects and civic planners made in the late-40's and early-50's when they attempted to rebuild it as a city for 'modern' living. Trust me: I know.

Fair enough. I was more convinced by York in any case, given the preponderence of "real" pubs and an atmospheric centre.

Woohoo. We both did well enough to get into college. You did slightly better.

As a side-note - what the hell are you going to do with a history degree, though?

It's not the kind of thing that'll actually lead to a solid career, unless you want to be an archaelogist. And then, doing a GNVQ2 in Trowel Occupations (yes, it exists!) would be just as fruitful.

And if you say "politics" you should have done PPE, really.

No worries. By the way, your MySpace you posted in that other topic is absolutely horrible. Please sort it out. I don't think I can pin anything solely good about it, especially that insipid "Online" rainbow thingy. Eugh.

Aye, about a day off a school week on average due to strikes must have been fantastic for those in the eighties, as far as their education went. My mother was absolutely loving it, that's for sure.

Ah, keep the proles thick. I see.

You don't "need" a grammar school education, that's a ludicrous idea. You might want one, so that you can feel intellectually superior, but really, you're confusing wants and needs.

Which you said is what the common man does. Hmm, seems you've accidently fallen on your own sword.

No. It is a necessity. A bricklayer does not require an intellectual mind. An analyst or politician does.

Aye, about a day off a school week on average due to strikes must have been fantastic for those in the eighties, as far as their education went. My mother was absolutely loving it, that's for sure.

Not quite a day off per week, but a reasonable amount. There was also the fairly pointless spectacle of almost the entire school being sat most of the day in the assembly hall supervised by a member of NUT or NASUWT - whichever one wasn't on strike at that point...

Fair enough. I was more convinced by York in any case, given the preponderence of "real" pubs and an atmospheric centre.
York is crap, and anyone actually from York goes to Leeds for a night out. The "real" pubs are full of shitty scene bands as the owners have started to try and branch out into making money from the local teenagers.

And our "atmospheric centre" isn't actually that good, either. Yeah, we've got The Minster. And Clifford's Tower. And the walls. But we've also got McDonalds, New Look and Starbucks, which totally undermines that.

No. It is a necessity. A bricklayer does not require an intellectual mind. An analyst or politician does.

Why need you be an analyst or a politician, rather than a bricklayer?

York is crap, and anyone actually from York goes to Leeds for a night out. The "real" pubs are full of shitty scene bands as the owners have started to try and branch out into making money from the local teenagers.

And our "atmospheric centre" isn't actually that good, either. Yeah, we've got The Minster. And Clifford's Tower. And the walls. But we've also got McDonalds, New Look and Starbucks, which totally undermines that.

I like "shitty scene bands"...:D

I really liked it in the summer to be honest.

No. It is a necessity. A bricklayer does not require an intellectual mind. An analyst or politician does.
A brickie needs as good an education as a politician, just in a different sector. Crap builders are just as bad as crap politicians, and we've got a fair few.

Why need you be an analyst or a politician, rather than a bricklayer?

Those with ability should be able to use it.

As a side-note - what the hell are you going to do with a history degree, though?

It's not the kind of thing that'll actually lead to a solid career, unless you want to be an archaelogist. And then, doing a GNVQ2 in Trowel Occupations (yes, it exists!) would be just as fruitful.


I'm thinking of doing PPE but hardly any universities, if only oxford actually do it so I havn't got much of a chance. History is actually pretty good for politics or just to be generally successfull, or so I've heard. It shows you are smart, critical with a good anylitical mind. But degrees are looked at differently in different countries, in England my brother in law got a job in a top london business firm with a bio chemistry degree. So it's not always about the contence of the degree.

Those with ability should be able to use it.

And what ability have you displayed?

