It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Yes. We should continue to devote all threads to you, your trips, your photos, and your monothematic obsessions.
How can you have monothematic obsessions PLURAL?
I have multiple obsessions. I am diverse in my manias
That's true, Leon also has UFO's, which I also find interesting.
Talking of which, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very bizarre situation today. There has been *no official denial* from the US inspectorate of intelligence, on the quote that they find Grusch's absolutely breathtaking claims "credible and urgent" , a Senator has confirmed today that hearings will be held as a result, and most of the media are still not touching the story for fear of being seen as nutters, and the stigma surrounding this sort of topic. Very, very odd indeed.
You're obviously not worried about being seen as a nutter then?
No. I've followed this story quite carefully. This Grusch character seems to have been one of many people coming forward to the US inspectorate of intelligence for about two years, and on which they've no denial. His story is that and he and they have shared much more comprehensive details with the US IG, and that this will all be able to come out in the congressional hearings anounced today, if it's legally possible.
Meanwhile, the approach of most of the British and American media this week has been "nothing to see here, possibly lone nutter".
This is essentially not because of the stage the process is at, but purely because the claims are so outlandishly bizarre.
It's all very, very odd, as I mentioned.
But the assertion the media are shying away because they're scared of being thought fruitcakes - could it not be that the paucity of coverage is because (rightly or wrongly) they don't at present judge it to be much of a story?
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Is he? Polls don't actually show that, and the dripping sneer of "white van man believes whatever The S*n tells them" doesn't really endear them to vote Tory.
Yes they do.
In 2019 the Conservatives got 47% with skilled working class C2s under Boris but just 45% with upper middle class ABs.
The Conservatives got only 34% from voters with degrees in 2019 but 47% amongst those with other qualifications and 54% amongst those with no qualifications.
Boris also only won 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to 43% nationally but won 47% amongst voters earning £20-39k.
The LDs by contrast won 20% amongst voters earning over £70k but just 11% amongst voters earning £20-39k
Of course the SCons have happened upon the cracking wheeze of never having had to highlight their manifest incompetence by virtue of never having a sniff of a ministership in Holyrood. Won't either in your or my lifetimes I'd wager.
That doesn't sound like a wager that it is going to be easy to cash in on. A coalition including the Tories is not an impossible outcome in the next electoral cycle or two.
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Yes. We should continue to devote all threads to you, your trips, your photos, and your monothematic obsessions.
How can you have monothematic obsessions PLURAL?
I have multiple obsessions. I am diverse in my manias
That's true, Leon also has UFO's, which I also find interesting.
Talking of which, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very bizarre situation today. There has been *no official denial* from the US inspectorate of intelligence, on the quote that they find Grusch's absolutely breathtaking claims "credible and urgent" , a Senator has confirmed today that hearings will be held as a result, and most of the media are still not touching the story for fear of being seen as nutters, and the stigma surrounding this sort of topic. Very, very odd indeed.
You're obviously not worried about being seen as a nutter then?
No. I've followed this story quite carefully. This Grusch character seems to have been one of many people coming forward to the US inspectorate of intelligence for about two years, and on which they've no denial. His story is that and he and they have shared much more comprehensive details with the US IG, and that this will all be able to come out in the congressional hearings anounced today, if it's legally possible.
Meanwhile, the approach of most of the British and American media this week has been "nothing to see here, possibly lone nutter".
This is essentially not because of the stage the process is at, but purely because the claims are so outlandishly bizarre.
It's all very, very odd, as I mentioned.
But the assertion the media are shying away because they're scared of being thought fruitcakes - could it not be that the paucity of coverage is because (rightly or wrongly) they don't at present judge it to be much of a story?
I don't think so. There's easily enough procedural weight to cover a major story.
Two years of testimony to the US inspector-general ; no official denial of this ; congressional hearings to investigate all these testimonies announced today. One would have to conclude from this that the main reason is just the stigma of the subject itself, and also just how bewildering the claims, themselves, are.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
As Oscar Wilde might have observed in this situation, "One would have to have a heart of stone to read of the disappointment of Mad Nad without dissolving into tears … of laughter."
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Boris isn't working class though!
Lumpen haute bourgeoisie.
Basically, in terms of how posh the voter is it now goes:
1 LDs or Alliance in NI 2 Sunak Tories or UUP 3 Starmer Labour 4 Greens or Corbyn Labour 5 DUP 6 SNP/Plaid/SF 7 Boris Tories 8 RefUK/Reclaim 9 For Britain or other British Nationalist Party
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Nah
Ok. Well if you won't resile from it - and I understand why you'd refuse to do that, it's a lot to ask - will you at least admit it was risible and wrong and walk it back?
She comes across in this interview with Gideon Rachman as bright, eloquent and knowledgeable. However I left it feeling distinctly uneasy. One of the comments underneath the video highlights all the things she fails to mention in her remarks. A couple of the things she did say left me a little flabbergasted. On the issue of democracy in China she thought that many young people had been put off by the 'chaos' in Hong Kong. I suppose chaos is one word you could use to describe it. As for tensions between the US and China she very much takes the 'both sides' approach, ignoring China's consistent wolf warrior diplomacy and belligerence. What of all the other countries in south east Asia and the threats they feel from the CCP? In her view the best way to resolve the conflict in the Taiwan strait is between the parties on both sides (suggesting that it is US involvement that is making war more likely). She mentions the one child policy in China and how the only child in her class at school who had a sibling was a Uighur. That was the last mention of Uighurs in the discussion.
