Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Wow, just wow. Wait until they're past the age of consent before learning about it properly?
Colorado representative Lauren Boebert, 36, announced she’s going to be a grandmother next month.
The Republican firebrand made the declaration earlier this week at a Moms for America event, from which video started making the rounds Thursday.
“Not only am I mom of four boys, but come April, I will be a GG to a brand new grandson,” she beamed.
Newsweek reports that the child’s father is Boebert’s 17-year-old son, Tyler.
Boebert’s announcement comes just days after she called for the elimination of “comprehensive sex ed” in public schools, according to Raw Story.
The son was 17 when he became a father, 100 years ago that wouldn't have been uncommon when we had more traditional family values and over the age of consent in his state
Would you mind answering the question? Is this the world you want now, today, not 100 years ago? Yes or no?
Plenty of things were better in the 1920s
I'm pretty conservative in my tastes. Yet I can't think of a single thing that was better in the 1920s. Train services, perhaps.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
It's a well known fact (recorded in lots of historical documents) that alien lifeforms having traveled billions of miles through space to reach Earth reveal themselves almost exclusively to humans living in North America...
Recent articles make it clear this is now acknowledged as a worldwide phenomenon - IF it is real
At some point you will need to erect a special PB statue to me
“US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles Whistleblower former intelligence official says government posseses ‘intact and partially intact’ craft of non-human origin”
“Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack”
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
OFSTED does not carry out fairly simple safeguarding checks on its inspectors, worryingly, and there have been multiple incidents where inspectors who should not have been working with children have caused harm.
I raised this with the DfE as the body responsible for monitoring them, to which they replied it was a procedural issue for OFSTED (which incidentally isn't correct). Because, ultimately, like OFSTED, they don't care about or even understand safeguarding.
If you doubt that statement, read these two stories:
Those well-known public schools were outside the state sector and therefore not inspected by Ofsted anyway.
A boarding school is a machine for generating sexual abuse of children. People talk about stranger danger... What about sending your children to LIVE "looked after" by strangers who obviously don't love them?
OFSTED does inspect some private schools, although you're right those probably wouldn't be included as routine. HMC schools are inspected by the ISI, who would - astonishingly - make Simon Case look competent.
However, they can intervene if they suspect serious shortcomings the ISI is overlooking. Ampleforth springs to mind as a recent example.
It doesn't however excuse them putting a paedophile into a classroom themselves.
At some point you will need to erect a special PB statue to me
“US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles Whistleblower former intelligence official says government posseses ‘intact and partially intact’ craft of non-human origin”
“Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack”
This review found strong evidence for the effectiveness of child sex abuse prevention efforts in elementary school. Such programs typically use behavioral practice and role-play [80] and encourage parental involvement [81,82]. They teach about body ownership and children's right to control their bodies [82] and about communication and self-protection [81,82]. A strong meta-analysis of 27 preschool through Grade 5 programs [80] and a systematic review of 24 K-5 programs [83] demonstrate significant effects on a wide range of outcomes, including behaviors in simulated at-risk situations. Another large systematic review concluded that, in general, parental involvement, opportunities for practice, repeated exposure, and sensitivity to developmental level were key characteristics of effective child sex abuse programs [81].
Improved knowledge, attitudes, skills and social–emotional outcomes related to personal safety and touch A systematic review of 22 North American and UK curricula for K-6 children found significant increases in knowledge across programs, improved self-protective skills, particularly among older elementary students, and emotional gains in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and feelings of safety, in approximately one third of the programs. Gains in knowledge and some social–emotional outcomes remained at 3- to 5-month follow-up [84]. In a rigorous cluster randomized study of six New York City elementary schools, Safe Touches for second and third graders showed significant improvement in knowledge of safe touch [85]. Notably, intervention–control group differences were larger when “stranger danger” items were removed, suggesting that this curriculum was able to address inappropriate touch in a more nuanced way. Stay Safe primary prevention, for 7- and 10-year-olds in Ireland, demonstrated gains in knowledge, skills, and self-esteem, maintained at 3-month follow-up. Notably, gains were greatest for the younger students [82].
Child abuse prevention programs for second to fourth graders demonstrated significant increases in knowledge of appropriate and inappropriate touch, what to do in an inappropriate situation [86], and increased knowledge and skill to identify unsafe situations [87]. A strong randomized study in 21 urban U.S. schools found gains were maintained at 1 year, with no increase in anxiety, concluding that it is safe to discuss sensitive subjects with young children, and demonstrating the value of early education [87]. A kindergarten program showed significant improvement in knowledge of unsafe secrets and distinguishing between tattling and reporting [88], and another program conducted with 123 Latinx preschoolers demonstrated increased knowledge and skills at post-test and 3-month follow-up [89].
Don't talk to strangers worked fine, we don't need leftwing academic studies pushing sex education and gender identity lessons in primary schools. Full stop
DTS didn't work.
"Talk" and "strangers" don't match the facts, in various ways. Uncle X don't want to talk when he wants playtime.
Yes it does work and always has, just it doesn't suit the ideology of you and your fellow leftwingers who want to sexualise young childrens' education.
Trying to use a paedophile argument is pathetic, the number of paedophile encounters is less than 1% for per 100 children and that is for social services and the police to sort out instead of yet another attempt by the left to undermine the traditional family.
The whole idea of DTS was to avoid paedophiles ... and plainly it is not working, given the scholarly evidence presented on this thread.
There is no 'scholarly evidence' apart from some research by 2 'professors of public health' at some minor American college and none of that at all justifies sexualisation of under 11s in education. Ross is just leading the anti Woke fightback the likes of Meloni and DeSantis and Badenoch are also leading on as the conservative right finally takes up the fight against the ultra Woke left who have been unchallenged for too long!
At some point you will need to erect a special PB statue to me
“US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles Whistleblower former intelligence official says government posseses ‘intact and partially intact’ craft of non-human origin”
“Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack”
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
Apparently other parents are sitting down of an evening and putting YouPorn on the TV during dinner or something.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
I learned to drive by the time I was fourteen.
I learnt to drive on a Fergie, and then, later and more rigorously, rear-wheel steer dumpers. Going from a rear-wheel steer dumper on building sites to cars on roads was interesting.
But... although I could 'drive', there was no way on God's earth I should have been allowed on the road at that time. There's a massive difference between being able to 'drive' and being safe on the roads.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
There are safeguards you can put in place to ensure only family friendly internet surfing. You can also insist computers are only in living rooms within parental viewing unto adulthood and not give children smartphones too early as well
Reading through the thread of the last couple of hours with HYUFD defending what he perceives to be 'family values' it is difficult to know where to interject. So easier just to make a fresh comment and say my piece without making it an answer to somebodies comment.
