Do they know it's Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month?

I'm delighted to report that a new blow has been struck for racial equality, with the introduction of Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month (just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?). As the name suggests, this is the latest bright idea from some parasitic do-gooder doughty warrior against injustice: a celebration of the enormous cultural contribution of gypsies! It follows in the footsteps of the equally worthwhile Black History Month, and LGBT History Month, and is already making its presence felt.

For example, the government has provided £70,000 to "the gypsy, Roma and traveller community" (for which read, a small number of self-appointed representatives of the said community), which has been used to fund a magazine, snappily entitled Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month Magazine (GRTHMM), 23,000 copies of which were distributed to schoolchildren across the UK last month. Like many such "anti-racist" politico-historical publications, it makes a number of rather questionable claims about the ethnicity of well-known figures, attempting to draw them into the ethnic group that is being "celebrated", whether the facts like it or not. However, while the website, 100 Great Black Britons, only claimed that a queen, Philippa of Hainault, was, contrary to all the evidence, of African descent, GRTHMM has gone further, and claimed that the King was a gypsy. Yes, apparently Elvis Presley was a gypsy, as were Charlie Chaplin and Rita Hayworth. Now, call me a bigot if you will, but, from the summary of the arguments used in justification of this assertion, it seems that its truth is questionable, to put it mildly:

Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month magazine also suggests that Elvis’s ancestors were Sinti – German gypsies who emigrated to America in the 18th century.

It goes on to claim that Elvis’s mother Gladys’s maiden name was Smith, a common Romany name.

Riiiiight. Elvis's mother was indeed called Smith, and that may well be a common gypsy name. But, well, it has been known to be held by people who weren't gypsies. All I'll say is, that if being called Smith is proof of gypsy origins, then there are a lot more gypsies in the UK than I'd previously thought.

Actually, it is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether Elvis was or was not a gypsy. And, since he's already been claimed as one of their own by the Scots, the Jews, and the Cherokee Indians, I see no reason why the gypsies shouldn't stake a claim as well. However, while people are entirely at liberty to believe whatever they like about anyone's ancestry, I do rather object to them being given large amounts of money to promote their pseudo-genealogy in the nation's schools.

But the education system is not the only part of the establishment which has embraced Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month. The Metropolitan Police are getting into the spirit of the event (by which I mean, extreme political correctness matched with tokenistic gestures) too:

...in a move which has caused disbelief amongst rank and file officers, Scotland Yard has asked staff to 'celebrate' the contribution of Roma gipsies to 'London's culture and diversity.'

In a notice posted on the force's intranet website, Denise Milani, director of the Met's 'Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate', urges officers to observe the first ever 'Gipsy Roma Traveller History Month.'

Ignoring the huge drain on resources caused by Romanian pickpockets who target commuters and tourists in the West End, Miss Milani - a protege of Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair - says Roma gipsies are welcome in the capital.

She says: 'We welcome the celebration of the community's history and contributions to London's culture and diversity.

'The Met Police works to make London a safer city for all and we are committed to understanding and working with all communities, including the Gipsy Roma Traveller community.'

I wouldn't mind betting that many officers have rather a lot of experience of working with the gypsy community...

'The Gipsy Roma Traveller History month celebrates their history, culture and contributions to the rich tapestry of Britain's diversity.'

The mother-of-two's comments were described as 'political correctness off the Richter scale' by one furious detective. He added: 'What planet is this lady living on? We have been run ragged by gangs of Romanian gipsies who are targeting innocent people in the West End.

'How is that enhancing the rich tapestry of cultural life in Britain?'

Quite aside from the fact that the job of the police is not to celebrate anyone's cultural heritage, but to prevent crime, I have to ask what officers are supposed to do in order to "'celebrate' the contribution of Roma gipsies to 'London's culture and diversity'"? Sell pegs and heather? Tell fortunes? Camp out on people's lawns? It sounds to me like Miss Milani's command is simply (thankfully) an empty gesture, albeit one that serves to illustrate the extent to which political correctness has corrupted the police force, just as the very existence of Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month serves to illustrate the extent to which political correctness has corrupted the public sector generally.

The Red Racist under the Bed

This is one of those stories which really does leave one speechless:

Toddlers should be taught about racism and singled out for criticism if they have racist attitudes, a Government-funded advisory group said yesterday.

It told nursery teachers, playgroup leaders and childminders to record and report every racist incident involving children as young as three.

These could include saying 'Yuk' about unfamiliar food.

Even babies should not be ignored in the hunt for racism because they can 'recognise different people in their lives', a new guide for nurseries and child care centres said.

The instructions for staff in charge of pre-school children in day care have been produced by the National Children's Bureau, which receives £12million a year, mostly through taxpayer-funded organisations.

[...]

The new 366-page guide, Young Children and Racial Justice, warned that 'racist incidents among children in early years settings-tend to be around name-calling-casual thoughtless comments, and peer group relationships'.

It said such incidents could include children using words like 'blackie', 'Pakis', 'those people' or 'they smell'.

Children might also 'react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying "yuk".'

Nursery staff are told: 'No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist intent, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.'

If children 'reveal negative attitudes the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes'.

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many racist incidents as possible to local councils.

'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution,' it said. 'In fact, the opposite is the case.'

The assertion that it reflects well on an institution to report large numbers of "racist incidents" implies that those institutions which report few or no such incidents are covering something up. The people who drafted this advice must actually believe that "racism" is almost endemic among the tiny tots.

The guidance said that anyone who disagrees is racist themselves.

Well, that attitude is pretty much par for the course with these "anti-racist" types. They're so tolerant and good, you see, that anyone who doesn't share their views must, by definition, be pure evil!

It also suggests cultivating the home languages of new immigrants - despite Government anxiety to promote the learning of English.

It said: 'English is now viewed as the major language of the world but this is not because it has any innate linguistic advantages - it is because English is the language of power in a world dominated by English-speaking peoples.'

Possibly. More pertinently, English is also the native and majority language of the UK, and you probably won't get very far in Britain without being able to speak at least passable English (John Prescott being an obvious exception to this rule). That is why it's considered important that children learn English: astonishingly enough, it's not all about perpetuating post-colonial power structures, or anything like that.

Critics of the race programme for pre- school children labelled it 'totalitarian'.

They would say that - they are, by definition, "racist".

