Nadine Dorries is in no rush to resign from parliament. She knows Rosie Cooper took two months. She will take as much time as suits her rather than what suits Rishi Sunak!
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
Just as they'd never have agreed any changes to the backstop.
In fact, I’ll let PB-ers decide. Here’s my view right now at the “lookout”
I am a jaded over traveller and this is actually stunning? Or is it merely pleasant as I say?
Looks like the Hogs Back A31
Quite pleasant. I went to a bonfire party near here at midnight of the Millenium. It looked like the Battle of the Somme laid out before me. That was actually stunning.
Interesting to see how many are really suffering with hay fever currently. This horrible weather pattern isn't happening - we need a return to the cool NE'lies of a few weeks back but I recognise that won't be a popular idea.
Interesting to see how many are really suffering with hay fever currently. This horrible weather pattern isn't happening - we need a return to the cool NE'lies of a few weeks back but I recognise that won't be a popular idea.
Even though I apparently know nothing about polls, I'm going to go on commenting on them - the Red Wall polling tonight from R&W has a 16.5% swing from Conservative to Labour but I note from some analysis of the May local elections Labour are broadly doing best where they need to/- to be fair a 15% swing where you need a 12% swing to win is more helpful than a 15% swing where you need a 30% swing.
The sheer size of some of the 2019 Conservative majorities in the Midlands and North combined with the local election results showing a few continuing islands of Conservative strength means the journey to a majority remains far from obvious for Labour.
Conversely, the LDs are doing no worse than 2019 in Con-LD marginals where the Labour vote is rising about as much as the Conservative vote is falling. That suggests little or no tactical voting but I think we'll see a lot of it at the next election.
R&W treat "Home Owners" as a single group but in 2019 unmortaged home owners backed the Conservatives over Labour by 57 to 22 while mortgage holders backed the Conservatives 43 to 33.
As a combined group, this group was more for the Conservatives until the coming of Liz Truss and by her departure the gap was 25 points but with the coming of Sunak the gap has closed (more through Labour support falling than Conservative support rising) to the two main parties bring tied at 35 (and the LDs improving to 16, their best level since the departure of Boris Johnson).
"Home Owners" (whether mortgage free or not) remain a critical demographic and polls of this group should, I think, be watched with interest.
Yes it was the Truss disaster budget seeing interest rates surge which lost home owners for the Tories and with it probably the election. Home owners with a mortgage are generally aged 39-60/65 and decide elections
R&W lump home owners with a mortgage and home owners without a mortgage together which isn't helpful. The former are more strongly Conservative but I agree the latter are demographically more significant.
I presume you'd also agree wealthy well-educated home owners free of a mortgage are also a strong group for the Liberal Democrats.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
She closed the Irish border because we beat them on vaccine delivery
Pretty good like my fat shiny arse
It didn’t actually happen but nice try . UvdL has a much better relationship with Sunak because the EU feel that he will honour what he signs.
As for the vaccine drama you need to stop peddling DE sound bites . If the situation was reversed the UK government and press would have been outraged .
My original point remains the same
She was given the most important EU job as Merkel’s failed minister mate
How was she better qualified do to that job than, say, Dorries would be to do the far less significant job in the HoL?
As a case study in why you shouldn't speak while angry (it will be the greatest speech you ever regret making) it's grimly fascinating. And not over yet.
Anger can make people speak especially well and lucidly. Dale Carnegie made that observation.
These are new lawyers, right, ones he's hired himself since kicking out the government provided ones?
The big question is what his aim is. It may be to stay out of jail.
Rishi Sunak asked him to "do something I wasn't prepared to do" by overruling the panel that vets appointments to the House of Lords or to "make promises to people". This is being reported in the Guardian as "make promises to the MPs offered peerages by Johnson, who wanted to delay their resignations so as not to cause byelections". If you actually watch the speech, that's not what Sunak says. He just says "to people". I doubt they were MPs at all. Probably some names haven't been made public. Even if MPs were involved that doesn't tell you who owns them.
Johnson made promises. If Sunak has his way, the promises won't be kept. Johnson feels heat heat heat.
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!
We could bang on about Trump - I saw this old quote apparently from the Mueller stuff for the first time today and lawyers will love 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,
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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
My concern is that it's a bloody weird thing to be telling children. Creepily weird. Jimmy Savile weird.
The problem is, some people see teaching about homosexuality to *any* age as being 'creepily weird'. Hence Section 28 and some of the new anti-LGBT laws in the US (1).