With my kids we always encouraged them from the very earliest age to ask questions about their bodies and feelings. We normalised this so that they did not feel upset or ashamed of anything that happened. By the time my daughter was 9 she was making it clear that she liked girls a lot more than boys. We played it light, didn't try to change her views and just let things take their course. As she grew up she confirmed in her own mind that she was gay and we treated it as completely normal - as of course it was/is. She has been in a steady relationship since she was 14 and is still with the same partner at the age of 22. She is extremely happy, has a life ahead of her with someone she loves (hopefully as of course we all know the old saying about how to make the gods laugh).
I think this is a complete vindication of the way we (and many others including her friends and other family) handled things. The trick is not to let artifical 'mores' (I use that word in place of the more normal 'morals') get in the way of doing the right thing.
So HYUFD is, in my eyes at least, completely wrong. Having an open and intelligent conversation with your kids about sex and relationships is not something that should wait until they reach puberty, by which time they are immersed in a soup of hormones and conflicting feelings. Let them go in with their eyes open and understanding what happens and they will find it much eaier to navigate what is, IMHO, probably the most difficult time in any of our lives. If parents are not willing or able to do this then other responsible adults need to take up the challenge and do it. Hence the need for age appropriate sex education in schools.
I commend your comment and look forward to HYUFD calling you a loony lefty
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
2 and 3 are highly interesting. 1 isn't. I go for explanation 2, but some of 3 could sensibly be mixed in with it if the notion of non-human intelligence is replaced with something that doesn't involve visitors from Zeta Reticuli but something else that some would consider to be even wackier.
What many people don't realise is that times are getting EVER RIPER for an explosion of wackiness that goes off the f*cking scale. 0s and 1s, and everything about them including "artificial intelligence", function as comfort blanket for those with their fingers in their ears who are oblivious to the trend.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Wow, just wow. Wait until they're past the age of consent before learning about it properly?
Colorado representative Lauren Boebert, 36, announced she’s going to be a grandmother next month.
The Republican firebrand made the declaration earlier this week at a Moms for America event, from which video started making the rounds Thursday.
“Not only am I mom of four boys, but come April, I will be a GG to a brand new grandson,” she beamed.
Newsweek reports that the child’s father is Boebert’s 17-year-old son, Tyler.
Boebert’s announcement comes just days after she called for the elimination of “comprehensive sex ed” in public schools, according to Raw Story.
The son was 17 when he became a father, 100 years ago that wouldn't have been uncommon when we had more traditional family values and over the age of consent in his state
Would you mind answering the question? Is this the world you want now, today, not 100 years ago? Yes or no?
Plenty of things were better in the 1920s
I'm pretty conservative in my tastes. Yet I can't think of a single thing that was better in the 1920s. Train services, perhaps.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
There are safeguards you can put in place to ensure only family friendly internet surfing. You can also insist computers are only in living rooms within parental viewing unto adulthood and not give children smartphones too early as well
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
The Catholic Church waves "hello!"
And yes, there is ample evidence. People aged 60-79 are much more likely to report having been abused as a child than people aged 20 to 39.
Stats for that? Say what you like about the Catholic church, at least they promote traditional marriage and having children and the family
How much sexual abuse is acceptable if you promote traditional marriage?
Only ever a small minority of Catholic priests were paedophiles
And those that were only for a small minority of the day.
Hmm, that is quite an admission from HYUFD, as of course, 'Catholic' very mucn includes the Church of England, as they themselves say. (And, if one pushes a point, other sects too.)
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
At my kids school, there is a child, who I shall call Jonah.
His parents gave him an iPhone, but they didn't allow data on it. It could only connect to the Internet via Wifi, and they set up a special home network (at great expense) that only allowed access to sites they approved.
While driving my children and Jonah to some event or another, he asked them to share a hotspot with him, and apparently he does that all day. So he always has data. At home, he's set up a Raspberry Pi that connects to the Internet via a VPN and then rebroadcasts this as a hidden Wifi AP that he can use.
I was really impressed by his technical nouse, and wondered if his parents had set these things up, so he could learn about technology while perusing porn.
But no. They are completely ignorant, and lecture everyone about how their son is superior to peers because they don't let him access dodgy sites.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
The Catholic Church waves "hello!"
And yes, there is ample evidence. People aged 60-79 are much more likely to report having been abused as a child than people aged 20 to 39.
Stats for that? Say what you like about the Catholic church, at least they promote traditional marriage and having children and the family
How much sexual abuse is acceptable if you promote traditional marriage?
Only ever a small minority of Catholic priests were paedophiles
And those that were only for a small minority of the day.
Hmm, that is quite an admission from HYUFD, as of course, 'Catholic' very mucn includes the Church of England, as they themselves say. (And, if one pushes a point, other sects too.)
On a forced choice I am more Catholic than evangelical but still an Anglican
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
There are safeguards you can put in place to ensure only family friendly internet surfing. You can also insist computers are only in living rooms within parental viewing unto adulthood and not give children smartphones too early as well
'Unto'. This keyboard was barely working as it was.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
Reading through the thread of the last couple of hours with HYUFD defending what he perceives to be 'family values' it is difficult to know where to interject. So easier just to make a fresh comment and say my piece without making it an answer to somebodies comment.
With my kids we always encouraged them from the very earliest age to ask questions about their bodies and feelings. We normalised this so that they did not feel upset or ashamed of anything that happened. By the time my daughter was 9 she was making it clear that she liked girls a lot more than boys. We played it light, didn't try to change her views and just let things take their course. As she grew up she confirmed in her own mind that she was gay and we treated it as completely normal - as of course it was/is. She has been in a steady relationship since she was 14 and is still with the same partner at the age of 22. She is extremely happy, has a life ahead of her with someone she loves (hopefully as of course we all know the old saying about how to make the gods laugh).
I think this is a complete vindication of the way we (and many others including her friends and other family) handled things. The trick is not to let artifical 'mores' (I use that word in place of the more normal 'morals') get in the way of doing the right thing.
So HYUFD is, in my eyes at least, completely wrong. Having an open and intelligent conversation with your kids about sex and relationships is not something that should wait until they reach puberty, by which time they are immersed in a soup of hormones and conflicting feelings. Let them go in with their eyes open and understanding what happens and they will find it much eaier to navigate what is, IMHO, probably the most difficult time in any of our lives. If parents are not willing or able to do this then other responsible adults need to take up the challenge and do it. Hence the need for age appropriate sex education in schools.
