Cheers and whoops greeted Alastair Campbell when he told an
Any Questions audience in Lancashire that Mr Gove’s only success was in persuading his media friends that he was a success. The applause became louder when he said Michael Gove had been the biggest disaster for education in England and Wales than any previous Education Secretary.
But there were groans for Tim Montgomerie from Conservative Home when he said that at the end of the Labour years the UK had slipped down not just one education league table but every single one. The audience wasn’t buying it. And they were right not to because:
1 The argument that the UK has “plummeted” down education league tables can only be sustained by using the UK PISA results for the year 2000 which have been found to be flawed (see faqs above).
2 The UK Statistics Authority has recently
voiced concerns about the Department for Education’s use of these PISA figures.
3 Another education league table, Trends in Maths and Science Survey 2007, put
English pupils at the top of the European league table in both maths and science for both 10 year-olds and 14 year-olds.
4 A recent survey by Learning Curve (published before the 2012 PIRLS and TIMSS results) found that the UK was
6th in the world and 2nd in Europe when the results of global education tests were combined with literacy and graduation rates.
It is, of course, important to keep these league tables in perspective - they test only a limited number of subjects at specific ages. But Mr Gove uses selected league tables to underpin his policies. However, if the applause from the
Any Questions audience is anything to go by, then it appears that the public is no longer being taken in by Gove’s rhetoric.
Any Questions, 14 December 2012 is available
here. The question about teacher pay and performance begins at about 42.30
Comments
Nevertheless, what came across v clearly was this emerging difference between the idea of schools as competitive environments - mimicking business - and schools as communities - in the words of Camilla Batmanjelidh 'nurturing' children, and bringing out the best of them.
This is where the current government is taking such a spectacularly wrong turn - particularly as it is increasingly - and, here I think Alastair Campbell was spot on - deliberately provoking conflict with those who work in our schools.
I have said it before but it is worth repeating here. When Ontario reformed its school system, the watchword was 'reform without rancour.' This government has embarked on reckless, radical reform tinged - if not soaked - in rancour towards too many within the state sector ( in part because so many on the Tory wing of the Coalition have no real knowledge of, nor real respect, for state schools and what they represent - the practical and shared pursuit of the common good.)
For all these reasons, the current approach simple won't work - and what we need now is a much slower, steady, less politicised approach to our schools, underscored by the right values, and conducted in far more supportive/collaborative terms.
Judging from the Any Questions audience I think most parents who use and in so many ways appreciate their local state school would welcome this shift in approach.
There was an interesting follow up to the programme as Alastair wrote a blog about Michael Gove which then drew a rather strange, anonymous response on Conservative Home ( apparently from one of the Education Secretary's "advisers") here. I would say they are a bit rattled by the idea that the public haven't fallen for their hero in quite the same way as the media!
But Batmanghelidjh was correct - teachers don't work in isolation. They collaborate and share ideas. They teach in a team when appropriate. The majority of teachers want their pupils to succeed - that's what they go into teaching for.
Yes Melissa you are right. But the rot set in with the 1988 Education Reform Act. Nothing significant changed in 1997 when Blair won for Labour except even more deeply flawed intiative 'roll outs' and a huge boost to national 5+A*-C as a result of the GNVQ scam.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/06/doubts-cast-on-telegraph-c...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/07/kings-college-academic-quo...
The blogger makes a series of rhetorical questions about universities which imply that undergraduates are of poorer quality than previously. But s/he seems unfamiliar with the research discussed below which highlighted undergraduates’ strengths as well as weaknesses (the blogger only concentrated on weaknesses).
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/04/what-are-universities-sayi...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/04/university-undergrads-have...
"Like many with his political opinions, AC seems to equate modernity in education with a kind of happy clappy kumbaya Coke advert in which kids sit around singing and learning to emote. He really seems to think that a focus on algebraic or statistical skills is 'old fashioned'."
Now Mr Gove is very fond of "rigour" but there's nothing rigourous or statistically sound in this hilarious generalisation.
And what about, "The main feature of AC, Fiona Millar and their gang viz education is that they live in a parallel universe on the question: 'have school standards improved?".