Now, I bet all of us on PB are good parents. We can see our kids, both younger and older siblings, and work out *exactly* when to teach them this stuff at a perfect level for them. Because we are all awesome and brilliant parents.
But what about those parents who don't care about their kids, who cannot be arsed to teach them any sex ed? The schools have to be a fallback for such kids, and it needs to be taught before they've learnt everything wrong from their classmates and friends.
As I say, I think my school (following the national curriculum) is getting it about right.
Well I can see your point. But the number of children who fall into that category is surely tiny. 99% of parents are better parents than the state. Not least because the state in a lot of cases seems to be trotting out some very weird messages.
I’ve had my suspicions for a long time. My family would like to request privacy over this difficult time. It has been a shock but ultimately only wish for his happiness. Thank you 🙏
What astounded me about the edges of the Shendandoah is the corner store I went into, the only shop in the village, that had absolutely no fresh food whatsoever, and offered simply a range of highly sugared additive-riddled packet food to the locals.
You’ve been remarkable unadventurous with your choices on this trip, so far.
In fact, I’ll let PB-ers decide. Here’s my view right now at the “lookout”
I am a jaded over traveller and this is actually stunning? Or is it merely pleasant as I say?
Looks like the Hogs Back A31
Quite pleasant. I went to a bonfire party near here at midnight of the Millenium. It looked like the Battle of the Somme laid out before me. That was actually stunning.
I was with friends at Malvern and went up the hills there. View across the Severn Valley was amazing.
Interesting to see how many are really suffering with hay fever currently. This horrible weather pattern isn't happening - we need a return to the cool NE'lies of a few weeks back but I recognise that won't be a popular idea.
Even though I apparently know nothing about polls, I'm going to go on commenting on them - the Red Wall polling tonight from R&W has a 16.5% swing from Conservative to Labour but I note from some analysis of the May local elections Labour are broadly doing best where they need to/- to be fair a 15% swing where you need a 12% swing to win is more helpful than a 15% swing where you need a 30% swing.
The sheer size of some of the 2019 Conservative majorities in the Midlands and North combined with the local election results showing a few continuing islands of Conservative strength means the journey to a majority remains far from obvious for Labour.
Conversely, the LDs are doing no worse than 2019 in Con-LD marginals where the Labour vote is rising about as much as the Conservative vote is falling. That suggests little or no tactical voting but I think we'll see a lot of it at the next election.
R&W treat "Home Owners" as a single group but in 2019 unmortaged home owners backed the Conservatives over Labour by 57 to 22 while mortgage holders backed the Conservatives 43 to 33.
As a combined group, this group was more for the Conservatives until the coming of Liz Truss and by her departure the gap was 25 points but with the coming of Sunak the gap has closed (more through Labour support falling than Conservative support rising) to the two main parties bring tied at 35 (and the LDs improving to 16, their best level since the departure of Boris Johnson).
"Home Owners" (whether mortgage free or not) remain a critical demographic and polls of this group should, I think, be watched with interest.
Yes it was the Truss disaster budget seeing interest rates surge which lost home owners for the Tories and with it probably the election. Home owners with a mortgage are generally aged 39-60/65 and decide elections
R&W lump home owners with a mortgage and home owners without a mortgage together which isn't helpful. The former are more strongly Conservative but I agree the latter are demographically more significant.
I presume you'd also agree wealthy well-educated home owners free of a mortgage are also a strong group for the Liberal Democrats.
Locally yes, they are very NIMBY, albeit the Tories still lead with over 65 home owners at general election level
This sort of thing only ever pleases the angry subject. It's never really very persuasive to do it that way because all it comes down to is 'I disagree with you' over and over, and conflating that disagreement as a process failure. Usually coupled, as he is doing, with moaning about the rules and saying that they are not allowed to moan.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
She closed the Irish border because we beat them on vaccine delivery
Pretty good like my fat shiny arse
It didn’t actually happen but nice try . UvdL has a much better relationship with Sunak because the EU feel that he will honour what he signs.
As for the vaccine drama you need to stop peddling DE sound bites . If the situation was reversed the UK government and press would have been outraged .
My original point remains the same
She was given the most important EU job as Merkel’s failed minister mate
How was she better qualified do to that job than, say, Dorries would be to do the far less significant job in the HoL?
You’re comparing UvdL with that moron Dorries ? Oh dear. Ursula was not given a job she was voted in by MEPs which is far more democratic than a PM sticking someone into the HOL .
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!
We could bang on about Trump - I saw this old quote apparently from the Mueller stuff for the first time today and lawyers will love it.
@Leon - I'd already assumed you were as bored as f*** when you started taking pictures of the view and posting them to a politics and betting website.