This is one of our top universities but I've always felt there was something odd about the LSE. Remember Colonel Gaddafi's son? And it does seem to be the Labour Party's university of choice. Perhaps because it is more classless than Oxbridge seems to be?
There is a traditional rivalry between my alma mater, UCL, and LSE
They once stole the head of our founder Jeremy Bentham. Bastards
Also, the only real bar brawl I have ever seen was between UCL and LSE students when all of us in Ramsay Hall of residence went drinking in their hall next door. It was the proper stuff. Hurled glasses and broken mirrors and waist coated barmen ducking the flying bottles
I confess I simply hid
Why on Earth would you want to drink in Carr Saunders? Not even Carr Saunders residents drank there.
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
Anyone adult of sound mind who relies on the word of Boris Johnson richly deserves to suffer the consequences.
Fortunately for ND?MP? the "sound mind" proviso lets her off the hook.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
As Oscar Wilde might have observed in this situation, "One would have to have a heart of stone to read of the disappointment of Mad Nad without dissolving into tears … of laughter."
Boris Johnson was informed that Nadine Dorries’s peerage had been rejected as far back as February, senior government sources have said, contradicting claims that the former prime minister was unaware his nominations had been blocked until recently.
Dorries said that she had been told by Johnson last week that she would be included on the list and accused Rishi Sunak of “duplicitously and cruelly” in blocking her from getting a peerage.
But her account has been disputed by the government, which said Johnson had been given prior warning that Dorries could not take up a peerage unless she made clear she would immediately stand down as an MP. They added that the warning was “done in time” to allow Johnson to inform Dorries that she would have to step down to be considered by the House of Lords appointments commission (Holac).
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Is he? Polls don't actually show that, and the dripping sneer of "white van man believes whatever The S*n tells them" doesn't really endear them to vote Tory.
Yes they do.
In 2019 the Conservatives got 47% with skilled working class C2s under Boris but just 45% with upper middle class ABs.
The Conservatives got only 34% from voters with degrees in 2019 but 47% amongst those with other qualifications and 54% amongst those with no qualifications.
Boris also only won 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to 43% nationally but won 47% amongst voters earning £20-39k.
The LDs by contrast won 20% amongst voters earning over £70k but just 11% amongst voters earning £20-39k
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Boris isn't working class though!
Lumpen haute bourgeoisie.
Basically, in terms of how posh the voter is it now goes:
1 LDs or Alliance in NI 2 Sunak Tories or UUP 3 Starmer Labour 4 Greens or Corbyn Labour 5 DUP 6 SNP/Plaid/SF 7 Boris Tories 8 RefUK/Reclaim 9 For Britain or other British Nationalist Party
Has Boris started his own party? That's news to me!
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
Anyone adult of sound mind who relies on the word of Boris Johnson richly deserves to suffer the consequences.
Fortunately for ND?MP? the "sound mind" proviso lets her off the hook.
Anyone with a sound mind might have appreciated that Sunak was not particularly going to welcome a by election in her constituency and was unlikely to lift a finger to help. And loathe though I am to let him off with anything these days I am not completely convinced that the blame for this can be laid at Boris's door.
Dorries said that she had been told by Johnson last week that she would be included on the list and accused Rishi Sunak of “duplicitously and cruelly” in blocking her from getting a peerage.
If Boris told me something that turned out not to be true I know who would be first on my list of people likely to have been duplicitous, and it wouldn't be Rishi...
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Is he? Polls don't actually show that, and the dripping sneer of "white van man believes whatever The S*n tells them" doesn't really endear them to vote Tory.
Yes they do.
In 2019 the Conservatives got 47% with skilled working class C2s under Boris but just 45% with upper middle class ABs.
The Conservatives got only 34% from voters with degrees in 2019 but 47% amongst those with other qualifications and 54% amongst those with no qualifications.
Boris also only won 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to 43% nationally but won 47% amongst voters earning £20-39k.
The LDs by contrast won 20% amongst voters earning over £70k but just 11% amongst voters earning £20-39k
Now while the Conservatives still do better with working class C2DEs than middle class ABC1s by 27% to to 24%, Rishi is preferred as PM by 27% of middle class ABC1s relative to Starmer but only 23% of working class C2DEs https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g63pvg88hg/TheTimes_VI_230531_W.pdf
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
It's an odd one. She was rejected for the Lords because she hadn't resigned as an MP and on hearing this bad news she resigned as an MP, ending up with nothing. If she was happy to give up her seat why didn't she do it before the cut-off for the Lords process and so secure her peerage?
Do we have a woman here who was misled, mistreated, and betrayed by Boris Johnson?
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
It’s not as if she has a track record of tweeting about dodgy Lords appointments stuffing the chamber and repeatedly calling for its size to be limited and trimmed back, after all.
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Nah
Ok. Well if you won't resile from it - and I understand why you'd refuse to do that, it's a lot to ask - will you at least admit it was risible and wrong and walk it back?