Author and researcher on family life Patricia Morgan said: 'Stepping in to stop severe bullying is one thing, but this is interference in the lives of children. It smacks of totalitarianism.

'It is regulation of private speech and thought. They intend nursery staff to step into children's playground squabbles and then report them to the local council as race incidents. Who would ever have thought that the anti-racism crusade would go so far?'

Well, if you look at the past record of the "anti-racist" movement, and particularly its lengthy record of witch hunts against those who have displeased it (including schoolchildren), then this latest proposal appears, if not predictable, then at least in keeping with its noble traditions.

The very notion that babies or toddlers are capable of being "racist" in any meaningful sense is, I think, ridiculous. I find it very unlikely that children that young are actually able to develop ingrained negative generalisations about groups of people, and suspect that if nursery staff follow this advice too closely, then we may well see large numbers of children being labelled as dangerous racists, for utterly trivial instances of misbehaviour. Certainly, the notion that one can identify actual or prospective racists by their culinary habits is too deranged for words. Still, it does have one benefit: in common with pretty much anyone who dares to express any negative views regarding immigration, multiculturalism, or Islam, I have on occasion been accused of "racism". However, since I like curry, I can now prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that I am not guilty of the charge!

The liberal paradise

While the British education system leaves rather a lot to be desired, we can at least be thankful that we have not sunk quite so irretrievably into the swamp of liberal lunacy as Sweden. In May 2007 I mentioned claims that Swedish parents were being encouraged to send their sons to school wearing dresses - in order to break down male chauvinistic hegemony, naturally - and now we have this:

It was supposed to be a party with balloons and a birthday cake but the eight-year-old Swedish boy had not reckoned on his country’s obsession with equality and inclusiveness. Two of his classmates were left off the invitation list – and that, deemed his school – was forbidden and a violation of their rights in the strictest “nanny state” in Europe.

The case has been sent to the Swedish parliament and has sparked a national debate about individual liberty. Does a child have the right to invite anyone he wants to a party, even if he risks hurting the feelings of those who were left out?

[...]

Before the beginning of lessons the boy had cheerfully threaded his way through the class handing out invitations. When the teacher spotted that two children had not received one he confiscated the invitations.

“One of the children had not invited my son to his own birthday party,” explained the father of the boy, who lodged an official complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman. “The other one had been bad to my son for six months. You do not invite your antagonists.”

That was not convincing enough for the headmaster or government deputies. “I believe the staff acted correctly, in a model way,” said Lars Hansson, of the Swedish Liberal party, one of the four ruling coalition partners in the country.

“It is their duty to reject any forms of insulting behaviour. To eliminate individual children from parties is not acceptable.”

Mr Hansson is evidently also an advocate of revised spelling: specifically, he seems to believe that fascist is spelt l-i-b-e-r-a-l.

I assume that the basis of this decision lies in the belief - exhibited in this country by those who oppose the eleven plus on the grounds that it "stigmatises" those who fail it, or who dislike competitive sports in schools because not everyone gets to win - that children must never have their feelings hurt. In fact the precise opposite is true: upsetting as not being invited to a party (or failing an exam, or losing at football) may be, it is itself a vital part of the social learning process. In just the same way as it's better to learn about death when one loses one's rabbit at the age of eight, than when one loses one's parent at thirty, so it's better to become hardened to - or at least aware of the possibility of - rejection (or, as Lars Hansson puts it "insulting behaviour") with small childhood instances like this, than with something really important in adulthood. Wrapping children in cotton wool will only harm them in the long run.

Even disregarding this point, however, the notion of a society in which the guest list at a child's party is a matter for the state is simply bizarre. The Times also notes that:

Lena Nyberg, the Children’s Ombudsman, is waging a campaign against collective punishment in schools too. Children have been complaining to her about the way that entire classes are kept behind after hours to punish an offence committed by a single pupil.

It seems that, for Swedish liberals, children are individuals when facing the prospect of a small dose of old-fashioned discipline. When it comes to their birthday parties, however, they, and their parents, are very much subject to the collectivist norms of the state.

Hat-tip: ATW

Edukayshun, edukayshun, edukayshun

Just a quick round-up of some recent stories illustrating the continuing decline of British educational standards:

#1: Yet more evidence that A-levels are getting easier, and the impact that this is having on the nation's economic competitiveness:

A “lost generation” of mathematicians has cost the economy £9 billion, while GCSE maths has become a “pick ‘n’ mix” test rather than the key staging post it once was, according to a report.

The decline in standards threatens the future of the economy, say the authors, and is having a devastating impact on the City, with some firms recruiting most of their maths graduates from overseas.

The report, by the Reform think-tank, accuses the Government of marginalising the interests of employers, teachers and students. It claims that ministers are focusing on exam results, rather than educational outcomes, and are trying to get pupils to pass any five GCSEs to meet targets, rather than concentrating on the core subjects of English and maths.

[...]

Maths exams are much easier now than 30 years ago, Reform says, because of efforts to make them more relevant to the workplace. This means that children are not being taught key skills such as problem solving. As a result, it is “now possible to achieve a grade C in GCSE maths having almost no conceptual knowledge of mathematics” and by scoring less than 20 per cent in the top paper.

“A coherent discipline has changed to ‘pick ‘n’ mix’, with pupils being trained to answer specific shallow questions on a range of topics where marks can be most easily harvested.”

#2: Imperial College votes with its feet, and the count doesn't go A-levels' way:

One of Britain's leading universities is to introduce an entrance exam for all students applying to study there from 2010 because it believes that A levels no longer provide it with a viable way to select the best students.

Sir Richard Sykes, Rector of Imperial College, London, suggested that grade inflation at A level meant that so many students now got straight As that it had become almost “worthless” as a way of discriminating between the talented and the well drilled.

Last year one in four A-level marks was a grade A and 10 per cent of A-level students achieved at least three As.

“We can't rely on A levels any more. Everybody who applies has got three or four As. They [A levels] are not very useful. The International Baccalaureate is useful but again this is just a benchmark,” Sir Richard said.

He added: “We are doing this not because we don't believe in A levels, but we can't use the A level any more as a discriminator factor.” The move will make Imperial, which specialises in science and engineering and ranks third in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge in The Times Good University Guide, the first university to introduce a university-wide entrance exam since Oxford scrapped its own version in 1995.

#3: If some people have their way it will get a hell of a lot worse, before it gets any better:

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today.

Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills.

Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes.

He will outline his theories at a conference today staged by London's Institute of Education - to which he is affiliated - to mark the 20th anniversary of the national curriculum.

Last night, critics attacked his ideas as "deeply corrosive" and condemned the Government for allowing him to advise on a new curriculum.

Professor White will claim ministers are already "moving in the right direction" towards realising his vision of replacing subjects with a series of personal aims for pupils.

But he says they must go further because traditional subjects were invented by the middle classes and are "mere stepping stones to wealth".

[...]

Professor White wants ministers to encourage schools to shift away from single-subject teaching to "theme or project-based learning".

Pupils would still cover some content but would be encouraged to meet a series of personal aims. The curriculum already states some of these but is "hampered" by the continued primacy of subjects.

The aims include fostering a model pupil who "values personal relationships, is a responsible and caring citizen, is entrepreneurial, able to manage risk and committed to sustainable development".

Hmm. I think the following quote from Yes, Prime Minister says it best:

Employment Secretary: The National Union of Teachers are scared stiff that conscription will expose the fact that school leavers, while of course being tremendously integrated socially and creatively aware...
Sir Humphrey: Can't actually read, write or do sums, yes.

Denounced!

A traditionalist Anglican has said he will continue with a campaign for the Church of England to work explicitly to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Paul Eddy, a lay member of the General Synod, has come under intense pressure from bishops to withdraw his plan.

But he has secured enough support for his motion to be debated at the next meeting of the Church's ruling body.

The motion calls on the Church to proclaim Christianity as the only route to ultimate salvation.

Mr Eddy, who is training to become a priest, has been denounced by some Muslims, but says the Church can no longer avoid hard questions about its beliefs.

He said he had received angry e-mails and telephone calls from senior figures in the Church denouncing his motion.

How depressingly typical of the Anglican leadership. Personally, I'd always assumed that spreading the Gospel was one of the primary purposes for which the Church of England (and, indeed, all mainstream churches) existed. But apparently not. Rather, it seems that the purpose of the CofE, as defined by its leaders, is to grovel like good dhimmis while the Islamification of Britain continues apace, and to denounce anyone who fails to kow-tow with sufficient promptitude. Rather than upset their Islamic friends by asserting their own faith, and seeking to convert Muslims, the likes of Rowan Williams and John Pritchard would prefer to see their congregations continue to dwindle, ultimately into non-existence. Looking at the way they behave, I sometimes wonder whether Williams and his ilk are in fact fanatical atheists, who have infiltrated the Church with the sole aim of destroying it from within. They probably aren't, but it must be said, that they couldn't do more damage if they were.

And, once again, I am struck by the contrast between these snivelling cowards, and Christians in other parts of the world who are putting their lives at risk in order to practise and promulgate their faith. While Christians in countries like Iran are successfully converting millions of Muslims, and risking their lives and freedoms in the process, our own senior clergy, "faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads", are so terrified of upsetting the Muslims and the Guardianista chatterers that they denounce Paul Eddy for simply desiring that the Church stand up for what it is supposed to believe in.

'Straight' added to the List of Banned Words

I see that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that prosecuting the teenager who called Scientology a cult would not be in the public interest. I suppose that we should be thankful that the CPS have, on this occasion, demonstrated a modicum of good sense. However, the fact remains that the police attempted to stifle free speech, purely on the grounds that that speech was, or might be, "offensive".

On Tuesday, I noted that cases such as the above - innocuous conduct being treated as criminal by an overbearing police force - seemed to be happening on a weekly basis. Well, I may have underestimated the frequency with which it occurs, for here is yet another instance of this phenomenon:

A complaint has been made to police over a banner declaring a former gay bar in Sunderland city centre has now gone "straight".

The sign outside the Retox bar, in High Street West, read: "Retox under new management! Now Straight! Top totty dancers on match days!"

A police inquiry is under way into a complaint that the sign, which has now been taken down, was offensive.

The bar owners said it was never their intention to offend.

Assistant manager Carl Lovett said: "We admit it was not the best banner but there was never any intention to cause offence."

I assume, from the way in which this is reported, that the "offensive" part of the sign was the word 'straight', although I suppose that it might just possibly have been the "top totty dancers" bit that did it. Either way, while the sign might have been slightly crude, I fail to see what, precisely, was so upsetting to the complainant. Is mentioning the very existence of heterosexuality now deemed "homophobic"? This bar had changed its commercial direction, to one which it presumably hopes will prove more profitable: is it to be prohibited from announcing that fact to the world?

In any event, as I have repeated time after time, the fact that something is offensive to someone is not in itself sufficient reason for banning it. After all, the right to free speech would have precious little meaning if it was restricted in scope to speech which no one would ever want to silence. But, as we see time and again, that is the road down which this country is heading, at a pretty rapid rate. And, as the behaviour of the complainant in this case demonstrates, there is no shortage of people who not only support the suppression of free speech, but are also willing to assist in it, by becoming informers against those who transgress against the state's notion of acceptable language.

Whoever wins, we lose

Londoners really are spoilt for choice in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Who can differentiate between the three towering statesmen, those intellectual colossi and ornaments of public life, who have done us the honour of seeking our votes? Not me, that's for sure! To me, they all seem exactly the same. Consider the forthright and insightful approach that they've all taken to the question of Islam:

Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

What an original way of looking at it!

The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?

In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.

But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:

The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.

But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.

He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.

Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."

However, I think that, on this occasion, the award for most idiotic candidate has to go to Brian Paddick, formerly Britain's most senior homosexual policeman, and also, we now discover, a renowned Islamic scholar:

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.

"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."

First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?

Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".

At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.

Answer: he's white

The Daily Mail has the story of eighteen year-old Jamie Bauld, who recently had a charge of racially-aggravated assault against him dropped, following a seven month police investigation. So, what sort of person is Jamie Bauld? The kind of thug who goes out "Paki-bashing" at weekends, perhaps? Well, no. He's actually a Down's Syndrome sufferer, with a mental age of five.

The incident that led to the police investigation occurred last September, at the special needs department of his school, Motherwell College. Jamie had an altercation with an Asian girl, who also had special needs, during the course of which he pushed her. Hardly the most heinous of crimes in any context, you might think, and particularly not when both participants have the mental age of primary school children. However, some unknown person clearly felt otherwise. They placed an advertisement in the local paper, asking for witnesses to the "racial assault", after which the eminently sensible gentlemen of the police force decided that it was worth their while to get involved, and questioned Jamie, prior to charging him with assault. According to his mother, Jamie did not understand the questions that the police were asking him, and simply agreed with every accusation put to him, out of a desire to please his interrogators. She adds that, like many children, he does not actually notice racial differences.