I commend your comment and look forward to HYUFD calling you a loony lefty
He isn't a loony lefty, he is a loony libertarian like Bart
Reading through the thread of the last couple of hours with HYUFD defending what he perceives to be 'family values' it is difficult to know where to interject. So easier just to make a fresh comment and say my piece without making it an answer to somebodies comment.
With my kids we always encouraged them from the very earliest age to ask questions about their bodies and feelings. We normalised this so that they did not feel upset or ashamed of anything that happened. By the time my daughter was 9 she was making it clear that she liked girls a lot more than boys. We played it light, didn't try to change her views and just let things take their course. As she grew up she confirmed in her own mind that she was gay and we treated it as completely normal - as of course it was/is. She has been in a steady relationship since she was 14 and is still with the same partner at the age of 22. She is extremely happy, has a life ahead of her with someone she loves (hopefully as of course we all know the old saying about how to make the gods laugh).
I think this is a complete vindication of the way we (and many others including her friends and other family) handled things. The trick is not to let artifical 'mores' (I use that word in place of the more normal 'morals') get in the way of doing the right thing.
So HYUFD is, in my eyes at least, completely wrong. Having an open and intelligent conversation with your kids about sex and relationships is not something that should wait until they reach puberty, by which time they are immersed in a soup of hormones and conflicting feelings. Let them go in with their eyes open and understanding what happens and they will find it much eaier to navigate what is, IMHO, probably the most difficult time in any of our lives. If parents are not willing or able to do this then other responsible adults need to take up the challenge and do it. Hence the need for age appropriate sex education in schools.
Can I just say that's a great anecdote.
As I said below, I think the important thing is not to lie about sex. If they ask a question, simplify it if you need to. But don't evade. And particularly don't lie.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
At my kids school, there is a child, who I shall call Jonah.
His parents gave him an iPhone, but they didn't allow data on it. It could only connect to the Internet via Wifi, and they set up a special home network (at great expense) that only allowed access to sites they approved.
While driving my children and Jonah to some event or another, he asked them to share a hotspot with him, and apparently he does that all day. So he always has data. At home, he's set up a Raspberry Pi that connects to the Internet via a VPN and then rebroadcasts this as a hidden Wifi AP that he can use.
I was really impressed by his technical nouse, and wondered if his parents had set these things up, so he could learn about technology while perusing porn.
But no. They are completely ignorant, and lecture everyone about how their son is superior to peers because they don't let him access dodgy sites.
At some point you will need to erect a special PB statue to me
“US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles Whistleblower former intelligence official says government posseses ‘intact and partially intact’ craft of non-human origin”
“Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack”
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh dear. But that is precisely the sort of problem one gets if one leaves sex education to the parents.
I'd recommend that HYUFD read the book on the West family, Happy like Murderers, but that would be unfair, as I couldn't bear to read more than part of the way in.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
Boarding schools were still going at it in the 60s and 70s, particularly the preparatory schools (which of course gave the minimum of sex education, if at all).
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
It's probably an indictment of how much time I spend here that my first thought was they were a particularly racy political polling company.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
You really are clueless
Many children are far more computer literate at 8 - 11 then their parents and will be influenced by their peers
It is absolutely sensible to address sex at a young age in a responsible and understanding way and to answer their questions honestly
We had a sleep over with one of our grandsons and his sister (9 & 11) this weekend and when, checking they were ready to sleep, our grandson said to his Grandma
'I am frightened'
'Why my darling ?'responded Grandma
'I am frightened of dying'
Immediately taking him into her arms Grandma gently said that all was well, he was safe and greatly loved and not to be afraid
He replied
'Thank you Grandma and anyway we will all be together in heaven someday'
Children are an utter joy and need to be trusted to understand honest answers to honest questions delivered without prejudice
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
They still aren't, respect for authority is important.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
2 and 3 are highly interesting. 1 isn't. I go for explanation 2, but some of 3 could sensibly be mixed in with it if the notion of non-human intelligence is replaced with something that doesn't involve visitors from Zeta Reticuli but something else that some would consider to be even wackier.
What many people don't realise is that times are getting EVER RIPER for an explosion of wackiness that goes off the f*cking scale. 0s and 1s, and everything about them including "artificial intelligence", function as comfort blanket for those with their fingers in their ears who are oblivious to the trend.
Yes, it’s already an INCREDIBLE story however it ends up. I am havering between 2 and 3. 1 is actually the more far fetched. A mass hallucination across the American elite?
A mix of 2 and 3 is also possible as you say. It’s notable that all this coincides as we edge closer to nuclear war than any time since 1963 and ALSO edge closer to creating our own “non-human intelligence”
What a time to be alive. And I am in a Kentucky bourbon distillery
At some point you will need to erect a special PB statue to me
“US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles Whistleblower former intelligence official says government posseses ‘intact and partially intact’ craft of non-human origin”
“Biden ‘knew of Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream’ three months before explosion Washington Post reports that European intelligence service told CIA Ukrainian military was planning attack”
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
You really are clueless
Many children are far more computer literate at 8 - 11 then their parents and will be influenced by their peers
It is absolutely sensible to address sex at a young age in a responsible and understanding way and to answer their questions honestly
We had a sleep over with one of our grandsons and his sister (9 & 11) this weekend and when, checking they were ready to sleep, our grandson said to his Grandma
'I am frightened'
'Why my darling ?'responded Grandma
'I am frightened of dying'
Immediately taking him into her arms Grandma gently said that all was well, he was safe and greatly loved and not to be afraid
He replied
'Thank you Grandma and anyway we will all be together in heaven someday'
Children are an utter joy and need to be trusted to understand honest answers to honest questions delivered without prejudice
What has telling her grandson he will go to heaven got to do with being taught about sex and gender identity under 10? Sod all!
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
2 and 3 are highly interesting. 1 isn't. I go for explanation 2, but some of 3 could sensibly be mixed in with it if the notion of non-human intelligence is replaced with something that doesn't involve visitors from Zeta Reticuli but something else that some would consider to be even wackier.
What many people don't realise is that times are getting EVER RIPER for an explosion of wackiness that goes off the f*cking scale. 0s and 1s, and everything about them including "artificial intelligence", function as comfort blanket for those with their fingers in their ears who are oblivious to the trend.
Yes, it’s already an INCREDIBLE story however it ends up. I am havering between 2 and 3. 1 is actually the more far fetched. A mass hallucination across the American elite?