In this "parallel universe", TIMSS 2007 found English pupils were at the top of the European league in maths and science at ages 10 and 14. PIRLS 2011 reports that English pupils have improved their relative position moving from 19th position out of 45 to 10th= out of 45*, and the percentage of English pupils reaching the highest reading standard is up there with the best (Northern Ireland even better). And the recent Learning Curve report put UK at 6th in the world and 2nd in Europe for educational outcomes.
But that's obviously a parallel universe.
*It should be borne in mind that the countries taking part in 2007 and 2011 are not all the same so direct comparison is not possible. This warning should also be borne in mind when talking about other international league tables especially PISA - but the Government ignored this until the UK Statistics Watchdog censured the DfE for its mishandling of statistics.
Research from the Sutton Trust that the government was strongly recommending shows that performance related pay is one of the least effective forms of raising standards.
Excellent point about the MPs. Also the Education Endowment Foundation, set up by govt with the Sutton Trust to review evidence on what works in narrowing gaps and improving performance, found that they impact of performance related pay could be"close to zero". See here
They simply turn into an unhelpful war of statistics.
For example, as another of your contributors has pointed out, Andreas Schleicher of PISA, last month, commented as follows:
The nature of education has moved on in high-performing nations; it's time the UK moved on too.
The generation born in the UK this year is likely to lose £4.5 trillion in economic output over their lifetime because UK schools aren't delivering what other countries' education systems show can be achieved. In other words, deficiencies in the UK's school systems amount to the equivalent of a permanent recession - one that could be avoided......
The UK is a case in point: expenditure per student has increased by 68 per cent over the past decade and yet Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) results have remained flat.'
I'm sorry I have no idea who Alastair Campbell or those other people are but their positions all seem too extreme for all or, possibly, any of them to be correct.
The EIU report indicates that the key factors in success are predominantly a supportive national culture, educational choices and excellence in teaching.
You do not currently have either of the first two factors to any marked degree in England.
I cannot speak for the excellence of your teachers
That is what all the noise seems to boil down to.
Excellence in education must derive from excellence in teaching.
The whole debate is probably about as simple as that.
If the national culture does not support the provision of sufficient resources to ensure that excellence, and the educational choices do not exist that permit parents to follow excellence in teaching, then everything else is just so much hot air.
https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/47116/Perfor...
Mr Gove claims his policies are evidence-based. But time and time again it's been shown that they are not. Whether it's academy conversion, international league tables, the exam system, teaching systems in other countries, pupil referral units, school meals in academies, teacher training, user "choice" - his policies ignore (or misrepresent) the evidence he claims underpins his reforms.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and at least in part related both to the class system, and to a broader cultural tendency to fear losing face/showing weakness. There are far too many stereotypes of weak nerds out there, and I it's also a problem that being articulate is often seen as - I dont know - weak? snobbish? getting above your station...?The tabloid use of 'boffin' is one example among many...
My own feeling is that individual teachers, and schools in general, can do fabulous work; but if the kids are living in a world which puts shallow glitziness over depth of understanding, it's a bit of a losing battle.
This isn't about dividing people into 'intellectual' and 'practical', either, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, my own belief is that this division is at the heart of the problem. Everyone is both, to some degree, and this '150-year-old problem' that the Gove lot keep banging on about is, I believe, *caused* by the tendency to split one from another. They can improve vocational training, by all means, but they can't just silo it off and think the box has been ticked.
It took me a while to get and read and think about Pasi Sahlberg's book (small twins take up quite a bit of my time...); but a standout aspect of it, for me, apart from his very sweet and helpful lists of what we should be doing and aren't, was the deeply cultural and attitudinal nature of the values underpinning the Finnish approach.
How do we, as a culture, as a nation, give greater value to education, knowledge, curiosity, and the rest? If we could do that, then the professionals tasked with guiding our children towards their future (ie the teachers) might have greater support.
Cultural and societal curiosity and creativity are the fuel for the education engine and the economy too - if they're not there, the system's running on empty no matter how hard the teachers and students work.
Mmmm, I do like a bit of purple prose before lunch......