@Leon loves him because a person that might in some way be connected with Leon, we will call him Sean, had an article published by Bozo, when Bozo was editor, even though it was full of rude words. Sean thought this made Bozo a good guy who wanted to give him a chance.
The sad reality is that Bozo probably didn't bother to take the time to read it and just waved it through.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
It's an odd one. She was rejected for the Lords because she hadn't resigned as an MP and on hearing this bad news she resigned as an MP, ending up with nothing. If she was happy to give up her seat why didn't she do it before the cut-off for the Lords process and so secure her peerage?
Do we have a woman here who was misled, mistreated, and betrayed by Boris Johnson?
Because she wanted to spare Mr Sunak the by-election, and was willing instead to accept the elevation after the next election?
According to the Parliament website Nadine Dorres is still a MP!
No sign of any appointment on the HM Treasury website.
I’m beginning to think she’s going to u-turn on her resignation.
I really don't have any sympathy to spare for Mad Nad but if she is told she can't get her peerage because she is not resigning in the next 6 months and if her response is, well I resign then, only to be told that she still isn't getting a peerage I can understand why she might feel a tad cross.
Anyone adult of sound mind who relies on the word of Boris Johnson richly deserves to suffer the consequences.
Fortunately for ND?MP? the "sound mind" proviso lets her off the hook.
Anyone with a sound mind might have appreciated that Sunak was not particularly going to welcome a by election in her constituency and was unlikely to lift a finger to help. And loathe though I am to let him off with anything these days I am not completely convinced that the blame for this can be laid at Boris's door.
His Majesty's Government possesses many, many powers, and traditional HMGs have deployed them in the government interest.
Which to my fool mind, legitimately includes fucking over rebel MPs of the government party.
Give 'em a bit of stick . . . right up their honourable hindquarters.
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Nah
Ok. Well if you won't resile from it - and I understand why you'd refuse to do that, it's a lot to ask - will you at least admit it was risible and wrong and walk it back?
@Leon loves him because a person that might in some way be connected with Leon, we will call him Sean, had an article published by Bozo, when Bozo was editor, even though it was full of rude words. Sean thought this made Bozo a good guy who wanted to give him a chance.
The sad reality is that Bozo probably didn't bother to take the time to read it and just waved it through.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
It seems like straightforward copyright/contract law to me. If the school wishes (or is required) to share teaching materials then it needs to find a different supplier.
While I think sex education in schools is important, it's an area that - as a parent - I view as primarily the parents' responsibility. Schools are there to ensure there's not a vacuum when parents, for whatever reason, do not wish to or are unable to fulfil that role.
I do think, in general, that parents should be able to see what their children are being taught in schools, but that may require government rules on copyright/contracts for school suppliers - i.e. that sharing materials with parents has to be part of any school's contract with a supplier. It's useful in all kinds of areas to see what your child is learning, to best help them. When it was all textbooks coming home, that was straightforward. With more electronic learning resources it needs to be addressed.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Of course the SCons have happened upon the cracking wheeze of never having had to highlight their manifest incompetence by virtue of never having a sniff of a ministership in Holyrood. Won't either in your or my lifetimes I'd wager.
That doesn't sound like a wager that it is going to be easy to cash in on. A coalition including the Tories is not an impossible outcome in the next electoral cycle or two.
That would depend on SLab being stupid enough to be tainted by doing the Conservative & Unionist party’s dirty work for a second time, something that can never be discounted. I’d still be happy to take a bet on there still being no SCon cabinet minister by say 2043 which touch wood we might both be around to see (and capable of stringing a thought together).
Of course the SCons have happened upon the cracking wheeze of never having had to highlight their manifest incompetence by virtue of never having a sniff of a ministership in Holyrood. Won't either in your or my lifetimes I'd wager.
Probably slightly more chance than there being a majority of Scots who would be mad enough to vote for independence lol
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
If I’m honest, I thought this was an American story before I read it. I read a fair bit of American cultural stuff where this sort of story is common. Very surprised to see it in the UK, and hope that the appetite courts can sort it out.
Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated story, recent British expats to Dubai are saying that schools are one of the top reasons to relocate themselves 3,500 miles.
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Nah
Ok. Well if you won't resile from it - and I understand why you'd refuse to do that, it's a lot to ask - will you at least admit it was risible and wrong and walk it back?
@Leon loves him because a person that might in some way be connected with Leon, we will call him Sean, had an article published by Bozo, when Bozo was editor, even though it was full of rude words. Sean thought this made Bozo a good guy who wanted to give him a chance.
The sad reality is that Bozo probably didn't bother to take the time to read it and just waved it through.
Of course the SCons have happened upon the cracking wheeze of never having had to highlight their manifest incompetence by virtue of never having a sniff of a ministership in Holyrood. Won't either in your or my lifetimes I'd wager.
That doesn't sound like a wager that it is going to be easy to cash in on. A coalition including the Tories is not an impossible outcome in the next electoral cycle or two.
That would depend on SLab being stupid enough to be tainted by doing the Conservative & Unionist party’s dirty work for a second time, something that can never be discounted. I’d still be happy to take a bet on there still being no SCon cabinet minister by say 2043 which touch wood we might both be around to see (and capable of stringing a thought together).