A mix of 2 and 3 is also possible as you say. It’s notable that all this coincides as we edge closer to nuclear war than any time since 1963 and ALSO edge closer to creating our own “non-human intelligence”
What a time to be alive. And I am in a Kentucky bourbon distillery
How about option 4, the aliens are actually replacing the government "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" style, but in an impressive double-bluff being more open about the prospect of aliens so no-one suspects THEM of being just that.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
Because kids always asked their parents for permission to view porn, even before the advent of the internet.
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
At my kids school, there is a child, who I shall call Jonah.
His parents gave him an iPhone, but they didn't allow data on it. It could only connect to the Internet via Wifi, and they set up a special home network (at great expense) that only allowed access to sites they approved.
While driving my children and Jonah to some event or another, he asked them to share a hotspot with him, and apparently he does that all day. So he always has data. At home, he's set up a Raspberry Pi that connects to the Internet via a VPN and then rebroadcasts this as a hidden Wifi AP that he can use.
I was really impressed by his technical nouse, and wondered if his parents had set these things up, so he could learn about technology while perusing porn.
But no. They are completely ignorant, and lecture everyone about how their son is superior to peers because they don't let him access dodgy sites.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
They still aren't, respect for authority is important.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
They still aren't, respect for authority is important.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
Except in Ampleforth.
And OFSTED.
No, even Ampleforth now clearly separates the monastery and school. Though even in the 1970s the vast majority of monks there were decent, caring, intelligent teachers, including of course future Cardinal Basil Hume
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
They still aren't, respect for authority is important.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
Except in Ampleforth.
And OFSTED.
No, even Ampleforth now clearly separates the monastery and school. Though even in the 1970s the vast majority of monks there were decent, caring, intelligent teachers, including of course future Cardinal Basil Hume
Eh? The paedophile risk is eliminated by keeping the monks away from the children? That is really something you are saying.
Edit: Just for the record, you said "even Ampleforth now clearly separates the monastery and school".
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
They will learn it in the playground and far better being taught in a sensible way by the school and yes, primary schools, not least as many of the females will be starting puberty and need guidance
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
If you knew that bit of the A1 in 1961 ... it's hardly any distance from Marshall Meadows to Lamberton Toll, and - then - very little but sheep to applaud and cheer.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
Kids absolutely shouldn't be engaging in sex until they are young adults.
They should however be learning about it, at appropriate levels, before their hormones go wild rather than afterwards.
NO they should not. Absolutely not. They should only start to learn about sex, only at an appropriate level, from age 11 and only in more detail from 16, the age of consent
Okay.
So, when my eldest daughter was ten, one of her schoolfriends came to visit. She was the same age.
She (the schoolfriend) was extremely inappropriate towards me, to the point where I immediately went to get my wife and asked her to stay near me for the duration of this girl's visit, so she (the schoolfriend) never got to see me alone. This successfully dissuaded her from doing it any more (other than a few comments that got our eyebrows raising).
Should her parents have spoken to her about sex and what was and was not appropriate? I thought they should; she'd obviously picked up what she had from conversations with other children and what appeared to be early hormones. Personally, I thought she was going to be very vulnerable to any adult with paedophilic tendencies.
I take it you disagree?
Clearly an illustration of too much sexualisation of young people in our culture generally, when we didn't have as much sex in the media and more traditional Christian family values it was less of an issue
This particular event happened twenty years ago.
Kids have always talked between each other about sex. Discussions on that happened when I was a child in the Seventies, and this particular event happened twenty years ago.
Sexual abuse of children was more prevalent in the Seventies, Sixties, and Fifties - it was just brushed under the carpet and not discussed. Less sex in the media, more Christian family values, and more children getting abused and raped.
People just preferred to go into denial. That same tendency is visible in some today.
Is there any evidence there was more paedophilia in the fifties? I highly doubt it, we also had lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and a birthrate above replacement level
There certainly was in boarding schools. And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
No, it was enabled by insufficient safeguarding policies and procedures like now in who is hired and monitored and lack of background checks
It was enabled because the children had no idea what was happening to them in too many cases.
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
They still aren't, respect for authority is important.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
Except in Ampleforth.
And OFSTED.
No, even Ampleforth now clearly separates the monastery and school. Though even in the 1970s the vast majority of monks there were decent, caring, intelligent teachers, including of course future Cardinal Basil Hume
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
Where does she say they are "learning about sex?" Just because you don't teach Calculus in Primary doesn't mean you don't teach any maths.
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
My theory? Satellite tv. Endless channels need filling. Endless ghost hunting shows seeing ‘orbs’, commonly known as specks of dust. Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news. There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
Where does she say they are "learning about sex?" Just because you don't teach Calculus in Primary doesn't mean you don't teach any maths.
Miss, miss, what are the frogs doing in the pond?
Sorry, Lindsay, the Tories won't let me tell you. They're too keen on keeping you ignorant, I can't possibly think why.
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
I remember reading Maureen Lipman saying something like "If this nonsense carries on, you'll only be allowed to play yourself".
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
Big Bang answered this one well.
Sheldon: You can't be Professor Proton. You're not a scientist. Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
You never see them all in the same room, is all I'm saying.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
If you knew that bit of the A1 in 1961 ... it's hardly any distance from Marshall Meadows to Lamberton Toll, and - then - very little but sheep to applaud and cheer.
Edit: n ot even Marshall Meadows, but the roadhouse opposite the cemetery, pretty much.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
You really are clueless
Many children are far more computer literate at 8 - 11 then their parents and will be influenced by their peers
It is absolutely sensible to address sex at a young age in a responsible and understanding way and to answer their questions honestly
We had a sleep over with one of our grandsons and his sister (9 & 11) this weekend and when, checking they were ready to sleep, our grandson said to his Grandma
'I am frightened'
'Why my darling ?'responded Grandma
'I am frightened of dying'
Immediately taking him into her arms Grandma gently said that all was well, he was safe and greatly loved and not to be afraid
He replied
'Thank you Grandma and anyway we will all be together in heaven someday'
Children are an utter joy and need to be trusted to understand honest answers to honest questions delivered without prejudice
What has telling her grandson he will go to heaven got to do with being taught about sex and gender identity under 10? Sod all!
You misread my comment
He told his Grandma not the other way round
And the reason for the story is just how many questions and fears young children have and the way parents/grandparents deal with them
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
I did like Ian McKellen's turn on this on "Extras", I think "You see it's easy. I just PRETEND to be a wizard."
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
They will learn it in the playground and far better being taught in a sensible way by the school and yes, primary schools, not least as many of the females will be starting puberty and need guidance
@HYUFD's ignorance on this is limitless. For one thing he seems to think that age appropriate sex education is teaching children how to do sex.
