How was King John of England a bad king?

Question

help please

Answer 1

King John's reign has been traditionally characterised as one of the most disastrous in English history: it began with defeats—he lost Normandy to Philip Augustus of France in his first five years on the throne—and ended with England torn by civil war and himself on the verge of being forced out of power. In 1213, he made England a papal fief to resolve a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, and his rebellious barons forced him to sign Magna Carta in 1215, the act for which he is best remembered.

As far as the administration of his kingdom went, John functioned as an efficient ruler, but he lost approval of the English barons by taxing them in ways that were outside those traditionally allowed by feudal overlords. The tax known as scutage, payment made instead of providing knights (as required by feudal law), became particularly unpopular. John was a very fair-minded and well informed king, however, often acting as a judge in the Royal Courts, and his justice was much sought after.

John was talented in some respects, good at administrative detail, but suspicious, unscrupulous, and mistrusted. He was compared in a recent scholarly article, perhaps unfairly, with Richard Nixon. His crisis-prone career was sabotaged repeatedly by the halfheartedness with which his vassals supported him—and the energy with which some of them opposed him. In 2006, he was selected by the BBC History Magazine as the 13th century's worst Briton.

Answer 2

He was Bush-like!

Answer 3

He didn't help improve his country or its people in any way whatsoever.

Answer 4

He consorted with ancestors of the Bush family.  He argued with the Pope and Arthur of Brittany claiming they had weapons of mass destruction.  He engaged in numerous invasions  whereby he turned many people against him.  His popularity washed away like a castle in the sand as he over taxed the poor, catered to the wealthy and created a nation of poverty.  Some things just never change.