Hmm...I would be 81 or 82 by then. Old enough to become a President of the US. Or gaga as it is more colloquially known.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
So fix a meeting. Don't try to go with FOI requests.
In the Bible it is stated that only 144,000 people will be saved (Revelation 7:4-8 and Revelation 14:1-5), so you need to have been pretty bloody good to get into heaven.
Revelation is the words of John the Elder, not Jesus nor God. It is a great read though and as it sets out a post apocalypse world hardly surprising not that many are still around to be saved anyway
But Revelation must be true, it predicted Chernobyl!
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Boris isn't working class though!
Lumpen haute bourgeoisie.
Basically, in terms of how posh the voter is it now goes:
1 LDs or Alliance in NI 2 Sunak Tories or UUP 3 Starmer Labour 4 Greens or Corbyn Labour 5 DUP 6 SNP/Plaid/SF 7 Boris Tories 8 RefUK/Reclaim 9 For Britain or other British Nationalist Party
I hope you haven't wasted more than a minute of your valuable time constructing this utter ballcocks!
With reference to blue kerfluffle over Boris Johnson's defenstration dishonours list, seems to me available evidence suggests that:
> Sunak & Co were more than willing, indeed increasingly willing, to screw over BoJo and his crony claque.
> AND that they were careful to disclose (backed up by record) that they informed BoJo of certain difficulties in his path, in timely manner to be rectified IF Boris or any of his fellow chowderheaded wastrels and widepeople had wits enough to comprehend and cope.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
That’s one of our local schools. Once the place to be in the area, has fallen somewhat from its perch due to complacency. So it doesn’t surprise me they’ve got themselves embroiled in this kind of issue.
She comes across in this interview with Gideon Rachman as bright, eloquent and knowledgeable. However I left it feeling distinctly uneasy. One of the comments underneath the video highlights all the things she fails to mention in her remarks. A couple of the things she did say left me a little flabbergasted. On the issue of democracy in China she thought that many young people had been put off by the 'chaos' in Hong Kong. I suppose chaos is one word you could use to describe it. As for tensions between the US and China she very much takes the 'both sides' approach, ignoring China's consistent wolf warrior diplomacy and belligerence. What of all the other countries in south east Asia and the threats they feel from the CCP? In her view the best way to resolve the conflict in the Taiwan strait is between the parties on both sides (suggesting that it is US involvement that is making war more likely). She mentions the one child policy in China and how the only child in her class at school who had a sibling was a Uighur. That was the last mention of Uighurs in the discussion.
This is one of our top universities but I've always felt there was something odd about the LSE. Remember Colonel Gaddafi's son? And it does seem to be the Labour Party's university of choice. Perhaps because it is more classless than Oxbridge seems to be?
There is a traditional rivalry between my alma mater, UCL, and LSE
They once stole the head of our founder Jeremy Bentham. Bastards
Also, the only real bar brawl I have ever seen was between UCL and LSE students when all of us in Ramsay Hall of residence went drinking in their hall next door. It was the proper stuff. Hurled glasses and broken mirrors and waist coated barmen ducking the flying bottles
I confess I simply hid
Why on Earth would you want to drink in Carr Saunders? Not even Carr Saunders residents drank there.
LSE and Gaddafi's son produced a quote - I forget from whom - referring to their endorsement of his thesis that dad had created a democracy more democratic than actually voting for people.
"I hope they were paid to say this, since the alternative is so much worse."
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Why? - the essence of the Boris tragedy lies in his extraordinary ability to win coupled with no idea whatsoever what to do next.
I beg to differ.
Boris knew exactly what he wanted to do. Sit in the big chair, live in the big house, be famous and hand out just enough baubles to keep the Stooges loyal.
The essence of Borisism has always been "you can't tell me what to do, unlike those beaks at Eton." Hence everything he has ever done.
Oh, you ment policy ideas to make Britain better for all those people who aren't Boris? Why bother with them?
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Be fair, Mr Leon. Some of us have disliked and despised Johnson ever since he was editor of the Spectator. He has destroyed the reputation of everybody and everything he has come into contact with.
Please let us savour his removal from the political scene for just a bit longer.
Fair enough
Tho I do wonder if the Boris haters will actually miss him in a masochistic way. They so loved to loathe him. They enjoyed their sense of righteous repulsion
It’s quite hard to hate Rishi Sunak, at best you can find him laughable or hypocritical but he is not the brilliant panto villain like Bozza
There is also great snobbery value in hating Boris, after all he is most popular with Sun reading working class white van man. And you really don't want to have to vote the same way as the man who uses the tradesman's entrance (albeit you mostly did in 2019 with a peg on your nose to keep Corbyn out if the LDs didn't have a chance in your seat).
However while it is now unacceptable to say you like Boris at upper middle class London and Home Counties dinner parties, it is acceptable to even say you will vote for Rishi at such events
Is he? Polls don't actually show that, and the dripping sneer of "white van man believes whatever The S*n tells them" doesn't really endear them to vote Tory.
Yes they do.
In 2019 the Conservatives got 47% with skilled working class C2s under Boris but just 45% with upper middle class ABs.