More worryingly, keeping children ignorant as he wants to do will make them more vulnerable - not less - to abusers. Attitudes like his are not just daft. But dangerous.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
If you knew that bit of the A1 in 1961 ... it's hardly any distance from Marshall Meadows to Lamberton Toll, and - then - very little but sheep to applaud and cheer.
And what happens to a poor sheep if you hit it at 90mph?
I don't particularly want to join in the pile on on @HYUFD, but would like to point out that while "Don't talk to Strangers" is reasonable advice to young children, it is woefully inadequate as a substitute for sex education.
Very little sex abuse of children is from random strangers. Most of it is within families and step-families*, or via trusted "friends" of families, or authority figures like priests, sports coaches etc. Children need to be taught about body privacy and not to keep secrets about things they are not comfortable with.
*I appreciate the jokes about Step-moms on porn sites are meant as humour, but the ubiquity of this as a porn genre does say something about how incest and para-incest is seen by many men.
Apologies if this has already been commented on, but I see that Ian Blackford is standing down at next election. There must be every possibility of his constituency going back to the Lib Dems
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Yes, 21st Century Britons have moved on from the past, you and rednecks have not.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
They will learn it in the playground and far better being taught in a sensible way by the school and yes, primary schools, not least as many of the females will be starting puberty and need guidance
@HYUFD's ignorance on this is limitless. For one thing he seems to think that age appropriate sex education is teaching children how to do sex.
More worryingly, keeping children ignorant as he wants to do will make them more vulnerable - not less - to abusers. Attitudes like his are not just daft. But dangerous.
It is not 'ignorance' to ignore you kowtowing to the liberal consensus on this. Tough
If you want to teach under 10s in detail about sex and gender identity fine, I don't!
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
They will learn it in the playground and far better being taught in a sensible way by the school and yes, primary schools, not least as many of the females will be starting puberty and need guidance
That certainly applies to a good portion of the year 6s at my daughter's primary.
It's a sad state that people are still so hung up about it.
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
I did like Ian McKellen's turn on this on "Extras", I think "You see it's easy. I just PRETEND to be a wizard."
It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that pregnant teenagers are pregnant because they and/or their partners don't know how babies are made. Perhaps this is true in a few edge cases where people may have mental development issues. Many girls see pregnancy as a way of leaving home and being given the wherewithal to live. Assuming a decline in teenage motherhood is desirable (rather than welcoming it as a way to address population decline), I really don't think it can be addressed by sex education at a younger age.
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
They left out Jed Bartlet and Apocalypse Now. Although he did well to hide his accent
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
I respected the road users as at the time I was the only vehicle on the road and it is a long straight road
Maybe also because it was Jim Clark country who my father knew quite well
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
I did like Ian McKellen's turn on this on "Extras", I think "You see it's easy. I just PRETEND to be a wizard."
I think it was an exasperated Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man who said to Dustin Hoffman, "Oh for God's sake, dear boy, why can't you just ACT?"
Is Roaster Ross going to get outraged by pantomimes?
His argument seems to be pantomime dames don't push gender ideology
I don't think Drag Queen Story Hour does either. This is just Moray copying US nonsense.
'Encouraging children to develop a love of reading through imaginative story time, while promoting inclusion, diversity and acceptance...' Now nobody wants intolerance but 6 and under is rather young to be discussing Trans
We teach kinds younger than that that there are different sexes. Is that wrong too?
Well there are, that is a biological fact
And there are transgender people. That is a sociological fact.
Only through surgery and even with that and hormones treatment trans cyclists are no longer allowed to compete in female races as even with hormone suppression they still have an advantage over female cyclists https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/65718748
No, transgender people are transgender even without undergoing surgery.
Maybe if you'd been taught this stuff at a younger age you'd be a little more clued in to the facts.
So you want to teach 6 year olds they are transgender? No wonder you on the left are out of touch!
You're confusing being taught that you are something, with being taught about other people. No wonder the Tories are out of touch with humanity.
It is not appropriate for 6 year olds or even older primary school children. It should be a secondary school issue only
Bollocks.
I literally head the same arguments made about not exposing kids to gay ideology when Section 28 was a thing.
My then 4 year old only had one question about attending a same sex wedding.
'Which one of you throws the bouquet, and can you make sure my dad catches it?'
I have a 5 year old and it's not appropriate to discuss sexual intercourse at that age.
Your five year old presumably knows that there are men and women. They don't need to hear about intercourse to have an understanding of that fact. They don't need to know about penetration to understand that some couples are different genders and some couples are the same gender. They don't need to know what adults do with their genitals to know that sometimes people are born as one gender but prefer to live as another.
You don't need to deliver all the yucky truth about everything all at once.
Personally I wouldn't allow any sex education or discussion of gender identity in schools until pupils are 11 or over and have reached puberty
Wait until kids have hit puberty before discussing puberty?
Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted before closing the door.
Unless you are a paedophile kids shoudn't be engaging in or discussing sex until they have reached puberty absolutely
If you want to protect children from paedophiles you need to teach them well before puberty how to be alert to the sorts of behaviour which indicate someone who may want to harm them. One of those indicators may well be people seeking to sexualise a child or encourage them to behave in an inappropriately sexual way or to densitise them to adults doing so in front of a child.
On drag, there are drag acts which are harmless fun - like pantomime dames etc.., But there are some which are very sexualised and simply not appropriate for children. So it depends which ones we are talking about. Saying that all drag acts should be banned is as daft as saying that all are appropriate for children. Some are; some aren't.
I would also hope that any group - drag or no - wishing to get close to children are properly and thoroughly checked out first. I recently listened to the documentary "In Dark Corners" on iPlayer Sounds about prolific paedophile teachers in some well-known public schools and how they targeted vulnerable children and moved from school to school. It is a horrific story and we'd be naive in thinking it is not still happening. Safeguarding is simply not taken seriously enough in practice. Child abusers will do whatever it takes to get close to children in order to abuse them and behave like parasites on more respectable institutions, groups and movements in order to achieve their aims. We would do well to remember that and not dismiss such concerns as moral panics, as the IICSA final report (and earlier ones) clearly state.
An IICSA final report which is being proudly swept under a bulging carpet by the Party of @HYUFD.
To be honest, none of the parties have taken the IICSA reports seriously. None.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
But you do teach them about the existence of cars and road safety.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
No it isn't, they should not be learning about sex at primary school
They will learn it in the playground and far better being taught in a sensible way by the school and yes, primary schools, not least as many of the females will be starting puberty and need guidance
@HYUFD's ignorance on this is limitless. For one thing he seems to think that age appropriate sex education is teaching children how to do sex.
