The British want to teach Britishness in English schools again

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is StrengthThe British Minister for English Education, Michael Gove, has called for British values to actively promoted in English schools.

Gove says that promoting British values in English schools will stop the illegal indoctrination of children in schools run by Islamists and David Cameron thinks it’s a jolly good idea.

The British values that the British Minister for English Education says English children must be indoctrinated with are:

  • How citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process
  • An appreciation that living under the rule of law protects individual citizens
  • An understanding that bodies such as the police and the army can be held to account by the people, through the democratic organs of government
  • An understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law, and an acceptance that other people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour
  • An understanding of the problems of identifying and combating discrimination

Now, let’s just examine these British values a little more closely from the perspective of an Englishman.

How citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process

It wasn’t all that long ago that we had a British Prime Minister who was elected in Scotland with a cabinet stuffed full of MPs elected in Scotland spending roughly three quarters of their time making laws for England. Nobody in England could influence their decisions making because the British govern England directly from London. It’s also not all that long ago that we had Tony Blair’s former flatmate, the unelected Lord Chancellor England, Lord Charlie Falconer (a Scot, naturally) telling us that we would never be allowed to have an English Parliament. I also recall the murmurs of discontent when the big supermarkets in England went to Alistair Darling (who of course is only accountable to voters in Edinburgh) to ask for Sunday Trading laws to be abolished in England like they are in Scotland but he said no. I don’t think many people who take an interest in politics or the English question will ever forget that we only have university tuition fees and foundation hospitals in England because MPs elected in Scotland overturned the slim majority of MPs elected in England who voted against them. Nobody in England has any influence over those MPs elected in other countries or the unelected lords and bureaucrats that make laws for England. And don’t even get me started on the EU which makes 75% of our laws. Seriously, don’t.

An appreciation that living under the rule of law protects individual citizens

This is an interesting one this. “If you don’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear” is the rallying call of fascists and big state activists alike. The fact is, it’s virtually impossible not to break the law nowadays because there are just so many of the damn things and of course problematic people need only commit a minor offence to get them into the system and ruin their lives. The book “Taking Liberties” is getting a bit old now having been written (and turned into a film) during the despotic reign of Prince Tony but most of the oppressive laws and the abuses of our hard won rights and freedoms mentioned in the book are still in force and taking place now but they’ve become so commonplace now, nobody bats an eyelid. Remember the woman who was arrested under anti-terrorism laws for reading out the names of dead soldiers outside Downing Street? How about the man charged with terrorism offences for knowing somebody who was friends with someone suspected of terrorist offences, found innocent by a jury and then put under indefinite house arrest by the Home Secretary because the jury got the “wrong” answer? This is the law that supposedly protects us by essentially stripping us of the automatic right to liberty that we’ve had for centuries.

An understanding that bodies such as the police and the army can be held to account by the people, through the democratic organs of government

Another interesting one. How do we hold the police and army to account? The police force is now heavily politicised with the introduction of elected Police & Crime Commissioners which has put nominal control of most police forces in England into the hands of political parties. Since the Police & Crime Commissioners have been in charge have we seen an increase in accountability? No. Have we been asked what we think the police are doing wrong and what we want them to do better? No. Are people unhappy with them? Yes. There is a campaign to oust the Kent Police & Crime Commissioner, Ann Barnes, to resign after bringing the police force into disrepute in an appearance on a TV documentary, the first youth crime commissioner she appointed resigned for making racist and homophobic comments on Twitter and the second youth crime commissioner she appointed was suspended just 3 months into the job for having an affair with a married police officer. She is refusing the stand down. As for what’s left of the army – how do we exercise any control over them? And more importantly, why should we be able to?

An understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law, and an acceptance that other people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour

This is a good one because I bet the person who went to court arguing that it was religious discrimination for British Airways to allow Sikhs to wear a bangle but forcing her to remove her cross and lost doesn’t think that her religious beliefs are protected. When Muslim street patrols are out in force in Tower Hamlets abusing and threatening women who aren’t covered from head to toe and men who are drinking while the police turn a blind eye, how is that helping to prevent prejudice and discrimination? When the British government pressed ahead with legalising gay marriage in the full and certain knowledge that the EU courts would rule that it was discrimination for the established church to refuse to marry a gay couple despite it being contrary to their beliefs and teachings, how is that helping to protect the freedom of Christians to practice their religion?