The Conservatives got only 34% from voters with degrees in 2019 but 47% amongst those with other qualifications and 54% amongst those with no qualifications.
Boris also only won 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to 43% nationally but won 47% amongst voters earning £20-39k.
The LDs by contrast won 20% amongst voters earning over £70k but just 11% amongst voters earning £20-39k
Now while the Conservatives still do better with working class C2DEs than middle class ABC1s by 27% to to 24%, Rishi is preferred as PM by 27% of middle class ABC1s relative to Starmer but only 23% of working class C2DEs https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g63pvg88hg/TheTimes_VI_230531_W.pdf
18 months and 7 days since the last Tory poll lead!
The Mail have just published details of one of the students murdered in Nottingham. I didn't look, it just flashed up. As a parent the horror that but for a quirk of geography this could have been one of mine is upsetting. Equally upsetting is the mawkish Mail already digging around for personal details.
She comes across in this interview with Gideon Rachman as bright, eloquent and knowledgeable. However I left it feeling distinctly uneasy. One of the comments underneath the video highlights all the things she fails to mention in her remarks. A couple of the things she did say left me a little flabbergasted. On the issue of democracy in China she thought that many young people had been put off by the 'chaos' in Hong Kong. I suppose chaos is one word you could use to describe it. As for tensions between the US and China she very much takes the 'both sides' approach, ignoring China's consistent wolf warrior diplomacy and belligerence. What of all the other countries in south east Asia and the threats they feel from the CCP? In her view the best way to resolve the conflict in the Taiwan strait is between the parties on both sides (suggesting that it is US involvement that is making war more likely). She mentions the one child policy in China and how the only child in her class at school who had a sibling was a Uighur. That was the last mention of Uighurs in the discussion.
This is one of our top universities but I've always felt there was something odd about the LSE. Remember Colonel Gaddafi's son? And it does seem to be the Labour Party's university of choice. Perhaps because it is more classless than Oxbridge seems to be?
There is a traditional rivalry between my alma mater, UCL, and LSE
They once stole the head of our founder Jeremy Bentham. Bastards
Also, the only real bar brawl I have ever seen was between UCL and LSE students when all of us in Ramsay Hall of residence went drinking in their hall next door. It was the proper stuff. Hurled glasses and broken mirrors and waist coated barmen ducking the flying bottles
I confess I simply hid
Why on Earth would you want to drink in Carr Saunders? Not even Carr Saunders residents drank there.
LSE and Gaddafi's son produced a quote - I forget from whom - referring to their endorsement of his thesis that dad had created a democracy more democratic than actually voting for people.
"I hope they were paid to say this, since the alternative is so much worse."
Might this be just as true of the academic career of a noted classicist, who recently announced his imminent departure from parliament?
Why has Boris Johnson made a last minute submission to the Privileges Committee given he has pre-emptively rejected it as a 'witch hunt', a 'political hit-job', a 'kangaroo court', 'egregiously biased'....?
If he has lost faith in the process why is he engaging with it?
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Why? - the essence of the Boris tragedy lies in his extraordinary ability to win coupled with no idea whatsoever what to do next.
I beg to differ.
Boris knew exactly what he wanted to do. Sit in the big chair, live in the big house, be famous and hand out just enough baubles to keep the Stooges loyal.
The essence of Borisism has always been "you can't tell me what to do, unlike those beaks at Eton." Hence everything he has ever done.
Oh, you ment policy ideas to make Britain better for all those people who aren't Boris? Why bother with them?
He's quite an unusual character, I think, combining the need to dominate people with the need to be liked, which aren't that usual a combination. The moral aspect of him is pretty weak.
And he also has quite a lot of misdirected creativity, which should be used in literature or entertainment somewhere, not for being employed instead in conning people in politics and his amoral, pantomime version of it.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Why? - the essence of the Boris tragedy lies in his extraordinary ability to win coupled with no idea whatsoever what to do next.
I beg to differ.
Boris knew exactly what he wanted to do. Sit in the big chair, live in the big house, be famous and hand out just enough baubles to keep the Stooges loyal.
The essence of Borisism has always been "you can't tell me what to do, unlike those beaks at Eton." Hence everything he has ever done.
Oh, you ment policy ideas to make Britain better for all those people who aren't Boris? Why bother with them?
He's quite an unusual character, I think, combining the need to dominate people with the need to be liked, which aren't that usual a combination. The moral aspect of him is pretty weak.
And He also has a lot of misdirected creativity, which should be in literature or entertainment, not conning people in politics and his pantomime version of it.
It is the utter inability to tell folk unpleasant truths they don't wish to hear which marks him out for me.
Why has Boris Johnson made a last minute submission to the Privileges Committee given he has pre-emptively rejected it as a 'witch hunt', a 'political hit-job', a 'kangaroo court', 'egregiously biased'....?
If he has lost faith in the process why is he engaging with it?
Perhaps he's lost his faith in losing his faith?
Followed in due course by losing faith in lost faith losing?
It is actually getting quite boring, TBH (no offence intended to the mods who have to find new subjects so often). And the Boris-haters are doing their best to keep this story going just as much as the Boris-defenders
ENOUGH!