There simply cannot be many that are worse.It's the other way around. Only a handful are better than the British, and they're all public as well.In any case, penury in the US is, I am led to believe, far more prevalent and grevious than in the UK.It's a cultural difference. Americans hate being confronted with the fact that not every individual is a resounding success in a capitalist society, and the only way they'll deign to throw a few scraps their way, is if they get something in return. Like.. Born Agains, for example.

The UK grudgingly admits that the failure of some is a mechanic of capitalism, and thus offers some the failures a few breaks with no strings attatched, in th hopes of remiding the situation. And it works a lot of the time. Worked for me, and I've more than payed back what that break cost. If I hadn't caught a break though, I am absolutely certain I'd either be dead in a gutter somewhere, relying on crime for my income, or in jail. None of which is very appealing to me, or offer any kind of security or prosperity - which is what your aim was, I believe.

A brickie needs as good an education as a politician, just in a different sector. Crap builders are just as bad as crap politicians, and we've got a fair few.

But, you must concede, not an academic education?

I like "shitty scene bands"...:D
You will for about a week, and then you'll tire of them very quickly indeed.
I really liked it in the summer to be honest.
S'alright in summer, but it's horrible in spring, autumn and winter.

Still, if you don't like black people and you're into Brits, which you seem to do, then it's pretty perfect, seeing as 97.6% of the city is white and British at that, IIRC.

But, you must concede, not an academic education?
They need an education just as well funded, but not "academic" in the sense of being taught foreign languages, advanced maths and ancient history, no.

It's the other way around. Only a handful are better than the British, and they're all public as well.It's a cultural difference. Americans hate being confronted with the fact that not every individual is a resounding success in a capitalist society, and the only way they'll deign to throw a few scraps their way, is if they get something in return. Like.. Born Agains, for example.

The UK grudgingly admits that the failure of some is a mechanic of capitalism, and thus offers some the failures a few breaks with no strings attatched, in th hopes of remiding the situation. And it works a lot of the time. Worked for me, and I've more than payed back what that break cost. If I hadn't caught a break though, I am absolutely certain I'd either be dead in a gutter somewhere, relying on crime for my income, or in jail. None of which is very appealing to me, or offer any kind of security or prosperity - which is what your aim was, I believe.

People should take responsibility for themselves. Were the minimum wage sufficient to support an individual, which, incidentally, I would ensure it was, such an argument would be redundant.

In any case, why should the middle and upper classes be responsible to allow others to arse about on benefits?

You will for about a week, and then you'll tire of them very quickly indeed.

S'alright in summer, but it's horrible in spring, autumn and winter.

Still, if you don't like black people and you're into Brits, which you seem to do, then it's pretty perfect, seeing as 97.6% of the city is white and British at that, IIRC.

I visited Durham in October, and it was basically grey. From the sky to the castle to the pavement....

In any case, why should the middle and upper classes be responsible to allow others to arse about on benefits?
Because it's our exploitation of the worker that's causing people to get stressed out enough to start taking heroin on the dole as a way out?

They need an education just as well funded, but not "academic" in the sense of being taught foreign languages, advanced maths and ancient history, no.

Indeed, they do, however, Grammar schools need not recieve more state funding than their comprehensive counterparts.

Because it's our exploitation of the worker that's causing people to get stressed out enough to start taking heroin on the dole as a way out?

Oh yes. Silly me. It's never the fault of the degenerate who killed the businessman, it was evil capitalism that never threw him a bone....:rolleyes:

I visited Durham in October, and it was basically grey. From the sky to the castle to the pavement....
Good uni bar, though. Went there for an area NUS conference (I'm the Equal Ops, Welfare and Environment officer on the Students' Union) and they seem to add something to their drinks to get people drunk very quickly indeed. I got extremely tipsy off a single pint of Stella there and usually I can down a bottle of red, no problems.

Anyway, yeah, it'd be dull to be there for 4 years doing a degree, seeing as there's no nightlife to speak of.

People should take responsibility for themselves. Were the minimum wage sufficient to support an individual, which, incidentally, I would ensure it was, such an argument would be redundant.