A fortnight ago the prosecution was finally dropped, and Jamie's parents have received an apology from the Crown Office - Scotland's equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service. At least that's something.
But it really is astounding that matters were taken this far. Or at least, it ought to be. However, given that recent years have also seen a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl arrested for complaining that her (Asian) fellow pupils were not speaking English, and three ten-year-old boys respectively questioned by police for using the word 'gay' in an e-mail, threatened with prosecution for throwing a berry at a Slovak immigrant, and prosecuted over a playground scuffle with an Asian child (a decision that even the judge condemned as "political correctness gone mad"), my response to Jamie Bauld's case was not so much amazement, as resignation. Our country, and, particularly, it seems, our police and our public prosecution services, are infested with censorious liberal thought police, always on the lookout for new victims to persecute, harass, and vilify. What can drive any human being to seek the prosecution of someone like Jamie Bauld is totally beyond me, unless they do it for the bully's thrill that some derive from victimising someone who is utterly incapable of fighting back.

Jamie's mother asks "how can my son be racist"? A valid question, particularly given that there appears to have been no suggestion that the altercation in the classroom was accompanied by anything indicative of racist attitudes, on the part of either Jamie, or the Asian girl. The answer, of course, is that he is white. As such, he is, in "anti-racist" ideology, presumed guilty of racism, and nothing can prove him innocent. Even though there was no racial element in this incident, the fact that he had a conflict with a non-white person, while being himself guilty of being white, proves, to the "anti-racist" thought policeman, that he had a racist motive for his actions. Because those white devils are all evil racists, you know...

What a NUT!

Some readers may recall the name of Baljeet Ghale, the former president of the National Union of Teachers, who last year complained that the government's plans to teach a watered-down set of platitudes, under the general (and generally misleading) designation of "Britishness", were "racist". Well, Ms Ghale has now been replaced as NUT president by one Bill Greenshields, whose old school far-leftism makes Ghale's liberal-left talking points seem positively sane, rational, and benign:

The new head of Britain’s biggest teaching union has called for the private education system to be nationalised.

Bill Greenshields, incoming president of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), said such a move would improve state education and make it fairer.

"Fairer" = everyone receives an equally bad education.

The NUT, the most left-wing of the teaching unions...

Which really is saying something!

...has long been hostile to independent education and to Labour’s programme of setting up academies with private-sector sponsors to replace failing schools.

But Greenshields’s comments to the union’s annual conference in Manchester yesterday went one step further.

“Let’s consider our own direction of travel – from private to public, towards bringing all schools into the state sector,” he said. “Then we would soon see some urgent improvements in our state system.”

No, you wouldn't. The existence of private schools does not harm standards in the state sector. Rather, as I wrote when the writer Alan Bennett made similar remarks back in January, it is banning private schools which really would harm the education of millions of children. After all, since chippy little leftists like Greenshields and Bennett are correct in believing that most private schools offer a better education than most state schools, the inevitable consequence of 615,000 pupils being forced to leave their private school, and go instead to the local comp, would be that the majority of those 615,000 children would experience a lower standard of education than they are getting at the moment.
Of course, for crypto-communists like Greenshields, the quality of the education received by the children of the bourgeois capitalist oppressors is probably not a matter of any great concern. But transferring an extra 615,000 children into the state sector would also cause huge disruption to the many thousands of state schools which would find these extra pupils thrust upon them, which would hardly be to the advantage of any of the existing pupils (or, indeed, their teachers).

But what creatures like Greenshields really want is not an increase in standards. Instead, they simply want to assuage their own feelings of envious resentment, by dragging everyone else down into the gutter with them. And they attempt to conceal their resentment and bitterness, by slapping the label "fairness" upon it all, as if that makes harming the education of millions of children - not to mention restricting the right of parents to educate their children in whatever manner they see fit - perfectly alright.

I doubt that any government would be mad enough to actually do what Greenshields proposes. For a start, too many hypocritical champagne socialists (Diane Abbott, anyone?) have their own offspring privately educated. But what is worrying is that a huge number of teachers must surely share Greenshields's deranged views. After all, it was they who voted him into his position, not to mention Baljeet Ghale before him. Which surely begs the question, would you want these far-left NUTters teaching your kids?

Hat-tip: David Vance

A Brush with the law

You would hardly put him in the risque category when it comes to entertainment.

But these days, it seems that even Basil Brush is classed as controversial.

The wisecracking puppet, who has been on children's TV since the Sixties, is being investigated by the police for racism, after his show featured a gipsy selling pegs and heather.

Members of the gipsy community complained to the Northamptonshire force, saying this was racial abuse.

And although the episode was first shown on the BBC six years ago, and has been repeated eight times since, officers now plan to study it for evidence.

Hey: that's quicker than their usual response time!

The programme features Basil's friend Mr Stephen, played by Christopher Pizzey, falling under a gipsy spell which makes him attractive to women.

Dame Rosie Fortune, who lives above the pair, tries to sell Basil pegs and heather – but he turns her down.

She then offers to tell Basil's fortune, but he says: "I went to a fortune teller once and he said I was going on a long journey."

Mr Stephen then asks him what happened, to which Basil replies "He stole my wallet and I had to walk all the way home."

The episode, also on a DVD called Basil Unleashed, was last shown on the digital channel CBBC, last month.

Critics believe that the investigation is a waste of police time.

You don't say!

But Joseph Jones, vice chairman of the Southern England Romany Gipsy and Irish Traveller Network, said: "This sort of thing happens quite regularly and we are fed up with making complaints about stereotypical comments about us in words that we find racist or offensive."

Don't do it then.

"Racist abuse of black people is quite rightly no longer deemed acceptable, but when a comedian makes a joke on TV about pikeys or gippos, there's no comeback.

"Travellers have historically sold heather and pegs, but they don't do it anymore for a living. It could be that someone thought this was a kind of stereotyping."