Ah, Roy Cohn - lawyer for John Gotti among others. I'm quite prepared to believe that if Gotti talked to Cohn about "removing" someone, Cohn didn't take a written note.
Interesting to see how many are really suffering with hay fever currently. This horrible weather pattern isn't happening - we need a return to the cool NE'lies of a few weeks back but I recognise that won't be a popular idea.
Even though I apparently know nothing about polls, I'm going to go on commenting on them - the Red Wall polling tonight from R&W has a 16.5% swing from Conservative to Labour but I note from some analysis of the May local elections Labour are broadly doing best where they need to/- to be fair a 15% swing where you need a 12% swing to win is more helpful than a 15% swing where you need a 30% swing.
The sheer size of some of the 2019 Conservative majorities in the Midlands and North combined with the local election results showing a few continuing islands of Conservative strength means the journey to a majority remains far from obvious for Labour.
Conversely, the LDs are doing no worse than 2019 in Con-LD marginals where the Labour vote is rising about as much as the Conservative vote is falling. That suggests little or no tactical voting but I think we'll see a lot of it at the next election.
R&W treat "Home Owners" as a single group but in 2019 unmortaged home owners backed the Conservatives over Labour by 57 to 22 while mortgage holders backed the Conservatives 43 to 33.
As a combined group, this group was more for the Conservatives until the coming of Liz Truss and by her departure the gap was 25 points but with the coming of Sunak the gap has closed (more through Labour support falling than Conservative support rising) to the two main parties bring tied at 35 (and the LDs improving to 16, their best level since the departure of Boris Johnson).
"Home Owners" (whether mortgage free or not) remain a critical demographic and polls of this group should, I think, be watched with interest.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
This is a strange "anti-woke" fantasy. The kids still get 6 hours of maths per week. They're not getting 6 hours of "woke gender stuff" per week instead.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
NEW: Late-night letter from Boris Johnson to Privileges committee appears to have delayed report release.
"A letter enclosing further representations from Mr Johnson was received by the committee at 11:57pm last night. The committee is dealing with these & will report promptly". https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1668657769073848334
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
Just as they'd never have agreed any changes to the backstop.
Until they did.
With the fat, lying oaf.
That was before the fat lying oaf proved beyond a doubt to the EU that he was a fat lying oaf. Sunak got the EU to move because he’s seen as pragmatic and more trustworthy. There was zip chance the EU would have agreed the WF with Johnson .
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
My concern is that it's a bloody weird thing to be telling children. Creepily weird. Jimmy Savile weird.
The problem is, some people see teaching about homosexuality to *any* age as being 'creepily weird'. Hence Section 28 and some of the new anti-LGBT laws in the US (1).
Now, I bet all of us on PB are good parents. We can see our kids, both younger and older siblings, and work out *exactly* when to teach them this stuff at a perfect level for them. Because we are all awesome and brilliant parents.
But what about those parents who don't care about their kids, who cannot be arsed to teach them any sex ed? The schools have to be a fallback for such kids, and it needs to be taught before they've learnt everything wrong from their classmates and friends.
As I say, I think my school (following the national curriculum) is getting it about right.
Well I can see your point. But the number of children who fall into that category is surely tiny. 99% of parents are better parents than the state. Not least because the state in a lot of cases seems to be trotting out some very weird messages.
99% seems a *massively*high figure to me.
It also varies from subject to subject. For instance, I've taught my son (8) some fairly advanced maths. It's something we both enjoy. A lot of parents won't have the maths knowledge to teach him. He loves English, and I have the skills to help him what the school are teaching. I can teach him programming, if he ever becomes interested.
But if it comes to (say) music, I'd be a *terrible* teacher. The same if it comes to RE - especially for religions that are not Christianity or Islam. And if it came to CDT, I'd be excellent at teaching him to hit his thumb with a hammer.
And when he eventually starts GCSEs, I'd not be able to teach him loads of subjects as well as a reasonable school.
This is one of the reasons I would not consider home schooling (another being the social aspects of school). I won't do it as well as a good school. But I can be a reasonable fallback / helper for some subjects.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
He's got a point has this...Aaron Bastani?! Modern British politics consists in not building anything, banning stuff, telling people off, and calling anyone you disagree with evil/a racist/unworthy of holding an opinion. https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1668370528044761088
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
I am 100% not talking about where I work or their (theoretical) interactions with Indian and Chinese education. But I was given a rough outline of how the exam results for degree progression went.
