‘Britishness’ plans?

David in Atlanta ""crude reductionist version of marxism""
Posts: 1735 Joined: 21-04-06
Submitted by David in Atlanta on 24 April, 2008 - 15:35.

Please tell me this didn't actually get enacted!
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/03/10/on-my-loyal-knees-i-am-your-citizen-i-mean-subject/

lrnec
Posts: 91 Joined: 29-10-07 Location: Belfast
24 April, 2008 - 21:22

Hmm looks like they arn't going to force you to swear loyality to the queen. It seems more some sort of sick we heart the queen fan class or something :/ or adding it to the joke of the citizenship classes.

From that article's links:

Quote:
Under laws dating back more than 600 years crimes include plotting to kill the sovereign, "violating" the king's wife, eldest unmarried daughter or eldest son's wife and helping the sovereign's enemies.

Violating the kings daughter heh.

The citizenship classes pretty dodgy though

Quote:
The aim is to develop young people into "responsible citizens", who understand their rights and responsibilities and can play an active part in society.

The murder machine of education roles right on right? It's half politics telling kids about the house of parliament and such which isn’t technically bad really, more factual knowledge is always a good thing but the other halfs just indoctrination and rubbish about Britishness. Although to be fair you could argue that education system it’s self is half indoctrination anyway.

My argument would have been if you want them to know more about politics and such then just teach or make politics gcse much more available as opposed to creating these twisted nationalistic classes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5388712.stm

Oldish article but it's half the same thing anyway.

David in Atlanta ""crude reductionist version of marxism""
Posts: 1735 Joined: 21-04-06
24 April, 2008 - 22:08

Well that's just clear as mud. Or at least as clear as the US electoral college.
So there's no law against violating the kings oldest unmarried son?

lrnec
Posts: 91 Joined: 29-10-07 Location: Belfast
24 April, 2008 - 23:51
David in Atlanta wrote:
Well that's just clear as mud. Or at least as clear as the US electoral college.
So there's no law against violating the kings oldest unmarried son?

Possibly they assumed the laws against buggery, at the time, covered that but as those laws are gone. Technically your right so sodamise the kings son to your hearts content.

Yes it's not clear, but neither is my post apologies, they don't seem to like making changes to the education system simple and clear. Possibly they assume that if no one really knows what the classes are really doing then no one can really complain right? That sounds like a joke but many teachers and even schools as a whole are still confused about the whole purpose of the citizenship classes and many schools have come under criticism for “not taking it seriously or not teaching it correctly.”

The British government claims these citizenship classes are supposed to be more important/higher on the curriculum than History or Geography.

In short to the pledge of allegiance to the queen it’s just a suggestion and I can’t see it going through it’d be ripped to shreds.

So far the only people who have to swear an oath to the Queen are Members of Parliament in England/Scotland/Wales (N.Ireland is Excluded, guess why) members of the British Army and the Royal Air Force but not the Royal Navy.