EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION

I HAVE BEEN READING A wonderful piece by Tim Rayment in today’s Sunday Times. Titled Q: When is it right to put family ahead of principle? It is about the hypocrisy of professional left-wing types who have forsaken their long held attitudes of  strident opposition to private education by sending their own children and grandchildren to some of the country’s finest public schools.

            Ever since the Guardian journalist Janet Murray spilt her guts to her readers about her sending young Kate, her daughter, to a private nursery, she has been receiving email complaints from Guardianistas almost daily, and some of them show, what many of us already knew; that the Left can be very nasty indeed, even to one of their own, particularly if  they break one of their strict observances over any of their “progressive” policies.

            In all Ms Murray has had 986 complaints posted by Guardian readers in two days; and they range from the barmy to the nasty with little room for rational argument in between. They accuse Ms Murray of racism, elitism, snobbery, and, would you believe, encouraging street riots!

            Although such comments overstep the mark, they at least reflect the anger which flows from being betrayed by people, like Ms Murray, who have spent their lives castigating the independent sector, while standing full square behind the state sector. One would have hoped that such people as Sir Jonathan Miller, Polly Toynbee, Andrew Marr, dear Emma Thompson, Will Self, and Radio Four’s Jim Naughtie, would have remained true to their beliefs, when it came to planting their own children within the comprehensive system. After all these are the very people who, over decades, stood out against the “elitism” of the grammar schools and encouraged the evolution of the “bog standard comprehensive”[1], down whose corridors their own kin will never walk.

            For over 40 years the left has worked their deranged magic of dumbing down the  country’s education system, by driving out those parts of the sector they consider “elitist”. This meant the grammar and independent schools. Their logic being, that if these institutions took only the brightest, and it was only those who could afford to send their children to them, then they had no role to play within an egalitarian system of education.

            The same logic was put to use within the public sector regarding exam results – always denied by New Labour, yet their philosophy of - all must have prizes (for fear of disappointing, particularly their voting parents) held sway.

            The whole state sector was undermined by the conjurer’s hand. The logic of egalitarianism is to make everybody the same. The highest and the lowest must meet somewhere in the middle, and if the highest find themselves unchallenged by such positioning – then to bad.

            The march of the “progressives” has been unremitting over all parts of society; but particularly in education where their egalitarian prejudices have set the background music for the calamity we see today within the state sector where the dumbing down process is at its most damaging for the country’s youth: and where the exam results of previous students will now be undermined by the reality that they were never truly stretched on ideological grounds, and were given an easy ride.

            This whole farce began with New Labour; but at least Tony Blair helped redeem himself by creating, much to the anguish of many of his back benchers, and, above all the teaching unions; the academies.

            Much harm has been done to our educational system through the egalitarian prejudices of the left. Dumbing down good – elitism bad. This has been the Orwellian chant used by the left in private.         These creatures now send their children into the enemy camp for their education, yet I suppose, they still believe in their egalitarian principles applying to the other, more unfortunate and unaffordable families; who have to make do with whatever the state tells them they must.

THE ARCHITECT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM was of course Shirley (now Dame Shirley Williams). She it was who believed and still believes in the comprehensive system. She was Secretary of State for Education under James Callaghan in 1976.

            She was the Henry VIII of her time. She set about doing to the grammar schools what Henry did with the monasteries. But thankfully the dissolution of the grammar schools never quite succeeded where Henry once did with the monasteries.

            I believe this lady has a lot to answer for today, but she persists, no doubt through what must be left of her pride, to observe still, that: ‘I have never in any way regretted them and I still believe strongly in them. The problem was that in many places they were heavily skimmed because people kept grammar schools in place beside them’.

            But as Wikipedia says, Ms Williams has, “Controversially…skimmed off her own daughter Rebecca to one of the best selective schools in London, Godolphin and Latymer. The Williams family lived outside the catchment area of this school, so Rebecca was sent to stay with friends who lived close to the school, in order to qualify for entry”.

            I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for the those complaining Guardianistas, who, in all probability, sent their maybe gifted children into an inner city comprehensive to prove an ideological point; believing that those left-wing intellectuals who believed in state education would also sacrifice their children’s futures on the shrine of comprehensive education.

THE GRAMMAR school system was the one means by which talented working class children could be sent to university – and hear I mean, not the second rate prefabricated  universities created  from the old  polytechnics.                      .

            Our  liberal left-wing elites have, as in many other fields, a lot to answer for. At least those on the extreme of “progressive” thinking stand full square behind egalitarianism in education; even if it costs them their marriage.

            Jeremy Corbin MP, was fully prepared to sacrifice his son to the comprehensive system. The Labour MP for Islington North took up the shield and sword of socialism and faced …his wife. His wife had however stood firm and gave the young Corbin a private education. The battle between the two however resulted in the break-up of their marriage. Which takes a principle to ridicules lengths. But Mrs Corbin stood firm and did the right thing for their son.

            If I had had children and been financially well provided for, I would have wanted my children to have been given the best start in life. I would have gladly paid for the best education I could provide; and I believe the same  applies to every other working class parent in this country.

