www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213256...ls-subject-GCSE.html

This is why so many young people now leaving school have no appreciation or understanding about the World they live in.

It also shows how they are "easily manipulated" because they dont understand how to look at the evidence of events ( Locked Out is a good example of someone who approaches subjects forensically and the sort of person our schools should be turning out )

Read the article - you wont believe me if I tell you what is in it. You will say it is a conspiracy theory.

I took my GCSEs 14 years ago and we didn't have to do history from age 13 either. It was an optional subject so I don't think this is anything new ?

What an interesting quote. I wonder if you would care to enlighten us all with why you think people shouldn't approach things forensically... although I personally doubt that you will either define "forensically" or provide a satisfactory answer. Suggesting that {like you} we believe simply what we want to believe rather than believing the evidence of our own eyes {or ears}, are we?
Or are you seriously stating that the teaching of history should be a compulsory subject. Whose version of history, anyway? Your version? The one that would teach children about that well known Lefty Adof Hitler?
Tread carefully, BR. Very carefully.

What is new :

Before 13 it is now not taught as a subject - it is merged in a Social Sciences or humanities framework.

After 14 as a GCSE it used to have 55% Of kids to 65% doing it before New Labour came to power.

That has now reduced to 30%.

Before it used to be a straight choice between History or Geography at post 14 ( that was the national curriculum rule ) but when New Labour came in because results were "poor" in History and Geography compared to soft subjects - they removed that part of the choice.

So now History is up against about another 10 subjects including all sorts of weird stuff that is now a GCSE.

That is how dumbing down is done. The choice remains but it is not a choice. If you will get a A* in a soft subject why would you take History where you would have a B grade for the same amount of work.

Subtle dumbing down.

Historians like myself are the main people who can see what is happening to our society and how the MEDIA has become very very untrue.

The NEWS for instance has not asked yet WHERE the QE money has gone ( all £150 Billion of it ) yet they pretend the Stock Market going up every day is because of green shoots. Well - it is clear that the QE money is actually propping up the Stock Market - each day they wait and see if it goes down then if it does they pile in QE money to make sure by the end of day and particularly the week it is in positive territory.

The Bank of England now owns so many stocks via its QE programme no wonder the Tories are proposing a "TELL SID" campaign if they get in - to get rid of them.

The average person out there has not got a clue about the real situation. We are all being taken for MUGs but those of us old enough to have done History before it became a minority subject can see through this government's deceit. We will also be telling everyone else as well.

Remember I am not a conspiracy theorist at all - I am a Political Historian. I base my view on hard evidence not "confidence" or "Lack of confidence" both of those can be manipulated.

I took my O Levels in 1979/80, and only studied history as part of Social Studies for 2 years then dropped it at 14, so there really doesn't appear to be anything novel in this.

As for dumbing down, I am reminded of a wonderful old Latin teacher. His O Level classes consisted mainly of doing old papers he had been collecting since 1946. I was terrified at first, but could see them getting progressively easier. The one I actually sat in 1980 was the easiest of all, so this would suggest that the dumbing down process is far older than people believe.

There is however plenty of proof that the government is hell bent on dismantling freedom, and there is nothing better than easing down on education for facilitating the control of the masses.

"Remember I am not a conspiracy theorist at all"
The trouble with you, BR, is that you have absolutely no idea exactly what you do believe.
One minute EDL are the champions of the working class. The next moment you "don't believe in class".
In one posting you claim that New Labour are "Nazis", marching to the tune of the "Fascist" New World Order.
Then you claim that the leader of the Nazi party was "a socialist". By your standards, probably.
And you wonder why, when you have demonstrated how capable you are of sensible stuff I agree 100 percent with, I have such a problem with the fact that the rest of what you write is such utter garbage?
An historian? Isn't that what they call David Irving?