More worryingly, keeping children ignorant as he wants to do will make them more vulnerable - not less - to abusers. Attitudes like his are not just daft. But dangerous.
Regular readers will be aware I teach at a Special School. We have kids who have no concept of personal space. They will touch inappropriately as when they feel like it. How do we keep them safe in school and the wider community? How to we keep them safe from abuse or pregnancy? By ignoring it?
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Yes, 21st Century Britons have moved on from the past, you and rednecks have not.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Thank goodness we've moved on from that nonsense.
When we had more Christian morality we had fewer divorces and a birth rate below replacement level and less of a housing problem as we didn't have as many single adults to house
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
My theory? Satellite tv. Endless channels need filling. Endless ghost hunting shows seeing ‘orbs’, commonly known as specks of dust. Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news. There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Grifters?
The journalist who broke this story is an extremely senior New York Times veteran. These people are not loons. Nor do they need the money. They have reputations
“To be clear -- the Washington Post did not pass on our UAP story. Leslie and I took it to the Debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The Post needed more time and we couldn't wait. #UAP #UFOs #flyingsaucers #ET #aliens #extraterrestrials”
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
Then the Lord said to me, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters: hurry to the spoils!"
Drive and go forward; do not slow down the pace for me unless I tell you.
Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples
God commands you to speed. He sent galloping horses and jolting chariots unto Nineveh to punish their endless cruelty. You are a bad Christian.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Yes, 21st Century Britons have moved on from the past, you and rednecks have not.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Thank goodness we've moved on from that nonsense.
When we had more Christian morality we had fewer divorces and a birth rate below replacement level and less of a housing problem as we didn't have as many single adults to house
More unhappy marriages, especially marriages were men felt free to abuse their wives, was not better.
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
My theory? Satellite tv. Endless channels need filling. Endless ghost hunting shows seeing ‘orbs’, commonly known as specks of dust. Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news. There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Grifters?
The journalist who broke this story is an extremely senior New York Times veteran. These people are not loons. Nor do they need the money. They have reputations
“To be clear -- the Washington Post did not pass on our UAP story. Leslie and I took it to the Debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The Post needed more time and we couldn't wait. #UAP #UFOs #flyingsaucers #ET #aliens #extraterrestrials”
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
My theory? Satellite tv. Endless channels need filling. Endless ghost hunting shows seeing ‘orbs’, commonly known as specks of dust. Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news. There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Grifters?
The journalist who broke this story is an extremely senior New York Times veteran. These people are not loons. Nor do they need the money. They have reputations
“To be clear -- the Washington Post did not pass on our UAP story. Leslie and I took it to the Debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The Post needed more time and we couldn't wait. #UAP #UFOs #flyingsaucers #ET #aliens #extraterrestrials”
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
I respected the road users as at the time I was the only vehicle on the road and it is a long straight road
Maybe also because it was Jim Clark country who my father knew quite well
You really are at times very strange
But what if you had hit a sheep trying to cross? You may have had free lamp chops for a week but it wouldn't have been great news for the farmer who owned it nor obviously the sheep itself
“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”
😎😶
And on we rumble, endless attention seeking whistle blowers with no evidence. Keep believing, Leon, keep believing.
My point has always been that we are witnessing increasingly inexplicable behaviour from American officials - military, political, intel - which CAN only be explained if 1 you accept they are all going mad, 2 there is some incredibly massive psyops operation (who? When? Why?), or 3 they genuinely have evidence of non-human intelligence
Any of these explanations is surpassingly interesting. They all remain possible. Recent evidence points more towards explanation 3
My theory? Satellite tv. Endless channels need filling. Endless ghost hunting shows seeing ‘orbs’, commonly known as specks of dust. Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news. There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Grifters?
The journalist who broke this story is an extremely senior New York Times veteran. These people are not loons. Nor do they need the money. They have reputations
“To be clear -- the Washington Post did not pass on our UAP story. Leslie and I took it to the Debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The Post needed more time and we couldn't wait. #UAP #UFOs #flyingsaucers #ET #aliens #extraterrestrials”
The whistle blowers. The next generation Bob Lazars. No evidence anywhere. The ‘best’ evidence of UAPs totally underwhelming. Remember the balloon flap of recent months? What happened to that?
I'll try for a distraction - here's yet another story about actors not understanding the concept of acting
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...' Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all https://t.co/VqYDu701zh @emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
I remember reading Maureen Lipman saying something like "If this nonsense carries on, you'll only be allowed to play yourself".
'Authenticity' in acting is one of those concepts where I don't even understand why and how it arose as a supposedly progressive idea when pushed to the extremes we now see.
I get concerns about apparent lack of ethnic roles which are not stereotypes, and the solution of improving that with a combination of more roles which would be appropriate (and not distracting, like Benedict Cumberbatch playing Nelson Mandela or Idris Elba playing Oliver Cromwell) and race-blind casting where it doesn't even matter seems already to be working, yet at the exact same time the opposite of raceblind casting, where the actor should match exactly, or as near as possible, to the role, seems increasingly popular.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Yes, 21st Century Britons have moved on from the past, you and rednecks have not.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Thank goodness we've moved on from that nonsense.
When we had more Christian morality we had fewer divorces and a birth rate below replacement level and less of a housing problem as we didn't have as many single adults to house
More unhappy marriages, especially marriages were men felt free to abuse their wives, was not better.
Most divorces do not happen because of abuse now, they happen because of 'personal differences' or affairs
It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that pregnant teenagers are pregnant because they and/or their partners don't know how babies are made. Perhaps this is true in a few edge cases where people may have mental development issues. Many girls see pregnancy as a way of leaving home and being given the wherewithal to live. Assuming a decline in teenage motherhood is desirable (rather than welcoming it as a way to address population decline), I really don't think it can be addressed by sex education at a younger age.
I got as far as "Many girls see pregnancy as a way of..." and checked out. Why do I ever read your comments?
I don't particularly want to join in the pile on on @HYUFD, but would like to point out that while "Don't talk to Strangers" is reasonable advice to young children, it is woefully inadequate as a substitute for sex education.
Very little sex abuse of children is from random strangers. Most of it is within families and step-families*, or via trusted "friends" of families, or authority figures like priests, sports coaches etc. Children need to be taught about body privacy and not to keep secrets about things they are not comfortable with.
*I appreciate the jokes about Step-moms on porn sites are meant as humour, but the ubiquity of this as a porn genre does say something about how incest and para-incest is seen by many men.
It's not a pile on when he obviously finds it fun.
It's a really, really bad idea for kids to get their first sex education from YouPorn.