            I believe that any parent, with the financial means to do so, should give their children the best education they can. I do not blame those “progressive” types for transgressing the rules. I would merely challenge their views. I do not expect them to send their children to a bog standard comprehensive school, but merely to acknowledge that, like in every other sphere of economic activity, there are choices to be made, and that they all made the right one for their children.

           

           

           

             

---

[1] quoted by Alistair Campbell  - another “progressive”

LUVVIES FOR “PUSSY RIOT”

LET US HERE IT FOR Jarvis Cocker, Pete Townsend, Martha Wainwright (who she?), and Neil Tennant. These celebs among others have given birth to new cause-celeb. As far I can see, it is the first this year and has nothing to do with Aids, malnourished Africa or Zionism.

            Pussy Riot is what the media describes as a Russian punk trio, who staged a performance against Vladimir Putin in a Moscow cathedral. This caused the cathedral authorities to demand the trio’s eviction. Caring very little for the rights of worshipers, or their deeply held beliefs; these gilded youths of Russia’s new freedoms set about abusing the cathedral’s spiritual tranquillity in a manner worthy of what the Russian Orthodox Church came to expect under communism.

            In a letter to the Times our celebrities described the arrest of the pop group as “a minor breach of the peace” – well, they know little about how much the Russian people care about the religious sovereignty of the churches and cathedrals; especially after the totalitarian years.

            These three young ladies will only have diminished whatever cause they were advocating. They will not find much sympathy among the Russian people; including those, who, like themselves are against president Putin.

            If these “dissidents” had been protesting in a mosque in Tehran against Ahmadinejad, the silence from such celebrities would have been deafening.  But they are a pop group and so people from that milieu in the UK have found the perfect cause to support.

            In their letter to the Times they continue thus,  "Dissent is a right in any democracy and it is entirely disproportionate that they face seven years in jail for what we consider a preposterous charge of 'hooliganism motivated by religious hatred'.

            Dissent is indeed a right, and the prospect of seven years in jail for this group, is indeed over the top, or, in the favourite riposte of the left, “disproportionate”. Whether, however, they are given such a stringent sentence, remains to be seen. But such behaviour should not go unpunished, not because they were dissenting against a Russian president, but because they showed such contempt for an institution that over 90 per cent of the Russian people believe in and had held on to such beliefs throughout the communist era.

            But then, what did these “artistes” understand of what their parents and grandparents suffered under?  The Russian orthodox church, was, in the darkest period of, in particular, Stalin’s rule, the victim of such destruction of church property not seen since Henry VIII’s destruction of the monasteries.

            This limited and enfeebled sisterhood know nothing of Russian history. In fact I believe I know more than them. They, like their 1970s feminist mirror image in the UK , will either fall foul of drugs or a conservative mentality in older age when the realities of life start to mature.

THE TROUBLE WITH the celebrities who have written to the Times; is that they treat religion like a superstitious witchcraft; a hideous and irrational blot on the rationalist landscape. They see no problem with invading a cathedral or church because they, like the Pussy Riot care little for these institutions. If they did, they would understand what such an infringement would have meant: and even more, what such institutions meant for the majority of their fellow citizens, who turn to them when loved ones are Christened, married, or buried. Simple humanity should always orchestrate a person’s actions, including a dissidents, which in Pussy Riot’s case, has been abandoned.

            I write as an atheist. As a humanist I can readily understand why the Russian Orthodox church should demand Pussy Riot’s eviction. They should never have targeted a cathedral or church to make a point. As they did, they have now lost the support of those anti-Putin Russians which the Pussy Riot had hoped to appeal to.

            Some of these women have children and are now appealing to the public, at least, for leniency in sentencing which I hope they get. But they knew the system they were about to play; and their separation from their children was always on the cards.

             

           

PUTIN IS AN AUTHORTARIAN by nature; like all Russian leaders going back to Ivan the Terrible. The Russian people, on the whole, prefer a strong leader. It has always, after all, been Russia’s historical task to show the rest of the world how not to do things.

            Pussy Riot chose the wrong target to self-publicise themselves. These young women should have been sent packing; in one case, back to her children who she now complains about being separated from.

            This group has been tolerated within the compass of Russian democracy. But in Russia, unlike in the Anglican UK, religion still has a grip upon the Russian people’s conscience. Having long been (far longer than the UK) an agricultural society, its people are deeply religious and as such cannot abide such behaviour from such a group.

            If Pussy Riot had not invaded the sacred onion domes of mother Russia, the people would no doubt today be on their side - freedom does not mean licence: it means acting responsibly with consideration for others when protest invades what millions of Russians believe to be a sacred institution where people facing the darkest periods of their lives go to in order to find peace of mind and sanctuary. Pussy Riot mocked such people by their stunt, and should pay a price – say 12 hours in prison and a 200 rouble fine.

           

           

           

           

           

Was the opening ceremony honouring the state?

AS A SPECTACLE  Danny Boyle’s offering was without doubt theatrically brilliant – however, what it was doing opening a festival of sport is beyond me. Half of its subject matter would have been lost on a good three quarters of the globe; not to mention  a similar quantity of the British people who have long since stopped being taught their country’s history.           