In any case, why should the middle and upper classes be responsible to allow others to arse about on benefits?

Not all are able to work. On to the scrap heap with them then?

Indeed, they do, however, Grammar schools need not recieve more state funding than their comprehensive counterparts.
Don't really want to get this intermingled. Grammar schools and Secondary Moderns are one thing, comprehensives another.

Grammar schools should recieve no more than Secondary Moderns per student, correct. They should get equal amounts in an ideal world. On the other hand, this is not happening, because the political elite is choosing to fund grammar schools, i.e. where they came from, over secondary moderns, which is where the person that built their house came from.

Comprehensives are a different matter entirely, and I think they should get easily the most per head, seeing as they're teaching a whole range of courses.

People should take responsibility for themselves.I dare you to find someone just theoretically capable, who wouldn't want to more than anything.

Were the minimum wage sufficient to support an individual, which, incidentally, I would ensure it was, such an argument would be redundant.Assuming opportunity & education was sufficient, yes.

In any case, why should the middle and upper classes be responsible to allow others to arse about on benefits?Why are they middle & upper class? Because of the capitalist system. In a system where winners, losers & in-betweens are part of the mechanic, blaming the losers for being losers while drooling over your own position is disgustingly hypocritical.

The 'equal opportunity' shit is a myth, because it fails to recognise the inequal ability of the individuals. If it did though, you upper class bastards wouldn't have to provide for anyone, because I promise you, there's nothing worse than having to put up with comments like that. It's right up there with "Let them eat cake".

Sounds like something the NBIP would pull.....I wonder, could Ilaer be Tony Blair?

Oh, lord...
I'm a Conservative, tending somewhat to UKIP.
Not Labour. Never Labour...

We (the NBIP) probably would attempt something like this, but we'd do it in a competent and fun manner (I like to think). Blair's set himself up for a disaster.

Ilaer

I go to a grammar school. Admittedly, its the best state school in England, but that hardly qualifies me as Upper Class.

The same here. I attend Caistor Grammar School in Lincolnshire, and it does surprisingly well on league tables, but I am not of the upper class.
I am a British gentleman, yes, softly-spoken and the epitome of courtesy most of the time, but I am a still a commoner, albeit a very traditionalist and patriotic one.

Ilaer

Don't really want to get this intermingled. Grammar schools and Secondary Moderns are one thing, comprehensives another.

Grammar schools should recieve no more than Secondary Moderns per student, correct. They should get equal amounts in an ideal world. On the other hand, this is not happening, because the political elite is choosing to fund grammar schools, i.e. where they came from, over secondary moderns, which is where the person that built their house came from.

Comprehensives are a different matter entirely, and I think they should get easily the most per head, seeing as they're teaching a whole range of courses.

Sorry about the triple post, but...
In general I find that grammar schools tend to get LESS per student. I know that Caistor Grammar School in particular lacks many things which smaller, ordinary secondary schools in the area possess, and I daresay it's the same elsewhere.
I actually believe that there should be more investment in grammar schools just to equalise them with secondary modern schools. Academic people are the flower of society; surely we should get just as much as everyone else?

Ilaer

I am a British gentleman, yes, softly-spoken and the epitome of courtesy most of the time



Oh yes and how modest you are too.

Teaching 'Britishness' is arrant crap.

Teaching an overview of British history, giving people some idea of how our society has developed, that is very much worthwhile.

The number of intelligent people I know, who have no sense of why they should be proud to be British...and before anyone jumps on me, it is possible to be proud of your own background without hating others for theirs...is depressing.
This country has a great history - there are dark deeds and perfidy, and human misery in there, but they throw the rest in perspective.

At the moment all people seem to be taught, unless they do History A-level, is that slavery was bad, and so was Hitler, and that we were responsible for slavery and responsible for Hitler (through Versailles and appeasement).