Because that is what's going to happen if we follow @HYUFD's suggestions.
(Also: has anyone else seen Euphoria. Man that's disturbing.)
I suggested sex education from 11 not never. Children shouldn't be watching YouPorn before 11 either and ideally not before 16 and only irresponsible parents would allow their children to watch pornography so young
At what age did you start watching it?
Indeed, he seems to know a lot more about YouPorn than I do. I've never even heard of it.
They specialise in educational videos about close knit families.
Oh no, not a video equivalent of the comedian community's "Aristocrats" joke?
Got it in one.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
It says all about 21st century Britain that support for traditional Christian morality makes you an American redneck apparently
Yes, 21st Century Britons have moved on from the past, you and rednecks have not.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Thank goodness we've moved on from that nonsense.
When we had more Christian morality we had fewer divorces and a birth rate below replacement level and less of a housing problem as we didn't have as many single adults to house
More unhappy marriages, especially marriages were men felt free to abuse their wives, was not better.
Most divorces do not happen because of abuse now, they happen because of 'personal differences' or affairs
Yes and 'personal differences' or affairs happened in the past too.
Now people have a way out rather than being trapped in a marriage with personal differences or affairs. Thank goodness.
You shouldn't teach children about road safety until they're old enough to drive
You don't teach children how to drive a car until they are old enough to drive ie 17 certainly
Utter nonsense
My father had me driving his car on a disused airfield when I was 13 and he taught me well as I actually passed my test on my 17th birthday, celebrating it by a high speed run from Berwick to the Scottish border (90 mph +)
Yes so you had no training on driving on a public highway before 17 then, I am also shocked you broke the speed limit so flagrantly BigG. I thought you were a law abiding citizen!
The secret is not to get caught and yes I passed my test on my 17th birthday in 1961
No, the secret and the law is to respect other road users by keeping to the speed limit
I respected the road users as at the time I was the only vehicle on the road and it is a long straight road
Maybe also because it was Jim Clark country who my father knew quite well
You really are at times very strange
But what if you had hit a sheep trying to cross? You may have had free lamp chops for a week but it wouldn't have been great news for the farmer who owned it nor obviously the sheep itself
The road was walled, clear and just the kind of thing one does when youthful
You are quite the most ridiculous far right evangelical so called Christian who frankly belongs in a different age and certainly is not an advert for Christ's teaching
I don't particularly want to join in the pile on on @HYUFD, but would like to point out that while "Don't talk to Strangers" is reasonable advice to young children, it is woefully inadequate as a substitute for sex education.
Very little sex abuse of children is from random strangers. Most of it is within families and step-families*, or via trusted "friends" of families, or authority figures like priests, sports coaches etc. Children need to be taught about body privacy and not to keep secrets about things they are not comfortable with.
*I appreciate the jokes about Step-moms on porn sites are meant as humour, but the ubiquity of this as a porn genre does say something about how incest and para-incest is seen by many men.
The apparent ubiquity of para-incest themes in pornography is something I really want to see proper scientific studies on. Is there a genuine mass market for this material, is it seen as a harmless taboo-bothering joke, or are users kind of put off by it?
Likewise, I find stories like Hopkins being disparaging about his roles in Thor to be rather snobbish of certain actors. I mean, good on him and others for getting paid for parts and roles they think little of, or productions they don't think are of great artistic merit (especially in these greenscreen heavy times), no harm in getting paid, but if you're rich enough already and you think it's beneath you why even bother?
At least he still puts in a bare minimum of effort when he's in something he doesn't give a shit about, which some actors don't.
To my mind some of the greatest acting ever must have been in the modern Planet of the Apes. Not just because Andy Serkis is a tremendous actor, but because of the people acting opposite the man in a suit covered in ping pong balls acting like a monkey right in front of them.
It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that pregnant teenagers are pregnant because they and/or their partners don't know how babies are made. Perhaps this is true in a few edge cases where people may have mental development issues. Many girls see pregnancy as a way of leaving home and being given the wherewithal to live. Assuming a decline in teenage motherhood is desirable (rather than welcoming it as a way to address population decline), I really don't think it can be addressed by sex education at a younger age.
I got as far as "Many girls see pregnancy as a way of..." and checked out. Why do I ever read your comments?
Because there's still a part of your brain that hasn't lost the capacity to think and reason?
It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that pregnant teenagers are pregnant because they and/or their partners don't know how babies are made. Perhaps this is true in a few edge cases where people may have mental development issues. Many girls see pregnancy as a way of leaving home and being given the wherewithal to live. Assuming a decline in teenage motherhood is desirable (rather than welcoming it as a way to address population decline), I really don't think it can be addressed by sex education at a younger age.
I got as far as "Many girls see pregnancy as a way of..." and checked out. Why do I ever read your comments?
Because there's still a part of your brain that hasn't lost the capacity to think and reason?
Comments
Jesus H Christ you can not be serious. This has to be a wind up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/04/ampleforth-has-put-death-rowjust-cromwell-did-monasteries/
“Military whistleblower goes public with claims US has secret UFO retrieval program: ‘Terrestrial arms race’”
https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1666076260966039552?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
But... although I could 'drive', there was no way on God's earth I should have been allowed on the road at that time. There's a massive difference between being able to 'drive' and being safe on the roads.
I go for explanation 2, but some of 3 could sensibly be mixed in with it if the notion of non-human intelligence is replaced with something that doesn't involve visitors from Zeta Reticuli but something else that some would consider to be even wackier.
What many people don't realise is that times are getting EVER RIPER for an explosion of wackiness that goes off the f*cking scale. 0s and 1s, and everything about them including "artificial intelligence", function as comfort blanket for those with their fingers in their ears who are oblivious to the trend.
His parents gave him an iPhone, but they didn't allow data on it. It could only connect to the Internet via Wifi, and they set up a special home network (at great expense) that only allowed access to sites they approved.
While driving my children and Jonah to some event or another, he asked them to share a hotspot with him, and apparently he does that all day. So he always has data. At home, he's set up a Raspberry Pi that connects to the Internet via a VPN and then rebroadcasts this as a hidden Wifi AP that he can use.
I was really impressed by his technical nouse, and wondered if his parents had set these things up, so he could learn about technology while perusing porn.
But no. They are completely ignorant, and lecture everyone about how their son is superior to peers because they don't let him access dodgy sites.
As I said below, I think the important thing is not to lie about sex. If they ask a question, simplify it if you need to. But don't evade. And particularly don't lie.
And that was to some extent enabled by children’s ignorance, and the desire if those in authority (which you seem to have inherited) to brush the whole matter under the carpet.