            The bucolic opening, underscored by Beethoven’s 6^th symphony (what else?)[1] reminded me of the opening landscape of  the Shire, ala Peter Jackson. The emergence of the 19^th century foundry ogre with its four puffing chimneys spewing forth, and a cigar smoking Isambard Kingdom Brunel, looking with personal satisfaction upon the unfolding monster, suggested the Industrial Revolution as a necessary evil created by greed from the pastures of this green and pleasant land - which brought untold misery to the people, many of them, suitably attired, and present throughout.

            We British do like to dress up and perform, and the volunteers who took part in this piece of theatre will now, no doubt, all be looking for an agent. So we can now look forward to thousands of wanna-bees, having put on the grease paint, and now not wishing to take it off – especially after the reviews.

            Perhaps the most bizarre feature, and the one which has upset Aidan Burley, a Conservative MP, and probably led him to call the whole enterprise "leftie multicultural crap",  was Boyle’s tribute to the NHS.

            The sight of ranks of NHS beds with bouncy children being admonished by what we today call their “carers” was almost surreal in the context of the opening ceremony to an Olympic games. Yet there it was in all its glory – a pastiche of Soviet like proportions praising state health care. This occurrence carried with it a testament of Boyle’s left-wing credentials, however inexplicable, to the outside world.

           

BOYLE’S POLITICIS ARE left-wing. This does not mean that, creatively speaking, he cannot escape its clutches in his work, as he has already proven. But he has deliberately chosen to display his politics on this occasion, which has led of course to criticism from the likes of Aidan Burley.

            Mr Burley is a fool who should have kept his mouth shut. Now his chance of reselection may be in the balance. This does not mean that the foolish MP was wrong in his judgement, but merely naive in sharing it with the British public on Twitter.

            He later tried to dissemble without success – it is not the first and it will not be the last that an MP has embarrassed himself or herself on this social networking sight. Like the demented egos they are, politicians and celebrities believe that their opinions on the most banal of subjects are expectantly awaited by the public – and you know what? Sadly they are!

            The latest mouth to open in criticism of the opening ceremony on political grounds comes from across the pond.

            That right-wing American talk show host  has added his weight to Mr Burley’s views on Boyle’s perfunctory[2] adaptation of British history from the rural and industrial to state patronage. Limbaugh calls such intrusion the "honouring socialism and collectivism" by Danny Boyle.

            While not wishing to associate myself with the Burley-Limbaugh outpourings, and with no parliamentary seat to defend; I would say this. The directorship of the opening ceremony was given to Danny Boyle by the last Labour government[3] who fought to get the London Olympics. His  ability to do the job should never be in dispute. His professionalism has been very well proven by his results –based purely upon creativity in theatre or film.

            Political avowals such as those in support of the NHS or women’s suffrage have no part in an Olympic opening ceremony, however overwhelmingly and entertainingly they are presented. However subtlety are such creative protests woven into the ceremony, they should be left outside of G20 meetings.

            What Danny Boyle has done is to sneak, via his reputation, his left-wing message onto a world stage. He did indeed honour the state without any reference to the state’s dependence on the collection of people’s taxes to pay for the NHS.

THE OPENING CEREMONY  was worthy of its reviews on purely artistic grounds. It was indeed better than Beijing, which truly exemplified the totalitarian spirit. Beijing cost more, and left us at the time of our selection for 2012, wondering whether we could better the state funded spectacle. In the end we beat it ideologically and surpassed it artistically.

            We should be proud of these Olympics, but we should not allow, in the future, political  ideology to become the purpose of an Olympic opening ceremony as it appears Danny Boyle has presented us with, via the most spectacular of opening displays.

            However grandiose and subtle it may be to the ordinary people; the opening ceremony must  remain politically neutral. Only in ideologically driven counties like China, can the odour of political supremacy govern, through whatever means, the Olympic successes.

            It is interesting that China praised the opening ceremony. Perhaps it was because they were able to see what only the likes of Aidan Burley could. After all, China more than any other nation knows all about "honouring socialism and collectivism".

            Boyle’s theatrical masterpiece captivated all parts of the political spectrum on a night when all we wanted was to be entertained – and entertained we were. But we were also drawn into the magnificence of the ceremony, while either ignoring or not noticing the socialist message that was woven throughout.

            Aidan Burley was wrong (if only for the sake of his career) to be so outspoken so soon after the event when the viewers wonder was at its zenith, and calls for a knighthood for Boyle was gaining widespread support. When will politicians control their appetite for peddling their opinions on social networks? It only ends in them complaining about taking what they said out of context; and how they have been misunderstood.

            This piece of theatre was a 90 minute left-wing tainted extravaganza. My one objection was, as I wrote at the beginning of this piece – what on earth was it doing heralding in a sporting event? I believe its grandiosity impacted more than did the clever and understated propaganda intended by its creator: and for this alone Danny Boyle deserves our congratulation.

           

           

             

           

           

           

           

           

             

---

[1] Well a more fitting musical backdrop would surely have been – Vaughn Williams?