From speaking to my Muslim friends, there is a distinct sense that if Britain were a little more proud to be British, they could be as well - they have no sense of why they should be though, and that's because we don't either. And, also from my experience, if Oxford students have no idea, why should the general population?

I don't want a crude drum-beating nationalism, that isn't British at all. A quiet sense of pride, that we abolished slavery, that we gave the world the Industrial Revolution, that we have fought and died for freedom, and that we have drawn in so many peoples and made them our own, enlivening both our culture and theirs...that would be the aim.

EDIT: Just my 2p-worth.

It seems his Tonyness wants "Britishiness" to be taught (or indoctrinated) to childern in schools. Personally I'm against it- I don't like the thought of youngins being told what they think about their country, and personally I don't think that Nationalism really belongs to the 21st Centuary, but that's just me.

Any thoughts?

Britishness means:

1.Tea at 5 pm, and sipping tea with the little finger sticking out.
2.Not wearing any colour that appears in the Union Jack.
3.Using am/pm instead of 24h.
4.Wearing the club's tie, for men. For women, wearing large, pastel-coloured hats.
5.Driving on the left side of the road.
6.Queueing at bus stops.
7.Liking hounds and horses (not as food).
8.Knowing the difference between a past tense and a past perfect, and using them in the appropriate places.
9.Proper english words and spelling. (Colour, neighbour, armour, through, pavement...)
10.Watching BBC Prime comedies and laughing at jokes and nonsenses.
11.Having an umbrella always ready.
12.Tuscany on holidays.
13.Sports preferences: 1.Cricket, 2.Horse races, 3.Union Rugby, 4.Soccer. Eventually regattas and boxing.
14.A portrait of Queen Victoria.
15.Toasting to Her British Majesty.
16.Talking about weather.
17.Wearing khaki bermudas and khaki socks when in "exotic" places. This includes southern Europe.
18.Reading sensation newspapers like the "Sun".
19.Getting excited about the Royals' sex life.
20.Hating garlic.
...

Sorry for the stereotypes... I think that His TonyBlurryness talked utter nonsense. By the same rule, all schools in Italy should teach to sing, cook and play mandolino...

I forgot: Da. In Soviet cricket, the ball pitches YOU!

Oh yes and how modest you are too.

Very much so, am I not? :D

In the case that you meant it seriously, I find nothing to suggest that it was immodest. I am indeed courteous and well-spoken most of the time, and those are two things which I do not find people expect one to be modest of. Now, if I were to go around boasting about things I had done, such as getting superb grades in school, or to go around saying that I was better than so-and-so, then I would feel that that was grounds to say I was immodest.

Ilaer

Britishness means:
8.Knowing the difference between a past tense and a past perfect, and using them in the appropriate places.
9.Proper english words and spelling. (Colour, neighbour, armour, through, pavement...)Never confuse myths & stereotypes.

Aren't you telling me that even British people use US spelling, are you?I rest in my case.

Never confuse myths & stereotypes.

Aren't you telling me that even British people use US spelling, are you?

At the moment all people seem to be taught, unless they do History A-level, is that slavery was bad, and so was Hitler, and that we were responsible for slavery and responsible for Hitler (through Versailles and appeasement).


Slavery was not bad, it was the manner in which it was done. For me being British means that I was just born in Britain (England) and so were my parents, mother (Grenada), father (Northern Ireland)

I'm too white to be black and too black to be white, so I don't fit into any culture. As bad as Britain and the U.S. was to slaves, without it there would be no British or American Empires. For that I'm proud of the slave trade, I am the sum of my ancestors.

We can do nothing about the past so I don't dwell on it, we can only change the now and the future.

And I agree, teaching these things is not a good idea when we should be looking forward.

