You started the attacks in this thread. But yeah, K. whatever.

K. ! *happy*

Now.

Why'd your sailor's look like imbiciles? coz, honey, they did.

actually, duckies, they looked like cheese surrendering monkeys.

i don;'t think Nelson or even Churchill would be cool with that--but, y;know, WhaTEver!

Wow. That's incredible. I think you actually disappeared up your own arse. Well done Bri, quite an achievement.

Incidentally. It's worth pointing out that I can't find anything relating to this report on either the DfES site, or the BBC News: Education page. I suspect it's a load of bollocks.

[edit] I have now managed to track down the report, via the TES site. It's called Teaching Emotive and Controversial History: 3-19. It's basically a paper written by the Historical Association, which looks at teaching styles, possible constraints, possible solutions, issues around resources, issues around teacher training, good practice and bad practice etc. Its a 48 page report and on page 15, it cites a single, unnamed school as an example of some of the difficulties teachers might have teaching emotive and controversial history. Essentially it is listing that as its example of bad practice and then explores potential reasons why a teacher might have decided to avoid controversy. It in no way indicates a trend.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data...iles/RW100.pdf