[2] Yes, I do know that Mr Boyle took a beginners course in the history of Britain from 1700 to 2012. But it was researched merely as a piece of theatre that was only meant as a backdrop to a far important event.

[3] Here I am indeed guessing

THE STATE OF ISRAEL FACES THE FINAL ONSLAUGHT

SYRIA HAS FINALLY acknowledged its ownership of weapon grade chemical weapons, and has been threatening to use them if there is any interference from outside.

            There have been reports of such weapons being moved around the country, igniting fears that Assad was preparing to use them against the rebels. Now it is Israel who fears into whose hands these weapons may fall.

            Hezbollah is an ally of Syria and is fanatical enough to use any device it can get its hands on to destroy the Jewish state. They would not, for instance, think twice about using the nuclear option if it was available to them. So an arsenal of chemical weapons would be seen as just another means of   bringing Israel to its knees.

            Israel is watching events in all of the Arab Middle East with great apprehension. Egypt could become the main office for the Muslim Brotherhood; while a divided Lebanon could implode at any moment following the events in Syria. Jordan has historically sought peaceful coexistence with Israel, but would, as she did in the Six Day War, come under great pressure to join in, if once the Arab world (or a large part of it) once more decided to try its luck.

            It is important for Jordan to continue its balancing act between supporting her Arab neighbours and peaceful coexistence with Israel. She must also stand ready to jump ship if in any conflict with Israel, Israel looks like losing it. In which case – Allah Aqba!…the filthy Jews have been defeated!

            Each day we see what Assad is prepared to do to his own people in order to cling to power. What would happen to the people of Israel if Syria or any Arab nation under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with their Hezbollah and  Hamas auxiliaries, marched in victory into Israel? What could the Jew expect from such people, who have very little compassion for their own people, let alone the Jews?

            The Arab Spring has overturned the old order represented by the Camp David Accords. In Egypt, as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood feel they are strong enough and can square the military, they will gladly shred the Camp David Accords brokered by the US president, Jimmy Carter, and signed by the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Anwar El Sadat of Egypt  in 1979.

            These accords had, to each of the signatories benefit, kept war at arm’s length. Hosni Mubarak no doubt had many faults; but he did preserve the peace between the Arab world and Israel, which could, even today bring the great military powers into the conflict should Israel’s nationhood be endangered.

            In Syria today we see both Russia and China putting up a firewall around Assad. Russia needs the Syrian seaport of Tartus for its navy’s use. It is the last naval facility Russia has outside of its home ports (that is, since the demise of the Soviet Union) and is regarded by them as vital: while China needs Syria’s oil to help keep China’s economic growth in full bloom. Which is why both nations are prepared to upset the United Nations. Each country has to put their own needs before those of the international community. It is a lesson long forgotten by, in particular, European nations eager to conjoin.

ISRAEL IS RIGHT  to feel nervous about the almost volcanic events they are currently surrounded by. The future is difficult to predict, and those who have tried in the past have invariably been disappointed. But the unfolding drama created by the Arab Spring does not bode well for the state of Israel. Vengeance is now abroad. When all settles down and after, finally,  Assad, Mubarak, Saddam, and Gadaffi have all left the stage; the theatre in which they performed will be even less welcoming of the Jewish state.

            I feel that those who have been chosen through election, via the Arab Spring, will not want to relinquish their power. To put it, as my brother puts it, how many of those democratically elected to their posts will regard the democratic mandate as a lifelong office not requiring further legitimacy from the electorate?

            Democracy has to evolve, it cannot be imposed, as the international democratic community seems to believe it to be capable of. Israel laid their democratic foundations from the very beginning of the Jewish state. The Jewish people were drawn by instinct to democracy by their experiences within the Diaspora, and have held it aloft as the best system that upholds freedom and justice.

            It was natural for those who managed to survive, through allied liberation, the death camps in Europe, that they would want to be part of a society that believed in freedom and liberty. The freedom to speak allowed without the sinister knock on the door; and without a Stasi neighbour informing on them.

            Israel was once the only democracy in the Middle East – now we must ask ourselves; how long will it be before she retains the title? I do not think that once the Muslim Brotherhood wins power in Egypt, or, for that matter anywhere else in the Arab world, they would want to relinquish it to the ballot box.

           

VERY SOON, ONE FEELS, the state of Israel, will have to once again fight for its very existence. This time she will find it much harder to defeat her many enemies in the region; and could once more be faced with the awful prospect of a return to the Diaspora where each and every Jew have been the chosen scapegoats  and demonized with little means of defending themselves, for over 1,000 years.

            In the past Israel could count upon the United States to help with its defences and give billions in aid. But will America act this time to come to the aid of the Jewish state?  If the final battle comes on Obama’s watch, then the answer must be no.

            Apart from the real possibility that Obama is more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than  to the preservation of a Jewish state; he is also a liberal Democrat, and as such would lack the military ruthlessness needed to defeat Israel’s enemies.

            I hope I am proven wrong when the time comes; I want to be wrong- deeply wrong. But I think Obama will give Israel fair wind in order to get re-elected. After which, without a third term beckoning, he will let his true loyalties flourish.