Possibly. Stereotyping isn't illegal, though. Inciting racial hatred is, but I doubt that any child is going to sit watching Basil Brush, and say to themselves "I hate those gypsies, they sell heather and pegs". I really can't see this unusually deranged complaint going any further, and assume that even the police will eventually be able to work out that the complainant is either a nutter, or, just possibly, someone exposing, rather effectively, the ludicrous extent to which "anti-racism" has now been taken, by the police themselves, among others.

But what this demonstrates more than anything else is the juvenilisation of modern society, and the extent to which increasing numbers of people are now willing to go running to the police every time their delicate little feelings get hurt, seeking to have the offending party punished and silenced. It's a phenomenon we also see exhibited by those individuals who contact the police to complain about shops selling golliwogs, and by Muslims on a regular basis, and in response to a variety of causes (they often bypass the police altogether, though, and attempt to silence their critics themselves). Such people - adults who have never got over the fact that they aren't at school any longer, and can't go crying to teacher demanding that other pupils be put in detention for some petty slight - have always existed, albeit only in limited numbers. It's just a shame that, so long as they can present their offence as one suffered by some "oppressed minority" generally (whether or not they actually belong to such a minority - a lot of these informers are white liberals taking offence on behalf of the designated victims), their childish whinings are increasingly given credence by those in authority, including the police.

The morally bankrupt left

The deputy leader of the party that has ruled this country for nearly eleven years was answering questions from readers of the Independent on Monday. Along the line, this interesting little nugget arose:

David Newton, Edinburgh: Fidel Castro: hero of the left, or dangerous authoritarian dictator?

Harriet Harman: Hero of the left – but time for Cuba to move on.

She's right, of course: plenty on the left do regard Old Uncle Fidel as a hero. And arguably, David Newton was creating a false dichotomy: being a "dangerous authoritarian dictator" is no bar to being hero-worshipped by the left. Indeed, some might say that it was a necessary qualification.

But since Harman is a proud member of the (far) left, one assumes that she was proclaiming Castro to be one of her heroes. Now, how long do you think any vaguely right-wing contemporary politician would last, proclaiming his admiration for, say, General Franco? Indeed, just think how quickly Nigel Hastilow's career was killed off after he expressed agreement with Enoch Powell, a man who, so far as I am aware, was not responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people. Among those who weighed in against Hastilow was one Harriet Harman, who said that his comments demonstrated that the Tories were "the same old nasty party". If admirers of Powell are "nasty" what, I wonder, are admirers of Castro? Is there a word strong enough to describe them?

Of course, unlike Nigel Hastilow, Harriet Harman won't lose her job over her admiration for Castro, because the media, which launched a witch hunt against Hastilow, is largely ignoring this. Only the Times and the Spectator's Coffee House blog have devoted any real attention to Harman's comments, although the Daily Mail did mention them, very briefly, in passing. The BBC, which happily stoked the flames for the burning of the heretic Hastilow, makes no mention of this. Quelle surprise!

Harman's remarks expose the utter moral bankruptcy, and complete hypocrisy, that is the hallmark of the modern left. As Pete Moore of ATW, to whom I owe a hat-tip for this story, puts it "no matter how low your opinion of them, they'll always demonstrate that it wasn't low enough". Damn right!

Update: It seems that Harman is not alone in her admiration for Castro. Via CentreRight, I see that sixty-nine other MPs have signed an Early Day Motion tabled by obscure Labour backbencher Colin Burgon, which states that "this House commends the achievements of Fidel Castro".

Alan Bennett: Chippy little fascist

I read that the writer Alan Bennett has called on the government to ban independent schools. Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he explained that his opposition to such institutions began in 1951, when, at the age of seventeen, he attended an entrance exam at Cambridge:

It was the first time I ever came across boys from public school. They were so confident. We were timid grammar school boys but they were very much at ease.

They hogged the bread and slurped the soup - things were very much still rationed in those days.

They were just louts, but I also realised that they had been better taught than I had. I thought that was unfair when I was 17, and that view has never changed.

So, to sum up, Oiky Bennett had a chip on his shoulder as an unpolished teenager, and the passage of more than half a century has failed to remove it. I suppose that this might be mildly interesting to a psychologist, but it's not exactly a very sound or rational basis for policymaking.

The prime motivating force behind Bennett's opposition to public schools, and, I suspect, behind the opposition of a great many people to public schools, or grammar schools, or faith schools, or private healthcare for that matter, is envy, plain and simple. It is pure tall poppy syndrome, the desire to cut down anyone who is any way "privileged", not because their "privilege" actually does any tangible harm to anyone else, but simply because they are "privileged".
It is true that many state schools offer an education that is markedly poorer than that available at most public schools (although there are also many good comprehensives, and many appallingly bad minor public schools). But the weakness of many state schools is not caused by the existence of public schools, and closing down public schools will not actually improve the education of one state-educated child.

Rather, Alan Bennett, and other antiquated class warriors, would, if allowed to put their ridiculous ideas into practice, do considerable harm to the education of millions of children. Indeed, it appears that harming the education of the 615,000 children who are currently privately-educated is the primary, if not the sole, purpose behind attacks on fee-paying schools. After all, Alan Bennett wants to force those 615,000 children to move from public schools, which he believes offer a superior education, to state schools, which he says offer an inferior one. If this is not indicative of a desire to harm their education, then I don't know what is!
But if public schools really were abolished, then that would also harm the education of children who are already being educated in state schools. The cost and logistics of transferring an extra 615,000 children into the state sector would be enormous, and would strain the resources of many state schools, which are often already overstretched, beyond breaking point. How would this improve the education of any child?

The way to improve overall standards of education is not to attack those schools which are actually functioning well. That may perhaps be the path to ensuring that everyone has an equal education, but it would only be an equally bad one. If we want to ensure that as many children as possible have a good education - even if the exact quality varies from school to school - then the answer is to improve the state education system. Reintroducing grammar schools (which, lest we forget, were sufficiently effective that they allowed a working class boy like Alan Bennett to get into Cambridge, possibly in place of the bread-hogging toffs who left such a lasting impression upon him) would be a good start.

Of course, the other point that stands to be made is that, as the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council pointed out, it would be a gross infringement of parents' rights for the government to begin dictating precisely how and where they should educate their children. That Bennett seems prepared to totally disregard this is simply another indicator of the almost fascistic authoritarianism of many socialists, who, it seems, regard children as the property of the state, to be dealt with solely as the state wishes. I suppose that we should at least be grateful to him for demonstrating this, and also the extent to which socialism is so often little more than rationalised resentment.