Agreed. We should 'move on' and we'll be able to when every PBer signs up to the correct and final assessment of him as a total clownfuck and pisstake with not a single redeeming feature who should never have been allowed near a UK government let alone at the head of it.
You can help by here and now resiling from what unless I've missed something (unlikely but possible) was your most recent take on him as a 'flawed colossus' whose downfall was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions because it was self-inflicted and he 'could have been great'.
Nah
Ok. Well if you won't resile from it - and I understand why you'd refuse to do that, it's a lot to ask - will you at least admit it was risible and wrong and walk it back?
@Leon loves him because a person that might in some way be connected with Leon, we will call him Sean, had an article published by Bozo, when Bozo was editor, even though it was full of rude words. Sean thought this made Bozo a good guy who wanted to give him a chance.
The sad reality is that Bozo probably didn't bother to take the time to read it and just waved it through.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
So fix a meeting. Don't try to go with FOI requests.
Unless they did and a meeting was refused.
From The Times's coverage;
School of Sexuality Education wrote to Hatcham College in November 2021 to say it was happy to show Page its slides in a controlled setting but the college did not pass on the message. Page said that she has not seen the full material because the only opportunity she was given was at a meeting when the head of the school’s trust offered to show it to her on a laptop. She said that she gave the laptop back after viewing only two of the slides because she wished to view the material with her daughter and husband, and have the opportunity to share it more widely.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
It sounds like nonsense - bet there is alot left out in this story.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Robert Peston @Peston By-elections in Johnson’s seat and Adams’s seat likely to be 13 July (or maybe 20th) because Tory party will move writs tmrw. Nadine Dorries has not yet written to Chancellor requesting appointment to one of those ancient Chiltern Hundreds posts that is the arcane resignation mechanism.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
…and even if I did know what they were teaching the kids, commercial confidentiality compels me to say nothing about it.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
So fix a meeting. Don't try to go with FOI requests.
Unless they did and a meeting was refused.
From The Times's coverage;
School of Sexuality Education wrote to Hatcham College in November 2021 to say it was happy to show Page its slides in a controlled setting but the college did not pass on the message. Page said that she has not seen the full material because the only opportunity she was given was at a meeting when the head of the school’s trust offered to show it to her on a laptop. She said that she gave the laptop back after viewing only two of the slides because she wished to view the material with her daughter and husband, and have the opportunity to share it more widely.
I think people do make an awful huge fuss about sex education, but I don't see why this material shouldn't be shared so they were can talk about it.
Otherwise it looks like people have something to hide.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
So fix a meeting. Don't try to go with FOI requests.
Unless they did and a meeting was refused.
From The Times's coverage;
School of Sexuality Education wrote to Hatcham College in November 2021 to say it was happy to show Page its slides in a controlled setting but the college did not pass on the message. Page said that she has not seen the full material because the only opportunity she was given was at a meeting when the head of the school’s trust offered to show it to her on a laptop. She said that she gave the laptop back after viewing only two of the slides because she wished to view the material with her daughter and husband, and have the opportunity to share it more widely.
I think people do make an awful huge fuss about sex education, but I don't see why this material shouldn't be shared so they were can talk about it.
Otherwise it looks like people have something to hide.
I think most sex education is now via free porn channels. I suspect that what gets handed out in schools is very innocuous in comparison.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
Why? Who are you trying to punish by making them deal with the DfE?
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Clearly the parents would not have the right to go printing copies of the material. But I do think that they have the right to see what is being given to their child as a part of their state education.
So fix a meeting. Don't try to go with FOI requests.
Unless they did and a meeting was refused.
From The Times's coverage; School of Sexuality Education wrote to Hatcham College in November 2021 to say it was happy to show Page its slides in a controlled setting but the college did not pass on the message. Page said that she has not seen the full material because the only opportunity she was given was at a meeting when the head of the school’s trust offered to show it to her on a laptop. She said that she gave the laptop back after viewing only two of the slides because she wished to view the material with her daughter and husband, and have the opportunity to share it more widely.
Well quite. Should each individual parent have to attend the school and sit at a laptop for an hour, or should the sex education lesson plans be generally available for parents to see from the regular online portal, where they already view all the other lesson plans?
The judge today thinks the former. I suspect there will be an appeal.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
I get as bent out as the next person over the uselessness of the current management of our education system but I really can't see the problem here. Copyright is copyright.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
It just sounds wacky that lessons in a state school aren't completely public domain.
The Telegraph shows a still image of the seminaked boobies. The Daily Mail shows the actual video clip where the boobies are being woobled. The video is taken from the TikTok in which you can find the wobbly boobies being woobled here at time index 50secs.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
It just sounds wacky that lessons in a state school aren't completely public domain.
If anyone took my lessons and started sharing them without paying me for them or asking my permission I would be very annoyed.
If the school I wrote them for did, then they would also expect payment/permission.
Maybe this charity is dodgy, maybe it isn't, but copyright law still applies.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
IIRC the chemicals, formulae, delivery mechanisms etc for most drugs are publicly available - patents. If you tried *making and selling* them you’d run into trouble.