            It is not only in the Middle East that the Jewish people find themselves hemmed in. But Jews all over the world are now being confronted by a wave of anti-Semitism, and not only from traditional far Right sources. Now under the fig-leaf of anti-Zionism, the Left are joining in. While in the past the outer fringes of the Left have been anti-Semitic[1]; today, because of their support for the Palestinians the centre-Left liberals are joining in.

            The culture at the BBC is one that supports the Palestinians - when its sole function at all times, as an institution that has millions of Jews and their supporters paying a licence fee to help keep it  afloat, is surly to remain above the fray and at all times remain neutral.  

            Until one was kidnapped, the BBC actually had a Gaza correspondent; while another of their correspondents in that part of the world, broke down and cried when Yasser Arafat died. All of this on top of  bias reporting by their Middle East correspondents.

            The liberal press, like the Guardian are openly supportive of the Palestinians. Which is all well and good, because we have a choice of whether or not to buy the Guardian – but we are ordered by our government to pay to watch the BBC on threat of imprisonment.

AS THE STORM CLOUDS gather, not only for the state of Israel, but also for Jews living in the Diaspora; those of us who were born close enough to the Second World War’s end to appreciate the inhuman, cruel, ruthless, and heartless brutality of the Holocaust, now sit amazed by the unlearned lesson of history, by those present generations, regarding Jews.

            Holocaust denying was once a fringe practice that only the likes of the BNP took serious. But as part of their anti-Semitism, the Arab World buys into this fiction, including the Palestinians: and if the Palestinians buy into it, then why not those on the Left who support them. Ancient hatreds of blood libel are once more surfacing. The Elders of Zion, that long since discredited work of fiction created by the Russian intelligence service in the early part of the 20^th century to invoke the pogroms against the Jews needed whenever the tsar found himself in economic difficulties with his people; is now being treated seriously once more.

            ‘Popular anti-Semitism[2]’ has now returned 67 years after the ending of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have gripped the emotions of the Left. Emotions, after all, are to do with feeling. Objectivity will always falls fowl of sensation and passion.

            It was, I think under the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian 117-138 AD, that ancient Judea was given the title of Palestine. It had always belonged to the Jews and became, through the Diaspora in the 19^th century,  the Jewish peoples one hope of returning to their ancient homeland. Like the Arabs, the Jews were a distinct people. But the Jews were driven from their ancient lands and forever subject to the whims of prejudices from any country they found themselves seeking residence in.

            Today in Israel the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland and turned it from a dessert into a fertile nation that is able to feed itself as well as produce advanced technology. Israel has its own  high technological industry which America and Europe seek to take advantage of – especially in the field of military technology.

            Israel must survive. All it insists upon from its Arab neighbours is to be allowed to do so. The Jewish state is under a threat greater than at any time in its past. Its survival is now questionable unless the West is prepared to support it, if need be, militarily - but it will hopefully not be proved needed.

           

           

---

[1] I think of Marx and Stalin

[2] By this I mean its  conjoining with both Right and Left.

VINCE; THE NAME SUGGESTS 1970s PORK CHOP SIDEBURNS

VINCE CABLE, the Business Secretary, is threatening our top universities with financial penalties if they refuse to take in more working class pupils at the expense of talented six-formers from private schools.

            Under the old system of selection through the 11-plus, there were inbuilt unfairness’s that led the ideologically driven Labour government at the time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of fine tuning the old system, they set about imposing an ‘equality agenda’ on the nation’s state schools.

            This led to the comprehensive system that we have today. Grammar schools were set upon in Tudor fashion; they became the modern contrast for the dissolution of the monasteries. Shirley Williams played the part of Henry VIII –  considering her religious background, it was an unfortunate situation to find herself in - but socialist needs must.

            Over the decades since its introduction, the political classless (who, after all, prioritise peoples votes) have tried to impose the egalitarian ethos on state education. Even Margaret Thatcher continued the rout of grammar schools when in power. But all this has done is to dumb down both the curriculum as well as GCSE and A levels; until it has become almost impossible for a student to fail.

            The so-called Equality Agenda has no place in our children’s education. Dumbing down humiliates the gifted pupil and cheats the less gifted and more vocationally inclined. In the 1950s, we had technical colleges and polytechnics (soon to be given university status) to direct us toward a professional livelihood.

            These new ‘universities’ proliferated. In the 1950s there were other pathways to success for those without academic ability. Today those pathways have been tarmaced over by the creation of the new egalitarian pseudo universities, that have been put in place to, partially, at least, make the parents happy; which, let us face it, makes all politicians who need to keep their seats, very happy.

            Even if it was possible to bring equality into education, it would not be desirable; as we see today in the devalued worth of our exam results - and now the same strategy is being forced on the elite universities, and if they succumb, the same retardation will sweep through those universities as it has already done through state education since the birth of the comprehensive system.

VINCE CABLE, and those like him are (particularly on the Labour benches) acting in Pol Pot fashion; and are about to dumb down this nation’s greatest educational assets in order to bring equality to education. This asset is worth billions from oversees students who rightly believe they are getting the finest education in the world and are being well tested by it. Such a belief will be cruelly undermined if Cable’s ‘progressive’ threats are bowed down to by Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, or Imperial College London.