Scumwatch Special: Scum on the Run

With convicted murderer Daniel Driscoll still on the loose after absconding from Sudbury open prison a month ago, you'd think that the prison service would be keen to, you know, prevent any more killers from escaping into society. Yes, you might very well think that, but you would be wrong:

A police manhunt has been launched after the convicted murderer of a disabled man escaped from a hospital.

Lee Nevins, 24, gave prison guards the slip while being treated at Sunderland Royal Hospital on Tuesday.

He is serving a minimum 17-year term at a top-security Frankland Prison, in Durham for killing Lee Jobling, 20.

I think that the correct word there was 'was'. He was serving a minimum 17-year term at Frankland Prison. He is no longer serving it, because he has escaped.

Supt Gordon Milward said Nevins was taken to hospital with a hand injury and escaped after asking to go to the toilet.

He added: "I am still looking at, as part of the inquiry, the exact security measures that were in place by the Prison Service.

"My understanding is that he had a pair of handcuffs on, keeping his wrists secured and he was also secured to a guard."

Unless he's taken the guard with him, he clearly isn't secured to him anymore. Obviously I'm not an ace detective like the superintendent, but I might hazard a guess that Nevins becoming detached from the guard is not unconnected with his ultimate disappearance. Well done, that guard!

Mind you, the police aren't all that much better themselves:

A paedophile named on a list of the UK's "most wanted" was arrested but later released after police failed to recognise him.

An inquiry is under way after South Yorkshire Police officers only realised who Joshua Karney was after he was fined for being drunk and released.

Karney, 30, is one of five of the UK's most wanted sex offenders after going missing from Lancashire in 2005.

[...]

The hunt for Karney has appeared on BBC One's Crimewatch and he is on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection "most wanted" list.

When he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly in Barnsley on 24 November he gave false details and was given a fixed penalty notice.

Karney was released and it was only later that officers checked his fingerprints and realised he was wanted.

A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: "We regret greatly that Joshua Karney was released from custody after he gave false details."

Well, as long as you're really sorry. Don't let it happen again, though...

Update: Karney was caught in Hove at about six this evening. So it's just the two murderers we have to worry about now...

The New Model Citizens

A volunteer coastguard who was nominated for an award for rescuing a schoolgirl from a cliff has resigned after a row over health and safety.

Paul Waugh climbed down to Faye Harrison, 13, who was hanging on by her fingertips and about to fall 200ft (60m) at Salburn-on-Sea, Teesside.

He did not wear safety equipment as it would have taken time to go back to his vehicle which was some distance away.

Mr Waugh was later told that he had broken rules.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said it was not looking for dead heroes.

It seems that they don't much object to dead schoolgirls, however.

The Skinningrove Coastguard Cliff Rescue Team was called out, along with the emergency services in January 2007, after three girls became trapped by rising tides.

Faye attempted to climb up the cliffs, but when a ledge gave way she was left hanging on to tufts of grass for 45 minutes.

Mr Waugh was one of three team members who arrived at the scene on foot, as their vehicle was trapped behind locked gates a field away.

They left safety equipment in the vehicle because they wanted to reach the scene as quickly as possible.

The 44-year-old from Skelton Green climbed down and held on to her for 30 minutes until she could be winched to safety.

He said: "I understand I broke a rule, but I felt it was a matter of having to because she only had minutes to live. She said that herself, she was planning her own funeral.

"When you see a little frightened face looking up at you, all you want to do is help.

"There's no way I'm going to stand back and watch a 13-year-old girl fall off a cliff."

Faye later nominated him for a life saver award as her "guardian angel".

However, Mr Waugh, who has been with the MCA for 13 years, was later told that the organisation had carried out an internal investigation into the team's handling of the incident.

He said: "I'm leaving now due to the hassle I've had over the last nine months. In fact, I've been depressed over it.

"Yes, fair enough, I broke a rule, but when I started my training a long time ago, I was told, one time, you'll work outside the box. And in this case I had to help her, she was ready to fall.

He added: "I'm very, very sad. It's a shame I'm having to go."

This case really does sum up what is wrong with this country. This man saved a child's life. But that doesn't matter, because he broke The Rules. And The Rules count for far more than the mere life of a child.

The PCSOs who stood by while ten-year-old Jordan Lyon drowned, and would not attempt to save him because that would be against The Rules are the new model citizens in today's Britain, for they obey, without ever troubling themselves with the consequences of their slavish obedience. People like Mr Waugh are the villains, for they can think for themselves, and respond to the exigencies of the moment, irrespective of the commands from above.

The stealth amnesty for illegal immigrants

As many as 165,000 asylum seekers are to be granted an "amnesty" to live in Britain, it was revealed.

The vast bulk of the migrants are failed refugees whose files were left lying in boxes by bungling Home Office staff.

They have now been living here so long that officials have ruled that it would be a breach of their human rights to kick them out.

Ministers admitted that the first 19,000 have already been granted leave to remain under what the Tories described as a "stealth amnesty".

All will now be free to bring their relatives to Britain - and claim the full range of benefits.

As I have written at least three times already (in relation to calls for an amnesty for illegal immigrants, which is basically what we have here) these people are illegal immigrants: their very presence in our country is in violation of our laws. As such, it is simply ridiculous to say that because they have succeeded in breaking the law, and getting away with it, for an unusually long time, they should be rewarded (in this case, by being allowed to live here legally). As I wrote in July, it's rather like saying that if you kill someone and then avoid capture for ten years, then you should have all charges against you dropped, and be given a knighthood.

Furthermore, the fact that these illegal immigrants are being rewarded for breaking the law is likely to encourage more people to seek to enter Britain illegally. Thanks to the government's complete inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to do anything to limit either legal or illegal immigration, this country is already seen as a soft touch, as the number one destination for the discerning phoney refugee - as one Iranian would-be illegal immigrant, waiting at Cherbourg to nip across the channel, put it, "Britain has been our destination from the day we left our home countries". Now, because of yet more government incompetence, coupled with the excesses of the "human rights" culture, there is a further incentive to come here: stick around long enough, and you can stay forever.

Another triumph for the prison service

A convicted murderer and two men convicted of drug offences have absconded from a jail in Derbyshire.

Killer Daniel Driscoll, 33, failed to return to HMP Sudbury on Saturday after being let out on temporary release.