An understanding of the problems of identifying and combating discrimination

This is great. Finally, our children are going to be told about the institutional discrimination against England that prevails throughout the British establishment. They’re going to be told about the British government refusing to allow the English a say on how their country is governed whilst allowing the Scots and Welsh devolved government. They’re going to be told how the British are breaking up England – starting with London and its regional assembly, then Cornwall and now a revival of the regional local government reorganisation that they planned with regional assemblies but are now targeting at cities. They’re going to be told that it’s morally wrong and unconstitutional for MPs elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote on laws that only affect England which are devolved in their own countries. They’re going to be shown the list of attendees of the British-Irish Council so they can see how England has less democratic representation on supranational bodies than the Channel Island, the Isle of Man and Cornwall. They’re going to be told about the laws that only affect England that MPs elected in England voted against but which became law anyway because MPs elected in Scotland voted for them. They’re going to be told about the Barnett Formula and the eye-watering sums of money that are given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to pay for superior public services. They’re going to be told about the life saving cancer treatments and cures for blindness that are freely available in Scotland thanks to the extra funding the Scottish NHS gets from the English taxpayer that we can’t have in England because there’s no money left to pay for them.

Except they won’t be told any of the above because of the British values they didn’t include in the list:

  • The English are an inferior people
  • There is no cost too great to keep the Scots and Welsh happy as long as the English are paying
  • Englishness must be suppressed at all costs
  • An English life is worth less than a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish life
  • War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, England is Britain


  1. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    An excellent post Wonko. It is worth pointing out that since Gove is a Scot, as is Cameron, the situation that obtained in Downing Street before May 2010 is still extant. My local MP is a Scot, and the only substantial question he’s asked since his election, that I’m aware of, concerned a Scotch matter reserved to the Scotch ‘pairlyment’. He was recently in the news for allegedly inducing his Brazilian male prostitute boyfriend to smuggle class B (if I recall correctly) drugs into England and he’s hardly the sort I want representing my interests yet he’s still in place and bravely announced, after the affair had been ‘brushed under the carpet’, that he will continue to represent us, as if the decision is his alone.

    Is it still the case that more than one hundred ‘English’ MPs are actually Scotch? With all the other foreigners sitting at Westminster in English seats there can hardly be an Englishman or woman there. No wonder our country is in such a dire mess.

  2. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    The whole of England has been taken over by Scottish paganists, the take over has been committed by stealth because they are too cowardly to comfront people face to face. So much for the scottish brave heart, but who cares about their pagan propaganda, and their attempts to institute a pagan world government by enslaving countries to bogus national debts. We all know their EU treaties and their British parliament is a load of bull shit, and England is the master country, the poor pagan jocks with their other money lending buddies are being rumbled arround the globe.

    I would’nt like to be in their shoes. They may worship Satan, but do they really think he will come and save their sorry pagan arses? The “City of London” which is controlled by pagan money lenders, namely Jocks and kabbalha Jews has now become a target for a global backlash, and the country of England has to play it’s part to bring down this evil city. To wipe out it’s rights and it’s royal charters once and for all, this city is on our land, England and we should take it back from the evil cabal which has been enslaving countries by national debts for decades, before this evil city brings trouble upon the people of England.

  3. SJNM (4 comments) says:

    England, England, England. All this talk of a place that does not exist! Check out my blog for the facts about “England” (or as it should more properly be called, the British Regions).

    And since England doesn’t exist it’s perfectly fair British values are taught in the British Regions.

    • William Gruff (138 comments) says:

      Sad Jock Numpty McMasturbating writes: ‘Sco’lan’ Sco’lan’, Sco’lan’, Sco’lan’ Sco’lan’ Sco’lan’, Sco’lan’ Sco’lan’ Sco’lan’, aye, Sco’lan’, Sco”ish Sco”ish Sco’lan’.

      Rid mai wairbsait fey they faiiiircts aboat Ainglan’, fuckin’ bastit fuckin’ Airnglish’ bastits.

      Try again McJock but try harder. Try much much harder, and don’t forget to vote for independence from the English tit.

      • Simon M (30 comments) says:

        I think the appropriate comment here is “whoosh!”

        • SJNM (4 comments) says:

          No Simon M, Mr Gruff is wrong insofar as my nationality; I am not a Scot, but his general sentiments are correct – I love the Scots, and I generally think they are the finest, noblest, and generally best people on this earth, and are far nicer than us evil, racist xenophobic “English” (who don’t exist).

      • SJNM (4 comments) says:

        I’m not a Scot, I am from the British Regions (“England”, if you’re a xenophobic, racist little Englander) and I am merely trying to re-educate the “English” as to their true origins, and the fact there is no such thing as English (or England). I also want to warn people of the dangers of English Nationalism, which is a dangerous thing since the English have oppressed the Celts, and ransacked most of the world for such a long time. As Jack Straw once said, the “English” (who don’t exist, remember) are potentially very violent and aggressive.

  4. David31 (2 comments) says:

    England exists the same way that Slovakia, Ukraine (at the moment), Croatia, etc all exist. There are English people and where they live is called England. It is one of the historic countries of Europe and once Alex Salmond gets his wet dream (after god knows how many referendums he’ll need to conduct until the Scots say yes out of exhaustion)England will rise again.