            Equality in education seeks to rid academia of what no doubt the progressive types would regard as elitism. This is to say that there should be no losers. For if we have winners and losers - where then is equality?

            Cable should realise that elitism in education is education in its finest form. It produces the most gifted intellects no matter from what portion of the class system is worshiped.

            As far as the working class are concerned, the 11-plus, had it been reformed and allowed to continue would have provided what Vince Cable today demands. But alas socialist mumbo-jumbo was heralded, as the true elixir, that would herald the socialist dawn.

            I doubt today that Shirley Williams truly believes in the comprehensive system and the way it has developed. She will not of course admit it publically – but like her old comrade (when in the SDP) Roy Jenkins, who fell afoul of doubt about multiculturalism, she might also mention her doubts about comprehensive education to a trusted friend before her end.

            If comprehensive education resulted in dumbing down, then Vince Cable’s threats would lead to the dumbing up. The only students that should go to university are those academically suited to do so. But what has happened over the decades is that, through the dumbing down of subjects; all but those from the chav estates, are now finding themselves at a university.

EDUCATION IS NOT something to be toyed around with for ideological reasons. It is meant to bring the best out of the individual – and that ‘best’ may not meet the requirements of a university placing. But it could nevertheless offer other educational pathways - as it once did.

            Cable should withdraw his talons and allow the so-called       ‘elitist universities’ to plough on without the threat of financial penalty. The whole system of a state education has been traumatised by the comprehensive experiment. Now Mr Cable seeks to replicate such disturbance among our most influential universities.

            Being as we are in the grip of so-called ‘progressive’ politics; Mr Cable will pursue his prejudices to the very end. Being ‘all the same’, is now regarded, along with abortion, as being ‘progressive’.

            The last system built upon such ill-equipped foundations was of course that other pillar of Left-wing progressiveness, the Soviet Union; which, after 70 years crumbled into dust, but still left in its wake the debris of socialism which today clings like a limpet to the hull of the ship of state in this country.

            Equality of opportunity is the only context in which ‘equality’ should be deployed. If an educational system offered opportunities to all based upon academic ability from whatever background the students came, then there is nothing to protest about. If there is something to protest about in the modern educational system, then it is the likes of Oxbridge and Durham that should do the protesting.

           

VINCE CABLE SHOULD be sent packing and told to provide the universities with more worthy candidates than the comprehensive system has so far managed to provide. Oxbridge and Durham are not prejudiced at a class level despite the outpourings of the Labour Party’s prejudices. Elitism means the best regardless of class.

            Elitism is at the pinnacle of all human activity, whether in education or sport (in light of the Olympics). Elitism has nothing to do with class but ability; and, as a term is applicable to all sorts of vocations and activities outside of the realm of academia.

            But it is within academia that the Left find it so nauseating. Why? Because the Left carries the baggage of equality and seek to transplant this virus throughout society and all of its activities: education being the paramount activity that moulds the mind - and they indeed wish to mould the mind of future voters to the culture of egalitarianism.

            Each and every one of our finest universities should challenge Cable to do his worse and carry out his threat. It is a meaningless threat because if the universities refused to pay the fines he warns them of, what would he do?

            Would he also, like Shirley Williams, follow in the footsteps of  Henry VIII, this time regarding universities? I think not. Cable knows that our premier universities are in the driving seat and his threats are hollow.

            I suggest that Cable’s threats should be ignored, and the universities that fall foul of his penalties should            continue on regardless. He (Cable)  thinks he can reduce the spines of the universities to putty by threatening them with fines – they should hold fast, in defiance of such a shallow threat.

            Our great universities are beyond the grip of politicians and so they should remain. Academic standards are the primary function of such institutions, and if politicians wish to narrow, lower, or undermine such standards, then it is up to those universities to stand fast and prevail. If not they will succumb to the same dumbing down that the rest of the educational environment went willingly to meet.

           

BABEL

"with its top in the heavens...lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the Earth." God came down to see what they did and said: "They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do." So God said, "Come, let us go down and confound their speech." Babel

WHERE ARE THE campaigning feminists when you need them? I have just read a piece by The Heresiarch writing in Heresy Corner[1], who refers to two reports by Sue Lloyd-Roberts for Newsnight.

            The subject was Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Unfortunately I never saw Ms Lloyd-Roberts reports; but in the current climate reporting this subject in any depth requires a certain amount of courage (especially in working for the BBC), and she should be congratulated for so doing.

            FGM is abuse of the worst kind against young girls and should be stamped on by the authorities. FGM has been illegal in this country since 1988, yet there has not been a single prosecution; whereas, in France, there have been over 100 convictions over the same period.

            According to Lloyd Roberts; “…the UK… is so lax on the issue that girls are being brought into the country from elsewhere in Europe to have their genitalia sliced off, sewn up or otherwise mangled by supposed doctors in the name of cultural tradition, pseudo-religion or virginity-preservation”

            “Cultural sensitivity”, that cowardly expression devised by the Multiculturalist is said to be responsible for the torture of young girls as young as 10 years-old. When Ms Lloyd-Roberts interviewed the senior Met officer in charge of child protection, and tackled him on the question of the abysmal and gutless inactivity surrounding the practice in this country, Commander Simon Foy shamefully[2] suggested that he was "not necessarily sure that the availability of a stronger sense of prosecution will change it for the better".