The £2.3bn from the sale of Chelsea which was pledged to Ukraine war victims is in limbo after the European Union made demands about how the money should be spent.
When Roman Abramovich sold the football club almost 13 months ago, he agreed with the Government that the money would be used for “all victims of the war in Ukraine”, as well as supporting the “long-term work of recovery”.
Mr Abramovich is under sanctions after ministers accused him of having “clear connections” to Vladimir Putin’s regime and being among a group of businessmen of having “blood on their hands”.
However, the huge sum remains unused in a frozen account. Telegraph Sport investigations have now established that a significant cause for the delay is Government consultations with the EU. The bloc is insisting the money be spent in Ukraine directly, rather than on those affected by the conflict as agreed with Abramovich.
The independent foundation set up to administer the funds, which is being established by Mike Penrose, a former Unicef UK chief executive, is understood to be at a loss to explain why the Government has changed its position in line with the EU’s demands.
The charity is ready to get to work quickly once the funds are released, with Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis dramatically worsening in recent days after the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam caused a long-term environmental catastrophe affecting drinking water and food supplies.
‘Politics standing in the way of urgent humanitarian need’
The Prime Minister is expected to come under pressure from MPs to solve the impasse amid mounting frustration that a potentially “world-changing” independent charity cannot start work.
In a post-Brexit landscape, it has come as a surprise to some close to talks that the Government is so readily siding with the demands from Brussels. One source described current inertia as “politics standing in the way of urgent humanitarian need”. It is unclear whether Abramovich may now need to become involved in the process to break the deadlock.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
Labour 50% (+2) Conservative 28% (-3) Reform UK 8% (+1) Liberal Democrat 7% (–) Green 4% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
What were the percentages in these seats at GE2019?
In the forty ‘Red Wall’ seats that we poll, the Conservatives won all in 2019 but Hartlepool (which was won in a subsequent parliamentary by-election) with 46.7% of the vote to Labour’s 37.9%. Reform UK, previously known as the Brexit Party, came third in these seats with 6.5% of the vote.
Comments
Andrew Teale has his usual summary https://medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-st-peters-st-albans-by-election-of-tuesday-13th-june-2023-61dcd7d1556f
It is a Lib Dem , Green battle with Labour and Conservatives bring up the rear.
In 2019 the Conservatives got 47% with skilled working class C2s under Boris but just 45% with upper middle class ABs.
The Conservatives got only 34% from voters with degrees in 2019 but 47% amongst those with other qualifications and 54% amongst those with no qualifications.
Boris also only won 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to 43% nationally but won 47% amongst voters earning £20-39k.
The LDs by contrast won 20% amongst voters earning over £70k but just 11% amongst voters earning £20-39k
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Two years of testimony to the US inspector-general ; no official denial of this ; congressional hearings to investigate all these testimonies announced today. One would have to conclude from this that the main reason is just the stigma of the subject itself, and also just how bewildering the claims, themselves, are.
1 LDs or Alliance in NI
2 Sunak Tories or UUP
3 Starmer Labour
4 Greens or Corbyn Labour
5 DUP
6 SNP/Plaid/SF
7 Boris Tories
8 RefUK/Reclaim
9 For Britain or other British Nationalist Party
Not even Carr Saunders residents drank there.
Fortunately for ND?MP? the "sound mind" proviso lets her off the hook.
Dorries said that she had been told by Johnson last week that she would be included on the list and accused Rishi Sunak of “duplicitously and cruelly” in blocking her from getting a peerage.
But her account has been disputed by the government, which said Johnson had been given prior warning that Dorries could not take up a peerage unless she made clear she would immediately stand down as an MP. They added that the warning was “done in time” to allow Johnson to inform Dorries that she would have to step down to be considered by the House of Lords appointments commission (Holac).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-latest-news-tory-party-dorries-sunak-conservatives-2023-x8tzfx2zk
How much do parents know about these “charities” getting involved in sex education in schools?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/mother-legal-battle-school-share-sex-education-material/
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Now while the Conservatives still do better with working class C2DEs than middle class ABC1s by 27% to to 24%, Rishi is preferred as PM by 27% of middle class ABC1s relative to Starmer but only 23% of working class C2DEs
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g63pvg88hg/TheTimes_VI_230531_W.pdf
Do we have a woman here who was misled, mistreated, and betrayed by Boris Johnson?
Oh, wait….
The sad reality is that Bozo probably didn't bother to take the time to read it and just waved it through.
Which to my fool mind, legitimately includes fucking over rebel MPs of the government party.
Give 'em a bit of stick . . . right up their honourable hindquarters.
While I think sex education in schools is important, it's an area that - as a parent - I view as primarily the parents' responsibility. Schools are there to ensure there's not a vacuum when parents, for whatever reason, do not wish to or are unable to fulfil that role.
I do think, in general, that parents should be able to see what their children are being taught in schools, but that may require government rules on copyright/contracts for school suppliers - i.e. that sharing materials with parents has to be part of any school's contract with a supplier. It's useful in all kinds of areas to see what your child is learning, to best help them. When it was all textbooks coming home, that was straightforward. With more electronic learning resources it needs to be addressed.
On a serious note, if materials have been bought from a third party organisation then very often you can't hand them out further due to copyright, otherwise copying would be too easy. I buy many materials from TES and Twinkl and that's a condition of the licence.