    It exists in our hearts and our souls and no PC b******* can change that!

    • SJNM (4 comments) says:

      So “England” only exists because the “English” (who don’t exist) says it does. How typical of the racist, xenophobic English! Self-determination for everyone – except the “English” is the motto of liberals everyhwere. Please catch on.

  5. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    SJNM? strange name for a bullshitter. The fact is that there is no such thing as “Britain”, which means there is no such thing as the “British” which means there are no such things as “British regions”. The neo British take their name from the entity called “Great Britain” formed in the year 1707 under treaty agreement made partly by the parliament of England, and thereby “Great Britain” is bound under international law to obey said treaty.

    The criminal political parties operating in the former Great Britain have violated the treaty, most particularly the “Labour” faction, this is a crime under international law, where upon Scotland and Wales were prohibited from having national parliaments.

    The out come ultimately being that “Great Britain” has ceased to exist and defaults back to the constituent parts which are Wales, Scotland and England. So I can proudly stand up and offer my support to “England, England, England”, and bullshitters like SJNM will just have to find the courage from some where to face up to the truth, because you are only really bullshitting yourself.

  6. Stan (222 comments) says:

    Well I’m English, British and European and I’m proud of all of them.
    We were first called “Britain” (from the word Britannia) before the Roman occupation. “England” didn’t exist until later and was named after the Germans (Angles)who lived there.

  7. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    That “England doesn’t exist” blog is almost certainly satire. Take this gem:

    “And just to illustrate just how much the English oppress the Scots, here’s another example of a Scottish politician proposing, and even promoting the effective abolition of “England” (which doesn’t exist, but regionalisation could mean the effective end of the curse that is “England”. Let us hope so!). Murdo Fraser, the Conservative Party’s “Enterprise Spokesman” in the Holyrood parliament has stated that he favours devolution within “England”, probably on the basis of regional devolution, and that it would not be plausible to have a devolved parliament for the whole of “England” and that dividing the British Regions into regions is a better bet instead.”

    And: “Again, though, some people are not happy at the idea of a Scot speaking out about “England’s” constitutional future, especially when the “English” are denied (quite rightly) a say in how “their country” (racist!) is governed.”

    I think this is making fun of the media and politicians’ line on the “English question” and anti-English attitudes in general. Or at least I hope it’s satire…

  8. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    I was flicking through some of the news articles at yahoo, and as a comment relating to events in the so called “holocaust” some chappy had written the following-

    “people talk about the nazis but the british truely are the vermin of the world and must be exterminated”

    I can only say I agree the “British” are a bunch of low life bull shitters, but fortunately the “British” do not exist, unless perhaps he ment the political British, a bunch of Anglo-phobic sour faced idiots who perhaps have moved to England from scotland or Wales and did’nt realise their own countrymen would then stab them in the back. Tough luck you “British”, and watch out for the people who want to have you “exterminated”, but that should teach you a lesson for being dangerous trouble makers. You should think about going back to your own country, whats the matter you dont want to leave glorious England?

    As a comment to Stan the land was first called Albion. “Britannia” is a perverted name inflicted upon the land by the Roman Empire who enslaved and murdered the ancient people of Albion. The Germanic people defeated the Roman Empire and freed countless slaves, they came to Albion by invitation to defend the remaining people of Albion from invading Scots who the people of Albion refered to as “savage alien races”.

    The name “Britain” was re-invented by a satanist called John Dee who was a spiritual advisor to Queen Elizabeth the First, who was a Tudor. Together they were invading the “new world” now America and to justify their claims to the new world above that of the Spanish they re invented “Britain”, and in 1580 refered to an alleged old story about a one “Madog ap Owain Gwynedd” as the original founder of America, thus giving the Queen of England who was a bit Welsh the illusion of having property rights in America, becuase she claimed rule over her Welsh subjects.

    But this Madog not being English made for the necessity of re-inventing “Britannia”, so satanist John Dee who had Welsh parents re-invented “Britania” based on the bogus stories of another welshman called Geoffrey of Monmouth who invented the stories about King Arthur. Unfortunately the whole “British” thing is utter bullshit, a total fantasy. Even the word “Britan” is a corruption of the true word Pretan from the Prettani tribe which translates as “the traitorous ones”, they were a tribe who lived in Albion. The Romans abstracted the noun, perverted it to Britan and ended up with “Britannia”, a word which is total bull shit. These are all facts and truths you can go and do your own research.

    • Stan (222 comments) says:

      Hi Bob
      Yes, you are right that Albion was the first name used. I didn’t refer to it because the point I was making was about the use of the terms “Britain” and “England” and also because it is a term no longer widely used (unless like me you are a fan of the Albion Band).
      The term Albion referred to an area that included Scotland and indeed the modern Gaelic word for Scotland (Alba) derives from it.

      • Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

        Hi Stan,
        I think the etymological world may agree with your notion of a link between Albion and Alba, because of the link to the word “Alb”, which does derive from Latin and not Gaelic which uses the word “Vane” as white, which of course is what Alb means. Nordic languages also used alb and also elb which is Old English for “White”.

        The problem is that a “Celtic” people never really existed, and those who were here prior to the Roman invasion came from a mass of different tribes who had migrated from all around Europe. Many of these tribes were at war with each other which assisted the Roman take over as some tribes were willing to be Roman puppets to get one over on thier rivals.

        The tribes of Latin origin named the land Albion and the Albiones translates as “the white ones”, generally thought to relate to the White Cliffs of Dover, and being what is now England and Wales. However Alba is thought by historians to be a distinctive and different area to Albion, and is so named by a Latin speaking tribe of Ireland who termed what is now Scotland as “all white”, or “Alba”. Thought to be because when we were in a much colder climate Scotland was permenantly covered in snow, and as a consequence would have had few inhabitants.

        Some of the first people to go to Alba came from the Rhinelands to follow some tribal leader named Caled, these became Caledonians with Caledon becoming the name for what is now Scotland. The “Scots” were invadors from Ireland but they arrived from Spain, which may have given them a Latinised language, but their ultimate origin is Egypt. They are Africans, they are not even European

        It is the aftermath of the Roman Empire which is responsible for the creation of England, Scotland and Wales. Albion, Alba and the fake “Britain” along with Caledonia all ceased to be a long time ago, and trying to reinvent them for political and perverted reasons is twisted and trouble making. It is the Quasi British who need to get a grip, or they could force a conflict with the people of Wales, England and Scotland.

        “The ancient celts are an essentially bogus and recent invention” (Simon James, The Atlantic Celts, Ancient people or Modern Invention)

        • Stan (222 comments) says:

          Hi Bob

          “The problem is that a “Celtic” people never really existed”
          Well not as a single race, it’s a collective term for those different tribes who had migrated from all around Europe.
          One of the problems that historians face is that there the vast majority of written history from this time is Roman and is therefore completely biased. Written examples of “Celtic” languages are incredibly rare (which is why they got so exited on Time Team when they found some Ogham script). Not only that, “Celtic” buildings were made from mud, wood and straw so there is little evidence of those.
          As you suggest it is debatable that true “Celts” (whatever they are) lived here because the only real evidence seems to be artifacts that could have been traded.

          “They are Africans, they are not even European”
          Genetically we all are, if you want to go back far enough.

          Thinking about it, I’m sure I read somewhere that until relatively recently, the terms “England” and “Great Britain” were interchangeable and referred to the Whole of the British Isles.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            And before someone corrects me, I know Ogham isn’t an ancient Celtic language, I was using it as an example of the scarcity of early written work.

          • Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

            Hi Stan,
            No doubt it will depend on the political point some one is trying to put across, they may claim GB and England to be the same but reality states otherwise. The Irish were at one time refered to as “British”, but if you go to the republic and start calling them “British”, your a braver man than me.

            The correct term we now have is the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”, this is an engineered name for England, Wales and Scotland which are genuine nations that under international treaty incorporated their national parliaments, the name GB is the term used for this parliament and has nothing to do with the nations which do and have always existed as nations. “Great Britain” is not a nation, it never has been and it never can be unless someone can find a time machine and alter historic events.

            Trying to call an English man “British” is almost like trying to call a French man “Gallish”, or even an American a “Sioux”, when some devious political pervert can see some advantage in disregarding the truth. I have no problem with honest Scots and Welsh and Irish, so long as they show respect for England. My beef is with the “British” perverts who use the “British” brand to make attacks on the English. In my view GB should never have happened and seperate parliaments should have been maintained.

            An example of what I mean is the alleged remarks of Jack Straw, “the English are not worth saving as a race”. He no doubt believes he can get away with this in a GB parliament, where as an English parliament could have ordered him arrested, even shot on site for his genocidal remarks.

            The Scots and Welsh can not have their cake and eat it, they have violated treaty agreements to dissolve GB, yet still want controls over the English by continuing a de facto and criminal British parliament which is attacking the English people.

            You could say we are all from Africa, and some people do, again for perverted political reasons. Even if that were true, five million years is a long time ago and much has happened since then. By the same criteria if a person was wanting to be extreme he could perhaps state we were all fish once, I still dont want to be electing a trout into parliament, but there again I think a few sharks have been getting in.

            Thanks for the chat Stan.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            Hi Bob
            No worries, it’s nice not to be locking horns.
            Genetically we did all come from Africa. I don’t think it’s claimed for perverted political reasons because it doesn’t really mean much. 200,000 years ago a lot of the world was attached and we’re talking about tracing a common ancestor rather than the human race proper.

            I agree about the sharks though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.