            For the authorities to stand to one side and let such vile acts continue unabated, can only reflect upon their political correctness, and the extremes to which they are prepared to honour it. In such a context, they are behaving as criminally as the Nazis. I am not accusing them of being Nazis, but just acting like them.

            Now there is something very wrong indeed about the moral confusion that the dependence upon “cultural sensitivity” is causing. People are frightened to act. In Rochdale we saw young girls being literally taken from the streets by a gang of Muslims; to be used for their own or others sexual gratification. Just as with FGM, the authorities knew it was happening but  their sense of “cultural sensitivity” prevailed, and the suffering was allowed to continue.

            Is this what the politicians mean by “cultural diversity”, that other Orwellian expression found in the lexicon of Multiculturalism? FGM is most commonly practiced on the African continent; whereas the misogyny against Western women and girls is found in the Muslim world - including among British Muslim males.

THE FGM AND THE ROCHDALE abuses were of course against female children. As with many cultural practices involving other cultures; the “progressive” Left are nowhere to be seen. In particular, where are the campaigning feminists who have all to readily bared their naked breasts on behalf of women since the 1960s? If it had been white males orchestrating these two barbaric “customs”; those bare breasts would be marching on Downing Street by the thousands demanding an end to male violence.

            The duplicity of the Left know no boundaries. Their silence on both the above issues speaks volumes about their confusion and ignorance. I say ignorance, because they, as good Multiculturalists, never seemed to have believed that other cultures were capable of such behaviour. For why else would they believe in Multiculturalism and stay silent when the very gender that they are supposed to protect and stand by, are so cruelly treated?

            I was born in 1950, and could never have imagined such practices in 2012 being openly disregarded by the law then. Indeed, I could never have imagined such practices happening at all while I was growing up; because of course we would never have bought into such an ideology as Multiculturalism. If we, as we did, brought thousands of immigrants from the West Indies and, in the 1970s, Asians from Uganda; it was done so on the basis of those cultures having to adapt to the British culture. Then there was no equality between cultures. Either those coming into the UK accepted the culture of this country and its primacy; or they should return home to where their own culture was sovereign. It was up to them to accommodate themselves with us, with our culture: not  to downgrade our culture to a position of equality with all the other cultures that were, in the future, set to invade our nation.

            The lack of attention given to either FGM or Rochdale, came about because we relegated our culture and gave equal importance to the 2-300 or so different tongues now waggling in our society.

            The police have been trained into the subtleties of “cultural sensitivity” and have been putting such training before acting on such crimes involving minorities for fear, no doubt, of receiving little ot no advancement for themselves in their careers.

            This is madness brought about by the social engineering of the European liberal politicians who created this new ideology of Multiculturalism. In this country, it seems, its pioneer was Roy Jenkins who I have said ad-nauseum, later came to regret what he proposed.

            FGM is but one of the many customs which a Multicultural society will have to accept if it believes that all cultures are equal; anything less is not multiculturalism. Which is why the Left stays silent over FGM, as well as the events in Rochdale. But what else will they stay silent about in the future? I hope there are no head hunters or cannibals among the many cultures that the incompetent and  ham-fisted Multicultural politicians seek to let loose.     

FGM, AS IN France, should never be tolerated by the UK. Every white and black British citizen knows that such practices are medieval and barbaric, and in any civilised society should be brought quickly to a conclusion through the criminal justice system.

            But what do we have in this country? We have members of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as senior policemen, all in fear of their pensions, only wanting to do what they believe the Multicultural zeitgeist demands of them. This is why Commander Simon Foy, seeks to do nothing about FGM, using the outrageous excuse that he was “not necessarily sure that the availability of a stronger sense of prosecution will change it for the better"

            Foy should be made to go for such a comment; but of course he will not do so. After all he only behaved as the politicians of all the main parties wished him to. The politicians are to a man and women, in all the main parties, believers in Multiculturalism.

            Multiculturalism is the bane of our society. The floodgates of immigration were opened by the previous government, with little or no regulation regarding numbers. Which means today that cultural anarchy rules because any opposition to such a Multicultural influx would be treated as racist if it spoke out.

            We are in a pickle of our own making, and all we can do is sit to one side and watch the whole grizzly enterprise unfold. The horse has bolted, and our politicians are left with little option but to tinker with immigration numbers and use whatever rhetoric they find suitable for them to pacify the disgruntled majority among the indigenous white population.

                                                                                                      

---

[1] Heresy Corner is a website.

[2] Nick Cohen called it “a disgrace”

Cometh the hour cometh the man?