I'd recommend that HYUFD read the book on the West family, Happy like Murderers, but that would be unfair, as I couldn't bear to read more than part of the way in.
Honestly, sometimes you say things which would disgrace a gormless nitwit.
I am Chair of Trustees of a girls' primary school and we have very good age appropriate PHSE education and very strong safeguarding policies. And with my own children, they learnt a little about babies when their younger brother and sister were born and, as they asked questions as they grew older. It needs to be age appropriate. But the idea that you keep them in ignorance until puberty is utterly daft.
Many children are far more computer literate at 8 - 11 then their parents and will be influenced by their peers
It is absolutely sensible to address sex at a young age in a responsible and understanding way and to answer their questions honestly
We had a sleep over with one of our grandsons and his sister (9 & 11) this weekend and when, checking they were ready to sleep, our grandson said to his Grandma
'I am frightened'
'Why my darling ?'responded Grandma
'I am frightened of dying'
Immediately taking him into her arms Grandma gently said that all was well, he was safe and greatly loved and not to be afraid
He replied
'Thank you Grandma and anyway we will all be together in heaven someday'
Children are an utter joy and need to be trusted to understand honest answers to honest questions delivered without prejudice
Because they were lectured not to speak to the strangers. Not to Mr Master in the dorm.
However safeguarding and background and criminal records checks in boarding schools now are far more rigorous, as indeed they are in schools generally and the Scouts etc than they were in the 1970s
A mix of 2 and 3 is also possible as you say. It’s notable that all this coincides as we edge closer to nuclear war than any time since 1963 and ALSO edge closer to creating our own “non-human intelligence”
What a time to be alive. And I am in a Kentucky bourbon distillery
I'm sayin' nothing... 😀
And OFSTED.
HYUFD always feels like he'd be more at home with rednecks than in the UK.
A redneck came home and said to his father "Dad, I met the most INCREDIBLE girl in the world today. She's smart, she's beautiful, AND she's funny."
Dad pats his son on the back and walks him into the kitchen, "That's great, son. I'm proud of you for finding someone you like so much."
"That's not the best part, Dad. She's a VIRGIN."
At this point the father slams his hand down on the counter, "I forbid this relationship, son. I never want you to see this girl again. And if I find out you do, I'm going to give you the biggest whooping you ever had."
Tears stream down the son's face, "But, Dad, WHY? She's amazing and she likes me!"
"Well, son. If she ain't good enough for her own family, she ain't good enough for ours."
Edit: Just for the record, you said "even Ampleforth now clearly separates the monastery and school".
Michael Sheen: ‘I find it very hard to accept actors playing Welsh characters when they aren’t...'
Has he taken the concept of authentic casting to a whole new level? Ahead of his latest BBC drama Best Interests, the star explains all
https://t.co/VqYDu701zh
@emmarevell: This attitude is so exhausting. Acting by it's very definition is pretending to be something or someone you are not
@JonHollis9: Particularly given Michael Sheen has played a vampire, a werewolf, an angel, Jesus, Brian Clough, David Frost and Tony Blair (multiple times).
Imagine the state of his career if he were only allowed to play middle aged Welsh men.
Just because you don't teach Calculus in Primary doesn't mean you don't teach any maths.
Endless Bigfoot programmes- is this the episode where they finally find Bigfoot? Clearly not as it would have been headline news.
There is a huge market for this kind of stuff, and grifters gotta grift.
Sorry, Lindsay, the Tories won't let me tell you. They're too keen on keeping you ignorant, I can't possibly think why.
Sheldon: You can't be Professor Proton. You're not a scientist.
Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
He told his Grandma not the other way round
And the reason for the story is just how many questions and fears young children have and the way parents/grandparents deal with them
"You see it's easy. I just PRETEND to be a wizard."
More worryingly, keeping children ignorant as he wants to do will make them more vulnerable - not less - to abusers. Attitudes like his are not just daft. But dangerous.
Very little sex abuse of children is from random strangers. Most of it is within families and step-families*, or via trusted "friends" of families, or authority figures like priests, sports coaches etc. Children need to be taught about body privacy and not to keep secrets about things they are not comfortable with.
*I appreciate the jokes about Step-moms on porn sites are meant as humour, but the ubiquity of this as a porn genre does say something about how incest and para-incest is seen by many men.
"Traditional Christian morality" until a few decades ago was for young couple to hook up, accidentally get pregnant, then have a sudden wedding a few months before their first child was born.
Thank goodness we've moved on from that nonsense.
If you want to teach under 10s in detail about sex and gender identity fine, I don't!
It's a sad state that people are still so hung up about it.
[ducks]
😀
Maybe also because it was Jim Clark country who my father knew quite well
You really are at times very strange
We have kids who have no concept of personal space. They will touch inappropriately as when they feel like it. How do we keep them safe in school and the wider community?
How to we keep them safe from abuse or pregnancy?
By ignoring it?
The journalist who broke this story is an extremely senior New York Times veteran. These people are not loons. Nor do they need the money. They have reputations
“To be clear -- the Washington Post did not pass on our UAP story. Leslie and I took it to the Debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The Post needed more time and we couldn't wait. #UAP #UFOs #flyingsaucers #ET #aliens #extraterrestrials”
https://twitter.com/ralphblu/status/1665809626200264705?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Drive and go forward; do not slow down the pace for me unless I tell you.
Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples
God commands you to speed. He sent galloping horses and jolting chariots unto Nineveh to punish their endless cruelty. You are a bad Christian.
No evidence anywhere. The ‘best’ evidence of UAPs totally underwhelming. Remember the balloon flap of recent months? What happened to that?
I get concerns about apparent lack of ethnic roles which are not stereotypes, and the solution of improving that with a combination of more roles which would be appropriate (and not distracting, like Benedict Cumberbatch playing Nelson Mandela or Idris Elba playing Oliver Cromwell) and race-blind casting where it doesn't even matter seems already to be working, yet at the exact same time the opposite of raceblind casting, where the actor should match exactly, or as near as possible, to the role, seems increasingly popular.
Now people have a way out rather than being trapped in a marriage with personal differences or affairs. Thank goodness.
You are quite the most ridiculous far right evangelical so called Christian who frankly belongs in a different age and certainly is not an advert for Christ's teaching
At least he still puts in a bare minimum of effort when he's in something he doesn't give a shit about, which some actors don't.
To my mind some of the greatest acting ever must have been in the modern Planet of the Apes. Not just because Andy Serkis is a tremendous actor, but because of the people acting opposite the man in a suit covered in ping pong balls acting like a monkey right in front of them.