The cheers of support for Alastair's comments about Gove and the groans which accompanied Tim Montgomerie's incorrect assertion about the UK falling down every single international league table show that the public will not be fooled.
Janet - Either the competive market driven school system raises standards or it doesn't. You and many others seem to be claiming that this system did raise standards under Labour but won't raise standards under Gove. The truth is that the 1988 Act was disastrous for the English education system. Yes, there are many international studies but they are not all worthless. Those whose promoters have a commercial interest in the message (eg Pearson) are less trustworthy than those that are truly independent. Also it is not true that all other studies contradict the PISA findings, nor does it follow that valid reservations about some of the PISA conclusions means that the main thrust isn't correct.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/07/when-market-forces-are-int...
And I don't think that international surveys are worthless - they are a useful tool but should be kept in proportion (see thread below). The test results are often contradictory - eg PISA 2009 is contradicted by TIMSS 2007 and PIRLS 2011. But PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS don't just administer tests. They research other things such as socio-economic background, education of parents, reading material at home etc. So they're extremely valuable for that.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/12/keep-a-sense-of-proportion...
'The political sway of the audience on Question Time is governed by the leanings of the area where the episode is filmed, the BBC has admitted.
Director-general Mark Thompson has revealed that the audience is selected to reflect the voter make-up in the region from which each edition of the topical debate show is broadcast – rather than the political landscape of Britain as a whole.'
http://www.ghanavisions.com/world/28432-question-time-does-have-bias-say...
The OECD continually asserts, one way or another, that education in Britain needs reform:
'Further reforms are needed to improve education outcomes in England, especially
among disadvantaged groups.
Despite significantly increased resources, education performance in England measured by PISA scores remains static and uneven, and could be improved by focusing resources more on disadvantaged children.
The new pupil premium is a step in the right direction, but funding should be even more transparent. Higher and more equal autonomy across school types, in terms of hiring and pay, would support efficient deployment of resources. The quality of vocational training should be increased.
Legislated tuition fee reforms could be taken further to lower fiscal costs and expand
tertiary education.'
Miss Benn says above:
'the current approach simple won’t work – and what we need now is a much slower, steady, less politicised approach to our schools, underscored by the right values, and conducted in far more supportive/collaborative terms.'
I would be really grateful for a consensus view on what reforms this website really believes are needed in your country?
Question Time asks the audience to apply to the BBC which chooses a cross section.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17154440
Any Questions asks the local organisation who requested a visit from the programme to organise the tickets. The BBC asks the local organisers to ensure a cross section of local people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_organiser.shtml
If the audience at Leyland was a cross-section, then this should be more worrying for the Government. Leyland is part of the South Ribble constituency which has a Conservative MP with a 5,000+ majority.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1304/ribble-south
1. We need to sort out our inspectorate body
2. We need a coherent review of assessment which takes advantage of emerging technologies to overcome many of the problems of assessment of the past.
3. We need to make some kind of coherent sense of all the ludicrous free market policies currently being implemented so that we can plan and consult properly again.
4. We need to stop the kind of ludicrous intervention by deeply ignorant politicians which is going on at the minute.
Absolutely Rebbecca. OfSTED is now an agent of government, rather than an independent judge of the quality of learning in schools. OfSTED assumes that floor targets for schools have statistical validity when they don't. My research suggests that pressure on schools for 'improvement' in flaw target and OfSTED terms actually reduces the quality of learning and real standards.
You clearly know what you are talking about.
For 'any questions' the organiser gets to distribute the tickets.
Any follower of the programme will be familiar with the general make up of its live audiences.
They will, at the very least, be political activists.
'One of the chief responsibilities for you, the organiser, is the distribution of the tickets.
Admission to the programme is free. We will send the tickets to you directly from the printers approximately 10 weeks ahead of the programme.
Members of your organisation will want to have first call on the tickets, but at least one third of the tickets must be made available to the general public on a 'first come, first served' basis.'
Leyland is about 6 miles from Preston, a very large and Labour controlled city council.
5. A system of accountability for schools that doesn't a. distort the curriculum for pupils and b. is measured against set standards rather than league tables in which there will always be winners and losers, no matter what schools are achieving.