"Us: Ok, student 1234 got 60% so that's a 'C'" "Them: .... There has been a mistake. Student 1234 got 95%!" "Us: ... urm.... okay.... So they get an A?" "Them: Yes!" "Us: Ok, student 5678 got 45% so that's a fail" "Then: .... muttering .... Ah, there has been a mistake. Student 5678 got 95%!" "Us: .... errrr...."
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Do you prefer intercourse with blobfish of the same sex as you, or blobfish of the opposite sex to you? Now, think about that feeling. Do you think you'd change your orientation because you saw some Tiktok videos saying the opposite was trendy?
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
The worsening gilts outlook could be due to the UK still have a worse economic outlook than many peer nations.
In which case Labour are at some point going to have to come clean of the relation of the hard Brexit we've had to that, rather than just talking about the Tories having crashed the economy, when asked why they can't afford any of their most treasured plans.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
During lockdown, I realised what teachers have to do. They're (generally, obvs) awesome. And I only had one kid to deal with.
They have to take really, really long holidays, collect massive pensions and in between say 'Attention class - do these sums'? I've read the Daily Mail too you know.
Labour 50% (+2) Conservative 28% (-3) Reform UK 8% (+1) Liberal Democrat 7% (–) Green 4% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide!
Psephological Probings reveal
It’s still only 61 v 36 like the National polling.
No sign of a Dutch Salute we are getting in National polls, because in Red Wall is the one place the theory is actually working if it doesn’t pick up evidence it is looking for.
+2 and - 3 = 5 divided by 2 for swing = 2.5, Wall or Region polling tend to produce bigger swings from poll to poll than National ones - possibly because once you get above L42 and C29 the sample can vary wildly from constituency to constituency and town to town, because MRP and other similar polling point out Labour are doing okay where they need to.
Labour 50% (+2) Conservative 28% (-3) Reform UK 8% (+1) Liberal Democrat 7% (–) Green 4% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide!
Psephological Probings reveal
It’s still only 61 v 36 like the National polling.
No sign of a Dutch Salute we are getting in National polls, because in Red Wall is the one place the theory is actually working if it doesn’t pick up evidence it is looking for.
+2 and - 3 = 5 divided by 2 for swing = 2.5, Wall or Region polling tend to produce bigger swings from poll to poll than National ones - possibly because once you get above L42 and C29 the sample can vary wildly from constituency to constituency and town to town, because MRP and other similar polling point out Labour are doing okay where they need to.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Do you prefer intercourse with blobfish of the same sex as you, or blobfish of the opposite sex to you? Now, think about that feeling. Do you think you'd change your orientation because you saw some Tiktok videos saying the opposite was trendy?
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
Well I base my experience on someone who almost became my 14 year old stepdaughter about 5 years ago. She asked if we could chat and came out as a lesbian. I asked oh so you will be breaking up with your boyfriend then? Oh no she said. They continued dating and now decided she isnt a lesbian after all last I talked to her mum. She never dated a girl in all that time but did continue with her boyfriend for a further year.
So where did this come from? She declared herself a lesbian but her actions hardly suited her words? And no the boy didn't identify as female then or now
Labour 50% (+2) Conservative 28% (-3) Reform UK 8% (+1) Liberal Democrat 7% (–) Green 4% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide!
Psephological Probings reveal
It’s still only 61 v 36 like the National polling.
No sign of a Dutch Salute we are getting in National polls, because in Red Wall is the one place the theory is actually working if it doesn’t pick up evidence it is looking for.
+2 and - 3 = 5 divided by 2 for swing = 2.5, Wall or Region polling tend to produce bigger swings from poll to poll than National ones - possibly because once you get above L42 and C29 the sample can vary wildly from constituency to constituency and town to town, because MRP and other similar polling point out Labour are doing okay where they need to.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Do you prefer intercourse with blobfish of the same sex as you, or blobfish of the opposite sex to you? Now, think about that feeling. Do you think you'd change your orientation because you saw some Tiktok videos saying the opposite was trendy?
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
Well I base my experience on someone who almost became my 14 year old stepdaughter about 5 years ago. She asked if we could chat and came out as a lesbian. I asked oh so you will be breaking up with your boyfriend then? Oh no she said. They continued dating and now decided she isnt a lesbian after all last I talked to her mum. She never dated a girl in all that time but did continue with her boyfriend for a further year.
