If allowed to stray from WW2, perhaps the Sopwith Dolphin and Martinsyde Buzzard could be considered very effective but largely unknown except for enthusiasts and therefore generally underrated?

So because of almost certainly unfounded and ill informed suspicions encouraged by such rags that makes it OK for them to write inaccurate and inflammatory pieces?

Any school that was unhappy with the OCR specification could simply change to Edexcel to name but one. No one is being forced to work through a particular specification

Re: the GCSE.

I think the Torygraph took this from The Mail On Sunday’s article.

That was a classic case of the headline of the MoS website not actully having much relevance to the truth of the matter, or even compared to what was written in the full text of the article.
Headline was

GCSE pupils to be taught that the nation’s earliest inhabitants were Africans who were in Britain before the English

As quite often happens with the Fail’s website, this was factually incorrect. For not only were there inhabitants in britain many thousands of years before the period referred to in the article, if you actually read it, soon it became clear that what the module was talking about was the stationing of an African legion on the Wall in the third century AD before the migration of the Anglo-Saxons in the fifth and sixth centuries which of course was technically accurate.

The concept of the ‘english’ as a nation didn’t appear until the Eighth century and was not realy fulfilled as a political entity until the tenth century.

Do I agree with the approach of said module if really as reported, no of course not.
Is it likely that the module is to be as simplistic as displayed by this moral outrage in two poorly written articles, no again.

Re:#19
charming language there.

Re#18
A simplistic argument, often used by those who bully others.

I have had extensive experience of dealing with bullies both on a personal level and professionally for thirty years Bullying and threats come in many forms, including on forums such as this

That would not square with my particular view of the world.

NSS

I can assure you that the feeling is entirely mutual.

Shooting someone in the back really shows what stern stuff he was made of, clearly a hero.

Courage is easy from an armchair or from the keyboard, the reality may be quite different if actually confronted.

Using a pump action shotgun, even on on unarmed criminals,is not courageous. Don’t forget he is still has a manslaughter conviction.

To answer your question, If I found intruders in my house I wouldn’t fight back, it wouldn’t be worth it.

I nominate that as the weirdest statement of the year.

Why weird?

If I was threatened in my own home and outnumbered by people who are much more likely to be violent than not in that situation, it would be pointless as I would get injured. I’d much rather loose property than my health. It’s only stuff.

And yes, I am aware how violating being burgled can be, but I’d rather be healthy and without stuff that I can (mostly) replace than be injured and most likely without my stuff anyway.

We will never agree.
He killed a man with an illegally held weapon. I don’t have an illegal weapon nor do I live in a world where that would be deemed acceptable. As to the intruders? As far as I am aware they were not armed, and there was clear evidence given at the trail that Tony Martin laid in wait for them. That Is why he was convicted on the majority verdict of a jury of murder.
They were clearly criminals but then so was Tony Martin. He had had his shotgun licence removed before this event for shooting at the back of a landrover when someone else was in it.

To answer your question, If I found intruders in my house I wouldn’t fight back, it wouldn’t be worth it.

He is a criminal in my eyes, and I don’t slavishly follow the herd mentality on these things. No one of my aquaintance was ‘outraged’ by his jailing in the first place so it was perhaps the typical hyped up moral outrage in the right wing press that makes you think It was a universal thing as it seems many don’t think out of the Torygraph/daily wail box.
If the only sources of information are limited to one perspective,then it is not surprising that one might think everyone agrees.