Parent might have been better served by asking for a meeting than serving an FOI. Unless there is more to this than reported of course.
Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated story, recent British expats to Dubai are saying that schools are one of the top reasons to relocate themselves 3,500 miles.
Unless they did and a meeting was refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_(Bible)#Chernobyl
> Sunak & Co were more than willing, indeed increasingly willing, to screw over BoJo and his crony claque.
> AND that they were careful to disclose (backed up by record) that they informed BoJo of certain difficulties in his path, in timely manner to be rectified IF Boris or any of his fellow chowderheaded wastrels and widepeople had wits enough to comprehend and cope.
Boobies on the lawn of the White House.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/13/trans-activist-rose-montoya-topless-white-house-joe-biden/
"I hope they were paid to say this, since the alternative is so much worse."
Boris Johnson makes last-minute representations to privileges committee
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1668665338160873472
Boris knew exactly what he wanted to do. Sit in the big chair, live in the big house, be famous and hand out just enough baubles to keep the Stooges loyal.
The essence of Borisism has always been "you can't tell me what to do, unlike those beaks at Eton." Hence everything he has ever done.
Oh, you ment policy ideas to make Britain better for all those people who aren't Boris? Why bother with them?
Redfield et Wilton, 6th December 2021.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65888152
Why has Boris Johnson made a last minute submission to the Privileges Committee given he has pre-emptively rejected it as a 'witch hunt', a 'political hit-job', a 'kangaroo court', 'egregiously biased'....?
If he has lost faith in the process why is he engaging with it?
And he also has quite a lot of misdirected creativity, which should be used in literature or entertainment somewhere, not for being employed instead in conning people in politics and his amoral, pantomime version of it.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Followed in due course by losing faith in lost faith losing?
[ducks]
Red Wall VI (11 June):
Labour 50% (+2)
Conservative 28% (-3)
Reform UK 8% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 7% (–)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/13/ofsted-chief-says-system-did-not-work-as-well-as-it-should-after-abuse-at-school
Ofsted utterly incompetent?
Of course.
Admitting it?
School of Sexuality Education wrote to Hatcham College in November 2021 to say it was happy to show Page its slides in a controlled setting but the college did not pass on the message. Page said that she has not seen the full material because the only opportunity she was given was at a meeting when the head of the school’s trust offered to show it to her on a laptop. She said that she gave the laptop back after viewing only two of the slides because she wished to view the material with her daughter and husband, and have the opportunity to share it more widely.
Boobies!
@Peston
By-elections in Johnson’s seat and Adams’s seat likely to be 13 July (or maybe 20th) because Tory party will move writs tmrw. Nadine Dorries has not yet written to Chancellor requesting appointment to one of those ancient Chiltern Hundreds posts that is the arcane resignation mechanism.
Otherwise it looks like people have something to hide.
He's actually got two of the top four tweets. That's the business model.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1668671999340687383
The judge today thinks the former. I suspect there will be an appeal.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
I get as bent out as the next person over the uselessness of the current management of our education system but I really can't see the problem here. Copyright is copyright.
Sunil, you probably won't want to watch such things and I must ask you to restrain yourself from clicking on this link of the big wobbly boobies.
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
If the school I wrote them for did, then they would also expect payment/permission.
Maybe this charity is dodgy, maybe it isn't, but copyright law still applies.
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
I’m on the wholly publicly owned East Coast Mainline and…
They DO NOT accept cash!!
The £2.3bn from the sale of Chelsea which was pledged to Ukraine war victims is in limbo after the European Union made demands about how the money should be spent.
When Roman Abramovich sold the football club almost 13 months ago, he agreed with the Government that the money would be used for “all victims of the war in Ukraine”, as well as supporting the “long-term work of recovery”.
Mr Abramovich is under sanctions after ministers accused him of having “clear connections” to Vladimir Putin’s regime and being among a group of businessmen of having “blood on their hands”.
However, the huge sum remains unused in a frozen account. Telegraph Sport investigations have now established that a significant cause for the delay is Government consultations with the EU. The bloc is insisting the money be spent in Ukraine directly, rather than on those affected by the conflict as agreed with Abramovich.
The independent foundation set up to administer the funds, which is being established by Mike Penrose, a former Unicef UK chief executive, is understood to be at a loss to explain why the Government has changed its position in line with the EU’s demands.
The charity is ready to get to work quickly once the funds are released, with Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis dramatically worsening in recent days after the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam caused a long-term environmental catastrophe affecting drinking water and food supplies.
‘Politics standing in the way of urgent humanitarian need’
The Prime Minister is expected to come under pressure from MPs to solve the impasse amid mounting frustration that a potentially “world-changing” independent charity cannot start work.
In a post-Brexit landscape, it has come as a surprise to some close to talks that the Government is so readily siding with the demands from Brussels. One source described current inertia as “politics standing in the way of urgent humanitarian need”. It is unclear whether Abramovich may now need to become involved in the process to break the deadlock.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/06/13/eu-demands-leave-23bn-sale-of-roman-abramovich-chelsea/
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
(I think I've got that song on vinyl somewhere)