6. An inspection regime that is free from political interference, that also measures against set standards that endure over time rather than change with every new minister/chief inspector (remember community cohesion) and is fair (are you really 25% more likely to be a good or outstanding teacher / leader if you work in an affluent area?)
7. A curriculum based on the needs of future adults of this century: good speaking, reading, writing and maths skills, a rich arts curriculum, languages that will be most useful, physical activity, social sciences that teach knowledge, skills and understanding, teamwork and co-operation, problem solving and creativity.
http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/assessing-student...
1 and 6 are the same are they not?
I think 7 follows from 1 and 2 but could be a separate point.
When I went it was just in the local high school. It was widely advertised and the audience was generally radio 4 listeners who decided whether or not to come without knowing what the issue would be or who would be speaking. There were maybe 100 people there. It was not full. Nobody was turned away. The audience didn't seem to have a political agenda at all but they did agree strongly with some points and disagree strongly with ignorant lies.
'Coming from the highly controversial The Muslim Centre in London, this also began with the Ashcroft story. I've just had the misfortune to hear Ken Clarke being booed, hissed, screamed at and jeered at by a hysterical mob masquerading as an audience. He's also been savaged by fellow panelists Ken Livingstone, Mehdi Hasan of The New Statesman and Julia Goldsworthy (who have been whooped at or cheered to the rafters for saying nasty things about the Tories). And then, to cap it all, there was The Other Dimbleby, that insufferable popinjay, interrupting Mr Clarke repeatedly but letting the others attack Ken Clarke without interruption. It's a wonder there wasn't a public stoning!!
Livingstone's savaging of Andrew Gilligan for a programme attacking The Muslim Centre was also cheered to the rafters, as was Mr Hasan's savaging of the right-wing newspapers. Dimbleby wasn't so keen to interrupt here! (He never goes against a mob, especially the sort that might stone him for it!)'
The report does not seem coherent. Ken Clarke spoke at length without interruption in his usual challenging way on several occasions for example.
There was specific jeering and booing associated with the issue of non dom tax payers which was topical at the time which to me expresses the real anger which was and still is felt in society about the very rich who avoid tax.
I'm glad to see that David Cameron has taken this issue seriously and that steps have been taken to expose and attempt to deal with the issues associated with aggressive tax avoidance and the low rates paid by the very rich.
I think the person you need to be sceptical about here is 'Beeb Bias Craig'.
1. Outreach activities focused on disadvantaged families should be
expanded. Providing additional support for the neediest, for example through complementing pre–schooling with parent/child support in the home environment, should be considered.
2. Further develop value–added indicators of schools’ educational output to provide
more relevant information to parents, students and regulators.
3. Increase the emphasis within inspection on teaching and learning including through more lesson observation and assessment of pupils’ work, so that inspectors consider this evidence alongside attainment data in reaching their judgements on the effectiveness of schools.
4. Develop methods to measure educational outcomes through independently
collected data as a complement to grades and test scores.
5. Ensure that universities and employers have a greater say in qualification content
and procedures (A–levels and GCSEs)
6. The government needs to ensure incentives are sufficiently large to incentivise schools to admit disadvantaged students. To maximise transparency the government should consider increasing the pupil premium, within the overall budget constraint on public spending, and making it the only source of deprivation funding.
7. The government should therefore experiment with proscribing the use of residence criteria in admission to local government maintained schools in some local authorities and evaluate the effects carefully. Locally maintained schools should have the same opportunities for hiring staff and negotiating wages as academies and Free Schools.
8. Entry of new schools should be encouraged even if it temporarily creates some excess capacity. Decisions on opening new schools should rely on the quality of the business plan and should not be left to local authorities but to another appropriate body.
9. The system of vocational education should be simplified. A further focus on high–quality apprenticeships is warranted. Given that the government has abolished the education maintenance allowance, it needs to find alternative measures to efficiently raise incentives for participation for children from low income families.
10. The government could pursue reforms to further lower the public share of
funding, e.g. through lower grants to universities. Some of the proceeds could be used to expand the number of study places. While the proposed changes in the grant and loan system should ensure that universities remain open for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the government should keep a close eye on this issue.
