Department For Children, Schools And Families: Anti-England Bias Seeps Out - Even Though It Is Supposed To SERVE England

Gareth has received a reply in answer to his freedom of information request regarding the Department of Children, Schools And Families (which covers England only) and its sudden removal of the name of the country it covers from its mission statement.

Remember? From this (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

To this (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make this the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

Extract from Gareth's reply:

Mr Young

Thank you for your email of 11 November asking why the word 'England'
has been replaced with the word 'this' on the Department's website.

You made your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As you
are not seeking access to recorded information I have not dealt with
your request as a Freedom of Information request.

The Department's overall purpose was set out in the Children's Plan,
published in December 2007. In that document the Secretary of State made
clear that 'our aim is to make this the best place in the world for our
children and young people to grow up.' The words set out on the home
page of our website are intended as a close match to the original
expression, and were adjusted as part of routine editing of the website.

This doesn't make sense at all. The extent of the territory covered should be explicit somewhere on the Department's home page. And where better than in the mission statement?

And that territory is England.

A very strange reply indeed.

Looks like awful Ed Balls might be involved... Read Gareth's latest here.

Department For Children, Schools And Families Erases England - We Are Now Called "This"!

Gareth Young has discovered political and racist goings-on at the Department for Children, Schools And Families.

This "department" covers England only, and its mission statement used to read (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

Nice and clear, eh? A nice, clear statement with a commendable goal.

But now the statement reads (emphasis is mine):

"The purpose of the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to make this the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up."

This is worrying on two fronts:

1) It makes the area covered by the department unclear. Where on earth is "this"?

2) It opens up a whole can of worms about the New Labour project - including devolution, the West Lothian Question, anti-England/English racism and the Barnett Formula. The mission statement of the Department for Children, Schools And Families is now unclear. Somebody has been in there, muddying the waters, simply by "cleansing" out the word "England". And that also would seem to be a prime concern of "our" Government in its attempts to delude the people of England.

Gareth has sent a Freedom Of Information request -

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_has_the_word_england_been_re

Read Gareth's report here:

http://toque.co.uk/blog/?p=2548

Jim Fitzpatrick And The Department Of Transport Tell Lies - It's ENGLAND Not Britain...

Alfie was on the case when it came to Jim Fitzpatrick, England's Transport Minister, telling lies - making out that his remit covered Scotland and Wales too...

And a direct quote from Jim within the press release clinches it - "Britain has one of the best road safety records in the world and the number of people killed or hurt has fallen dramatically in the last decade. But too many people are still dying on our roads".

Yup – it’s all about Britain all right.... Wondering if I had missed something - and that Transport had been de-devolved back to Westminster, I decided to ring them – just to make sure.

“Hi, is that the section responsible for road safety?”

“Yes”...

“I’ve been watching Jim Fitzpatrick on the telly today – and the new initiative he is launching.... I notice that he keeps on saying it is a British-wide initiative. He keeps on saying it will cover ‘the whole country’. And that’s where I am getting a bit confused. I thought Transport was a devolved responsibility – so how, can Mr. Fitzpatrick be claiming a British jurisdiction when I know he simply does not have the power?”

“Errrrrrr, I’m not sure. Can you hang on a mo’?”

(I hung on for quite a few moes, actually).

“Hello – yes, well. Apparently, Mr. Fitzpatrick was only talking about England”.

“What!!!!!........ Only about England?”

“Yes. Only about England”

Read it all here.

And before you shrug and say "what does it matter?" may I point out that England is not Britain. Britain is Scotland, Wales and England. And when Government Ministers and Departments are lying to you about their remit there has to be something seriously amiss.

English Civil War - Rewritten As "British"...

I note that many historical resources around the Internet are referring to what we call the "English Civil War" as the "British Civil War". Surely, civil wars only take place within unified nations, and as Britain did not then exist as a nation, this terminology is inaccurate? I'm not saying that only England was involved in the unrest (I know for a fact that Scotland has its own terms for the era), but from England's perspective "English civil war" was a perfectly legitimate title for this time span. Why should it now be erased?

And what kind of National Archives nonsense is this?

Gallery 5: Why did Britain become a republic?

Aim

The primary focus here is on events from 1647-53 and the shock they caused in the kingdom. A secondary theme is that the execution of Charles and the setting up of the English republic was the result of the actions of a driven, minority group with a clear vision of the country they wanted to create. The existence and actions of these revolutionaries is sometimes overlooked.

Come on, dears, was it an English or British republic?

And then we have this:

Also, the “English” is a problem because it implies much more than “in England”. Even Conrad Russell, with his interest in the British problem, made the mistake of saying that before the entry of Scots and Irish units in 1643, the war was fought between Englishmen. Even before Mark Stoyle’s groundbreaking work in Soldiers and Strangers I was well aware that there were many non-English soldiers in the “English” armies. With his focus on the Welsh and Cornish, Stoyle has made the very concept of “England” look a lot more problematic than I used to think it was. It’s still useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, but perhaps not much more than that.

This brand of academic, England denying twaddle I cannot understand at all. Show me a "pure" Cornishman and I'll probably faint (these "Cornishmen" were not a distinct nationality anyway) and if England is only useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, why not Scotland and Wales?

Answers please...