Lee Mulholland, 28, serving five years for drug offences, walked out of the open prison on Friday.

Andre Hackett - serving four years for possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply - also failed to return after a temporary release on Saturday.

Driscoll, from Stevenage, Hertfordshire, was jailed for life in 1992 aged 18, along with Anthony Coughtrey, then 19, after being convicted of stamping and kicking William Walsh, a 19-year-old father-of-three, to death.

He was ordered to spend a minimum of 15 years behind bars but in 1998 this was reduced to 13 years.

[...]

More than 660 inmates have walked out of Sudbury prison in the past 10 years.

That's more than one a week, on average. You'd think that those running the prison service might just possibly have learnt their lesson by now (specifically, the lesson that convicted criminals are, almost by definition, not the most trustworthy of people, and that if you are responsible for keeping them locked up, it's probably a good idea to keep them behind bars and in your line of sight). But apparently not.

As for the specific facts of this case: there's not really an awful lot to be said. Personally, I would like to see the death penalty for at least some murderers, and life meaning life for the rest. That's life without occasional trips to the cinema, by the way. As such, I regard it as utterly appalling that Driscoll was granted temporary release. But he was, and the number of convicted killers loose in society has just increased by one. Which is one too many.

The Dhimmi Mindset

One of the strongest indicators of a dhimmi mentality, both on an individual and a societal level, is the willingness to anticipate Muslim outrage, and to act to remove the potential source of offence, even in the complete absence of any actual complaints from the Muslims. An example would be the recent craze for prohibiting images of pigs, or stories about Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. Well, today has furnished us with two paradigmatic instances of this same phenomenon of voluntary submission. First, via Dhimmi Watch:

A BRITISH children’s author who named a mole Mohammed to promote multiculturalism has renamed it Morgan for fear of offending Muslims.

Kes Gray, a former advertising executive, first decided on his gesture of cross-cultural solidarity after meeting Muslims in Egypt.

The character, Mohammed the Mole, appeared in Who’s Poorly Too, an illustrated children’s book, which also included Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin, in an effort to be “inclusive”.

This weekend Gray said he had decided to postpone a reprint and rename the character Morgan the Mole even though there had been no complaints.

“I had no idea at all of the sensitivities of the name Mohammed until seeing this case in Sudan,” said Gray. “As soon as I saw the news I thought, oh gosh, I’ve got a mole called Mohammed this is not good.

“I feel incredibly sorry for that teacher,” added Gray. “Luckily for me, I’m in a position where I can avoid this.” The book has sold 40,000 copies in Britain and abroad since 1999.

And Exhibit Two:

Shepherds dressed in old sheets, Christmas carols and the competition to see who will play Mary and Joseph… nativity plays have been a feature of British primary-school life for generations.

But a survey has revealed that headteachers are watering down or ditching the centuries-old Christmas story in favour of secular tales to avoid upsetting pupils of other faiths.

Only one in five schools are ­planning to perform a traditional nativity play this year. They are now outnumbered by schools that say they will be either putting on a non-religious play, such as Scrooge or Snow White, or giving no performance at all.

Almost half the schools said they planned to put on modern reinterpretations of the Christmas story, with extra characters, new songs and modern themes, such as The Bossy King, Whoops-a-Daisy Angel or The Hoity-Toity Angel.

The findings will add to fears that Christian teachings are being abandoned by schools, despite the wishes of parents. Recent surveys show an overwhelming majority of families would like the nativity play, telling the story of Christ's birth, to live on in schools.

Of course, since they (or at least, the majority of them) are only white British Christians, their cultural sensitivities can safely be ridden over, roughshod.

One point common to both these cases (and to the various pig ban cases as well) is that no Muslim, or virtually no Muslims, have actually complained. Certainly, I've never heard tell of a Muslim objecting to a nativity play, and Kes Gray himself acknowledged that, for 40,000 books sold, no one had complained about his fictional mole's name. But that doesn't stop either Gray, or the legions of do-gooder headteachers, from behaving in this utterly craven manner. They have become so well-indoctrinated into "cultural sensitivity" that they are now more sensitive to perceived "Islamophobic" slights than all but the maddest of mad Muslims. Were it not so utterly contemptible, one might actually be rather impressed with the capacity of multiculturalism to so completely brainwash its adherents.

Islam is a threat to Britain, and to her cultural identity. If present demographic trends continue, then it will, before long, become an enormous, potentially overwhelming, threat. But, as Klein Verzet wrote last month, for the time being, the threat posed by Islam, significant as it is, is as nothing against the threat posed by the little Vichyists of the politically-correct, pro-multiculturalist, liberal-left.

Idiotic Academic of the Day

THE head of a Celtic supporters' trust has provoked outrage by defending the singing of pro-IRA songs by the club's fans during matches.

Dr Jeanette Findlay [actually Ms Findlay - she doesn't have a PhD], who chairs the Celtic Trust, which represents supporters and small shareholders, claimed chants about the IRA were "songs from a war of independence".

She was speaking during an interview on BBC Radio Five Live's breakfast programme. Her comments prompted a furious response from listeners.

Dr Findlay, who is a research fellow and economics lecturer at Glasgow University, had been replying to questions by presenter Nicky Campbell about the trust's opposition to the appointment as club chairman of the former home secretary, John Reid, who was a cabinet minister at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Dr Findlay said the trust's opposition was to do with Mr Reid's "leading role in relation to what many believe is an illegal and immoral war".

Mr Campbell then asked her if she was more uncomfortable with the singing of pro-terrorist songs or the appointment of Mr Reid.

Dr Findlay responded: "I have tried to explain about the nature of Celtic as a club. It was founded to help the poor Irish immigrants to Scotland.

"They may take a particular view of the history, of what happened in Ireland, which is different from many other people, so I don't call those pro-terrorist songs. What history tells us is that it is facile to say that politics and sport will ever be separated."

Mr Campbell said he was not referring to songs such as The Fields of Athenry, but to "actually chanting: 'The IRA'."

She replied: "Many of those songs are songs from what was essentially a war of independence going back over a hundred years."

What a vile woman. Still, I can't say that I'm surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from within the groves of academe. After all, academics have repeatedly sided with the various terrorist organisations seeking to destroy Israel - supporting the IRA, or at least acting as an apologist for those who do, is simply in character for most of them.

An eminent academic speaks...

Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s [sic] Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at [Lahore's] Government College University (GCU) on Monday.

What, every single one of them? The internet, the motorcar, the human genome, DNA, penicillin, the lot? Wow. Then why have there only ever been eight Muslim Nobel Prize winners, of whom five received the utterly worthless Peace Prize and two the Prize in Literature, which, whatever its merits, cannot be considered a science? It must all be a big Zionist plot...

Of course, I don't wish to imply that I am in any way doubtful regarding the validity of Prof. Saliba's claim. I believe it just as much as I believe Dr Jerry Brotton's claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the Turks, or Prof. Jean-Claude Milner's suggestion that "Harry Potter is a war-machine against Thatchero-Blairism and the 'American way of life'". Because if an academic says it, it must be true...

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

'tis the night of Halloween...

...and strange and inhuman creatures are out and about.

Oh yes indeed. And none stranger than the beings that dwell deep in the offices of the left-wing think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). For the IPPR is about to publish a report on the subject of "Britishness" and race relations, which, from its content, one might suppose more suited for the first day of April than for any other day of the year. Calling for a "multicultural understanding of Britishness", the report graciously concedes that immigrants to the UK should learn to speak English

...if - but only if - the settled population is willing to open up national institutions and practices to newcomers and give a more inclusive cast to national narratives and symbols.

Note to those unfamiliar with leftyspeak: "settled population" means the native population of this country, while "open up national institutions and practices" means "give up national institutions and practices", and "give a more inclusive cast to national narratives and symbols" means "recast our culture into something unrecognisable, in order to please those immigrants who refuse to make any effort to integrate".

In order to "give a more inclusive cast" to Britain's unspeakably evil culture, the authors of the report propose a number of changes to our way of life, including:

"Birth ceremonies", at which state and parents agree to "work in partnership" to bring up children.

Now, I don't like to overuse cliches, but this really is like something out of Brave New World. Raising children is not a "partnership" between parents and the state, it is the right and - more importantly - the duty of parents to raise their children as they see fit, with the government only stepping in where the parents prove themselves incapable of doing this for themselves. Otherwise, the state has no business interfering in the manner in which people raise their offspring.

I also wonder whether these ceremonies will be compulsory? If so, what is going to happen if parents refuse to take part? Prison? Forfeiture of the children to the state? And if such ceremonies are not to be compulsory, how many cretins do they think they are going to persuade to take part?

Action to "ensure access" for ethnic minorities to "largely white" countryside.

It's true that the countryside is "largely white". A bit like the country as a whole really, only more so. It's a shame that the IPPR are so offended by the sight - or even the mere thought - of large numbers of white people. Still, the way some people go on, you'd think that the British countryside was some hotbed of Nazism, and that any black person who ventured into it would be lucky to escape without being lynched. This is, of course, rubbish. If black people want to go for a day's hill-walking, they need only jump in the car and drive, the same as the rest of us. If they want to buy a house in the country, then they only need to raise the necessary funds and it's theirs. The same as the rest of us. And as for the threat of "racism": well, I'd bet that it's a lot safer being a non-white person in the depths of rural England, than it is being white in some such centre of vibrant diversity as Brixton or Brick Lane. There is simply no need for any action along the lines proposed.

An overhaul of Britain's "imperial" honours system.

Why? Because Benjamin Zephaniah gets upset that we have the phrase "British Empire" in some of our honours?

The fact is, that the honours system reflects our history and our heritage. To seek to alter our honours system because it has become politically incorrect constitutes an assault upon the heritage that the system represents. It is an attempt a) to make the British people ashamed of their cultural heritage, and b) to, in the long-run, engender the belief that we have no cultural heritage at all.

Flying flags other than the Union Flag.

I assume they refer to the flags flown on public buildings. I don't know what other flags they mean, but I'd guess it's not the national flags of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to which they refer. Nor even, in this instance, the EU flag, although I don't suppose that the IPPR would be wholly averse to seeing that replacing the Union Flag at some point in the future. I assume, therefore, that the flags in question are those of the home countries of the UK's major (and most vocal) immigrant groups, such as Pakistan.
Clearly, this proposal should also be opposed. This is Britain, not any other country, and if the IPPR and the government really want to induce enhanced civic unity and loyalty to Britain then they should be aiming to strengthen our traditional symbols of nationhood (which, incidentally, also includes our honours system - see above), rather than undermining them. But, I'd guess that the real reason for encouraging the flying of foreign flags is that it will further promote the cultural deracination of the native British people, leaving them more willing to accept the destruction and replacement of their culture and way of life.

Other proposals include the removal of Bishops from the House of Lords (a further attempt to strip us of our cultural heritage) and making school religious studies classes "less sectarian" (personally, I wasn't aware that they were sectarian - I mean, it's not like they're teaching from the Chick Tracts, is it?). However, there is one proposal which seems to be getting rather more attention than all the others:

Christmas should be downgraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve race relations...Labour's favourite think-tank says that because it would be hard to 'expunge' Christmas from the national calendar, 'even-handedness' means public organisations must start giving other religions equal footing.

Given the place in the national psyche that Christmas has acquired, this is, more than any other part of the proposals, an attempt to undermine and destroy our traditional culture, heritage, and sense of national identity. I'd particularly point out that, from the phrasing the IPPR have used, it appears that their preferred option would be to "expunge" Christmas altogether, but that, knowing this to be impossible, they have instead opted to seek its dilution, and the dilution of the Christian heritage which it represents.

And that, really, is the theme running through all of the proposals that the IPPR has come up with: dilution. Dilution of our culture, heritage, and identity. Our national flag, our history, and our national religion will all be belittled, while the flags, heritages, and religions of the immigrant groups in our society will be given enhanced status. The aim, I believe, is to create the impression that Britain has no history, that it has no religious or cultural heritage, that it was, in fact, an uninhabited and unclaimed land until about 1948, when all the ethnic groups now inhabiting it arrived together, all with an equal claim upon it (that it is, in fact, a paradigmatic "nation of immigrants"). Thus they hope to lay the foundations for the creation of some gloriously unprecedented multicultural utopia. They won't succeed in this, of course, but if they get their way in other matters then they will succeed in utterly annihilating our British way of life. Which they probably want even more than they want the multicultural utopia.

Update: I have now posted an abridged, and hopefully somewhat less repetitive, version of the above over at ATW.