We could pick this particular ramble to bits and analyse which aspects of it make sense and which don't but really it just shouldn't exist.
Simply contact him direct.
Tel.: +(33) 1 45 24 93 66
andreas.schleicher@oecd.org
https://twitter.com/SchleicherEDU
If he'd known which bits of his report were coherent and which weren't he wouldn't have written what he wrote. Why contact him?
That said, the OECD is not just a "think-tank" in the way, say, Policy Exchange is. It does a serious amount of data collection and analysis. Its views should, therefore, be taken seriously. But there is more to the OECD conclusions than were contained in Anastasia's cut-and-paste as I point out in my long, very long, (indeed, yawn-makingly long) reply to her at 5.27 on 17 December.
However, you are correct in saying the quote could be critiqued point-by-point. Some recommendations are sensible eg extending services to disadvantaged families (but Government cut backs have closed many Sure Start centres) and developing value-added criteria to be better able to judge the performance of schools (but Gove abandoned contextual value-added which OECD said was a step in the right direction). Others won't work in an English setting (eg the suggestion that universities be involved in exam content is not welcomed by the Universities) and recommending a deliberate oversupply surplus of places would only work if schools were funded according to the number of places rather than the number of pupils (to avoid staff having to be sacked in schools with falling rolls with resultant reduction in number of courses on offer). The law would also need changing so that LAs weren't required to close schools in order to manage the supply of school places.
The economic situation and policies of the United Kingdom were reviewed by the Committee on 8 February 2011. The draft report was then revised in the light of the discussions and given final approval as the agreed report of the whole Committee on 23 February 2011.
As Deputy Director (since 1 February 2012), Andreas is responsible for steering the work of the Directorate for Education as whole. Prior to his position as Deputy Director, Andreas was Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, directing the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the OECD Indicators of Education Systems programme (INES) and steering the development of new projects such as the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and the OECD skills project.
http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/39989494.pdf
It is, therefore, misleading to claim that this one episode is typical of Any Questions.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/5831798/why-does-the-bbc-air-islamis...
The contoversial episode of Any Questions is still available on Listen Again below. If the audience was partisan then it was the fault of the organisers who had been asked (as all organisers are) to ensure the audience was a cross-section of the public.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r2fhb
*no reply button
'Conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals and freedom-lovers generally have better things to do on a Friday evening than sit in a church hall listening to a panel of MPs and hacks bang on about politics. That's much more of a left-liberal-ecoloon obsession.
And this isn't just an Any Questions problem but a BBC problem generally. Every time I'm asked to appear on a BBC programme be it Radio 4's Today or Woman's Hour or Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show, or a documentary like that Horizon stitch-up, or BBC2's The Daily Politics, I always ask myself the same question: "What is the bloody point?"
James Delingpole
Sorry, but I can hardly type for laughing. You'll be quoting Toby Young next. If so, could you please provide a link.
And if you're so dismissive of "Any Questions" then why are you trying so hard to rubbish the programme? Surely, in the words of Delingpole, you "have better things to do"?
I didn't realise I was supposed to provide a list.
Anyone who listens to the program for the first time will immediately recognise its endearingly BBC cloistered view of the world.
'But it’s not only Question Time where that’s a problem. BBC Radio 4′s Any Questions? has a similar habit: the superficial balance is actually undone by a far from balanced set of non-Parliamentarians.'
Mark Pack, Libdem voice
It's a shame Michael Gove wasn't party to the conversation afterwards where his performance as the 'non-politician' was discussed at length - to general agreement that this advanced skills in rhetoric in combination with his vastly underdeveloped understanding of humanity (which boiled down to 'society will bet better if us goodies punish the baddies' more) were a particularly toxic mix and that society would be a much worse place if he went into politics, particularly if he got into a position where he was involved in policy which related to people. And of course none of us had heard of his views on foreign policy then....
Can anyone find a link to that episode?
And you've amused me even more with your "Anyone who listens to the program... will immediately recognise its endearingly BBC cloistered view of the world." This is followed by a gripe from a Libdem blogger complaining about lack of balance on discussion panels.