Slavery was not bad, it was the manner in which it was done. For me being British means that I was just born in Britain (England) and so were my parents, mother (Grenada), father (Northern Ireland)

I'm too white to be black and too black to be white, so I don't fit into any culture. As bad as Britain and the U.S. was to slaves, without it there would be no British or American Empires. For that I'm proud of the slave trade, I am the sum of my ancestors.

We can do nothing about the past so I don't dwell on it, we can only change the now and the future.

And I agree, teaching these things is not a good idea when we should be looking forward.

Did you even read my post? I was saying we should teach more history - especially more of an overview.
Of course we should look to the present and the future, but the past gives context to the present.
And to say the slave trade was a good thing - or even that both Britain and America were built on slavery - is highly dubious.
And to say that being neither black nor white means you don't fit into any culture is even more off the wall - it pre-supposes you are defined by your skin colour. I know there is racism, but people of any colour (except green:p ) fit into my culture, and I'm far from the only one who thinks, and acts, that way.

Did you even read my post? I was saying we should teach more history - especially more of an overview.
Of course we should look to the present and the future, but the past gives context to the present.
And to say the slave trade was a good thing - or even that both Britain and America were built on slavery - is highly dubious.
And to say that being neither black nor white means you don't fit into any culture is even more off the wall - it pre-supposes you are defined by your skin colour. I know there is racism, but people of any colour (except green:p ) fit into my culture, and I'm far from the only one who thinks, and acts, that way.

Yes I did, I agree with you.

The slave trade was not good but the work produced by the slaves was good. If you ever visit Grenada there is an excelent museum dedicated to the West India trade of goods produced by slaves, I'd recommend it.

Sorry to make an obvious statement, but you are defined by the colour of your skin. I don't have a problem with it, other people do, so it's their problem not mine. When I was in Florida someone told me I couldn't be British because I'm not white, that tells me the colour of my skin had some influence in that decision.

If I was as clever as him, I'd say all Americans are stupid, but I just know that not to be the case.

Yes I did, I agree with you.

The slave trade was not good but the work produced by the slaves was good. If you ever visit Grenada there is an excelent museum dedicated to the West India trade of goods produced by slaves, I'd recommend it.

Sorry to make an obvious statement, but you are defined by the colour of your skin. I don't have a problem with it, other people do, so it's their problem not mine. When I was in Florida someone told me I couldn't be British because I'm not white, that tells me the colour of my skin had some influence in that decision.

If I was as clever as him, I'd say all Americans are stupid, but I just know that not to be the case.

Some American said my Dad couldn't be British because of his accent and he is a white man from Birmingham.

Some American said my Dad couldn't be British because of his accent and he is a white man from Birmingham.

lol, I love Birmingham, I spent 4 years in Erdington. Had to leave when my accent started to turn :eek:

They still have white people in Birmingham?

I guess so my grandparents still live there but they may be the last two:p

I would suggest that Johnny Blair look no further than The Chap for teaching Britishness
http://www.thechap.net/index.html
Monocles and moustaches and proper tea is best...playing football on the park, small boys for goal posts isn't it...

I would suggest that Johnny Blair look no further than The Chap for teaching Britishness
http://www.thechap.net/index.html
Monocles and moustaches and proper tea is best...playing football on the park, small boys for goal posts isn't it...

Absolutely spiffing dear fellow.

I know there is racism, but people of any colour (except green:p ) fit into my culture

Purple? I was bright purple once. For a few moments after I was born.

No, because we couldn't dare have diversity in North America.

Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's like oil and water, they don't mix.

Why, expecting all the other cultures to just go away?

YES.

YES.

"Piss out of Australia, you dirty German!" ?

"Piss out of Australia, you dirty German!" ?

We own this country now. If they want it, come take it.

Multiculturalism doesn't work. It's like oil and water, they don't mix.
Ever been to Singapore?

We own this country now. If they want it, come take it.
I thought in your opinion, that's exactly what other cultures were doing?

Ever been to Singapore?

That hellhole? Pfhhh. That only works because their govt. is like a psychotic dictatorship.