If the "revisionist" view is dominant, then by pure definition and logic, Keith's misty eyed jingoistic drivel represents the revision, surely? Even if the Empire loving fools were right, then by challenging the accepted norm, they are being revisionist? You can't use it as an insulting word when technically the term applies to the other view, prat.

I love the bit where Keith said his pet historian took historical data into account when forming a view. On the gay bashing threads, he asserts that data is definitive and you can't form a view, because data is data full stop.

Why should anyone take anything he says seriously? Granted, I never have done but I can sniff the buggers out a mile off. Goes with the territory.