But the panel on Any Questions programme at the top of the thread contained:
Alastair Campbell, Camila Batmanghelidjh from Kids Co, Tim Montgomerie from Conservative Home and the Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood (Daily Mail columnist).
The previous three weeks also contained similarly balanced panels*.
Of course, Pack could have been referring to the audience but as we've already said, the audience for Any Questions is nothing to do with the BBC - it's the responsibility of the organisers to ensure a cross-section of the public. Are you suggesting that Balshaw's Church of England High School in Leyland Lancashire skewed the audience so that it included people who would cheer any condemnation of Gove?
*Anyone wanting to check the composition of Any Questions panels can do so here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj/broadcasts/2012/12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj/broadcasts/2009/04
I found a reference to the programme in the News and Star. The panel comprised Maria Eagle MP, a Work and Pensions minister; Jonathan Evans MEP, Leader of Tory MEPs in Strasbourg; Phil Willis MP, Education Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats and Michael Gove, journalist with the Times.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/school_to_host_bbc_debate_1_451426?ref...
None of us had ever heard of Michael Gove before then so judgements were made entirely on his own comments.
Of course, the BBC makes no demand for a cross section of the public at all in the any questions audience..
Here are its stipulations:
‘One of the chief responsibilities for you, the organiser, is the distribution of the tickets.
Admission to the programme is free. We will send the tickets to you directly from the printers approximately 10 weeks ahead of the programme.
Members of your organisation will want to have first call on the tickets, but at least one third of the tickets must be made available to the general public on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.’
Leyland is about 6 miles from Preston, a very large and Labour controlled city council.
Exactly the same thing happened at the Olympics when Osborne got booed.
Councils don't get any more Labour than Newham.
Tickets were handed out by Newham Council on a first come first served basis that evening just as they are for any questions.
I agree-it all adds to the gaiety of the nation.
Nevertheless, the Delingpole quote you provided (18/12/12 10.23) caused as much hilarity as your citation of him. The quote could be summarised as follows:
"Dear reader - I'm much in demand to appear on Radio and TV shows [provide list]. This shows how popular I am. However, I hold these programmes in disdain [but still provide list]. I say, 'What's the point?" [just in case I lose the argument when faced with evidence - I can then claim it's a left-liberal-ecoloon conspiracy]."
"Please offer a number of tickets to the local political parties. We suggest you contact the local Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat party offices* to let them know you are hosting the programme and that you will hold 10 tickets for each of them."
"Any tickets that haven't been taken up 2 weeks before broadcast can be released to the general public."
"*Depending on location, there may be other factors to consider - for example, in Scotland or Wales, the Nationalist parties will need to be approached."
and further down re publicity for the programme:
"Posters: We will send you BBC Radio 4 Any Questions? posters approximately 10 weeks in advance. The best places to hang these will be where a broad cross-section of the local community can see them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj/features/hosting
Again, are you suggesting that Balshaw's CoE High School deliberately skewed the audience? Do you think the school manipulated the questions so that the audience would have a chance to cheer a condemnation of Gove?
And this isn’t just an Any Questions problem but a BBC problem generally. Every time I’m asked to appear on a BBC programme be it Radio 4′s Today or Woman’s Hour or Radio 2′s Jeremy Vine Show, or a documentary like that Horizon stitch-up, or BBC2′s The Daily Politics, I always ask myself the same question: “What is the bloody point?”
Listining to this week's episode it struck me that the audience were really quite kind to the Tory who spouted utterly untrue dogma backed up by awful evidence pretty much all the way through.
I agree with Deligpole. What's the point of people like them being there? The world would be a much better place if they were not.
However, don't dismiss Delingpole. If he didn't exist then there'd be no need for articles such as this on RationalWiki, the website which documents crank ideas:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole
Read and laugh.
read and laughed.... :-)
It reminds me of a Carry On film (Carry On Conspiracy, perhaps) where Kenneth Williams, looking drippy dressed as Caesar, cries:
"Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&v=kvs4bOMv5Xw&gl=GB
Pages
Add new comment