THANKS TO YOU TUBE, Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), is becoming well known across the pond. I watched his interview on the Fox News channel when he described the European President  José Emanuel Barroso as an idiot for blaming America for the euro debacle. Farage’s performances in the European Parliament (also on You Tube) are exemplary pieces of theatre, which gives us Eurosceptics the hope that there is now a credible, articulate, and talented individual who can stop the rot. As Adrian Hilton, writing today in the Daily Mail, says; ‘Day by day, minute by minute, speech by speech and word by word, the United Kingdom Independence Party looks and sounds increasingly like the Conservative Party in exile’.

                Nigel Farage has positioned himself on the political spectrum where once the Tory Party felt at home over the past 100 years; but now feel distinctly uncomfortable.

                There are, however, many Tories inside and outside of parliament who bemoan their party’s retreat from the centre-Right agenda it once offered to British Conservatives – whether of the big ‘C’ or little ‘c’ kind.  Now that agenda has been captured by UKIP and is becoming more credible under Mr Farage’s leadership.

                Once known only as a single issue party, UKIP now embraces a traditional conservative agenda covering, to quote Adrian Hilton once more; ‘[UKIP’s] policies cover the economy, law and order, education, defence, patriotism, Christianity, immigration, over-regulation, tax reduction, and their support for private enterprise, traditional marriage and the family, and (of course) the thorny question of the European Union. There is no longer any credible assertion that UKIP is a ‘single-issue’ protest party or pressure group’.

THERE IS HOWEVER, one essential ingredient missing. Mr Farage is somewhat isolated and needs more talent to join him if he is to attract the attention of the British voter. At the moment, neither Europe or David Cameron has any fear of him. Only when he leads a credible party of politicians with experience, faculty and aptitude, will he pose a genuine threat to Europe and David Cameron.

                Mr Farage has captured what is called the zeitgeist. Today the British are Eurosceptic, anti-immigration, and strong believers in a more robust attitude to law and order. They have been made cynical by broken promises and empty rhetoric, used to entice their support but immediately abandoned after they have played their part in helping politicians up the greasy pole.  

                What needs to happen? Well the Tory benches are not short of talent and much of it euro- sceptical. It is among such a shoal that Mr Farage must cast his net. They must be told that the Conservative Party no longer represents their desires for the country (some of whom already believe this, but are holding back from what they consider disloyalty to the party).

                The party that David Cameron leads is Europhile from top, but not to bottom. If those Eurosceptic Tories that adorn the government benches believe, as I know they do, that this country needs to stay a nation, make its own laws, and retain its sovereignty; then they must look toward a Conservative  Party that reflects their ambitions: and David Cameron’s party is no longer such a party.

                If those Eurosceptic back benches remain seated where they are, and remain loyal to their current leader, they will surely lose this nation to a Greater European Imperium.

                To such people the party they loved and believed in has left them. They must turn toward a party where their talents are needed and pose a genuine threat to the construction of a United States of Europe in which we are told we will have to belong, ‘eventually’.

                The Conservative Party slowly drifted away from its moorings after Margaret Thatcher was driven from office, and the party has sailed haplessly ever since.

IT IS NOW UP TO UKIP and its talented leader to try and persuade experienced and gifted eurosceptic Tory politicians into joining them. After all, the Tories own voters are leading the way by turning away from Cameron’s Tory party and changing their allegiance to UKIP, according to the polls.

                The issue of Europe has set in motion a modern Reformation of the British Conservative Party. Europe has always held out the promise of dividing the Conservative party, but eurosceptic rhetoric, especially by Cameron - who one day dismisses a referendum on Europe, followed by a mere ‘hint’ of a promise to do so in order to keep his own Eurosceptics on board; throws a less than meaty bone to the Tory press, all of whom desperately want to believe that Cameron is a true blue Tory.

                We are at a turning point. Over the coming days and months Tory Euroscepticism must make a choice between a Conservative party which no longer displays the attributes of such an organisation, or turn to a party which cannot survive without them. UKIP is the way forward for traditional Conservatives. Such Conservatives could not find fault with UKIP’s political agenda; after all, it is one which they hoped Cameron would adopt. What was it the Daily Mail’s  Adrian Hilton said? ‘ [The]United Kingdom Independence Party looks and sounds increasingly like the Conservative Party in exile’: and so it does.

                If those Tory Eurosceptics took a great leap forward and abandoned the forgery of a once great party, they would be recognised by history for the work they did.

NIGEL FARAGE is a better political leader than any of those representing the main parties in Great Britain. What he lacks is a body of support that can help engineer his party’s success. This is why the Eurosceptics within the Tory Party must look beyond the comfort zone of parliament if they are genuine about keeping this nation intact.

                UKIP is a traditional Conservative Party in all but name. They began as a single issue party but have expanded into accepting the full curricula of traditional Conservativism- a curricula which the modern Cameron led his social democratic strain away from for fear of being seen as the ‘nasty party’.

                UKIP must persist with trying to bring on board the many talented Tory Eurosceptics. The Tory Eurosceptics in turn, must be prepared to listen. For without their support UKIP will no doubt fail and the Tory Eurosceptics will be left with  a Europhile leadership ready to sell the nation’s soul to a United States of Europe.

                I cannot believe that this is what Tory Eurosceptics want. If not, they now have a way out and should take it if they believe in the British nation state.