So where did this come from? She declared herself a lesbian but her actions hardly suited her words? And no the boy didn't identify as female then or now
I obviously don't know the details of this case or what was going through her head. I do know 14 year olds say things; they go through phases. They don't change their sexuality because of Tiktok videos. This girl didn't change her sexuality. As far as I can see, no harm has befallen this child. No harm even came to her relationship with her boyfriend.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
Pull the other one. The EU haven't made any concessions, Rishi has rolled over and given them everything they wanted for nothing more than a smile and a handshake. He is without doubt the weakest PM we have ever had - a pair of Margaret Thatcher's granny knickers would be better at defending the national interest than he is.
Apparently, according to the story Screaming Eagles posted, he's not even allowed to spend money he's pinched off Roman Abramovich without getting their say so - what the fuck it's got to do with them being anyone's guess.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Do you prefer intercourse with blobfish of the same sex as you, or blobfish of the opposite sex to you? Now, think about that feeling. Do you think you'd change your orientation because you saw some Tiktok videos saying the opposite was trendy?
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
Well I base my experience on someone who almost became my 14 year old stepdaughter about 5 years ago. She asked if we could chat and came out as a lesbian. I asked oh so you will be breaking up with your boyfriend then? Oh no she said. They continued dating and now decided she isnt a lesbian after all last I talked to her mum. She never dated a girl in all that time but did continue with her boyfriend for a further year.
So where did this come from? She declared herself a lesbian but her actions hardly suited her words? And no the boy didn't identify as female then or now
I obviously don't know the details of this case or what was going through her head. I do know 14 year olds say things; they go through phases. They don't change their sexuality because of Tiktok videos. This girl didn't change her sexuality. As far as I can see, no harm has befallen this child. No harm even came to her relationship with her boyfriend.
I didnt claim harm had come to her, I am just saying that from what I gather both from her and my current step that some orientations now are fashionable. Non binary seeming the current popular one. It appears to be a mark of distinction in their peer groups. Mostly its going to be harmless as my previous step because they declare but never act, or harmless because they declare and find themselves right. However there will be those that declare and try and live something they are not. I do think their is a social media influence in this
During lockdown, I realised what teachers have to do. They're (generally, obvs) awesome. And I only had one kid to deal with.
They have to take really, really long holidays, collect massive pensions and in between say 'Attention class - do these sums'? I've read the Daily Mail too you know.
You are right, teaching is money for old rope: do you want me to send you details of how to apply to train to teach?
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
Which would also be wrong, my point is things like this shouldn't be secretive and parents should be able to see and discuss course materials with other parents
The worsening gilts outlook could be due to the UK still have a worse economic outlook than many peer nations.
In which case Labour are at some point going to have to come clean of the relation of the hard Brexit we've had to that, rather than just talking about the Tories having crashed the economy, when asked why they can't afford any of their most treasured plans.
The main driver for the gilt rise has paradoxically been the strong UK wage data and fall in unemployment which is making the markets question the BoE and its competence.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
She closed the Irish border because we beat them on vaccine delivery
Pretty good like my fat shiny arse
It didn’t actually happen but nice try . UvdL has a much better relationship with Sunak because the EU feel that he will honour what he signs.
As for the vaccine drama you need to stop peddling DE sound bites . If the situation was reversed the UK government and press would have been outraged .
My original point remains the same
She was given the most important EU job as Merkel’s failed minister mate
How was she better qualified do to that job than, say, Dorries would be to do the far less significant job in the HoL?
You’re comparing UvdL with that moron Dorries ? Oh dear. Ursula was not given a job she was voted in by MEPs which is far more democratic than a PM sticking someone into the HOL .
I’ve already addressed her highly democratic “election”
She got the near guaranteed vote by being Angela’s mate who’d massively failed at German MoD
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
NEW: Late-night letter from Boris Johnson to Privileges committee appears to have delayed report release.
"A letter enclosing further representations from Mr Johnson was received by the committee at 11:57pm last night. The committee is dealing with these & will report promptly". https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1668657769073848334
How long does it take to respond to "MWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"?
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
Thank you for posting the thing in full, so both the facts and tone of the The Daily Telegraph front page article can be read, where it gave us, watching Westminster from afar and not in the tea rooms or WhatsApp’s, no indication of whats to come next day, in fact what we thought of as the paper closest to the mind of Johnson clearly have his cabinet supporters cheerful last Thursday evening and claiming he wont be forced into a recall election - is it not very fair to draw that very conclusion from the Telegraph article in the few words I used to sum it up 🤷♀️
In hindsight it appears to have been the wrong vibe, I do wholeheartedly and most genuinely concede, so I feel just the same as you do about the post - how could Daily Telegraph have got it so wrong.
“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.
Labour 50% (+2) Conservative 28% (-3) Reform UK 8% (+1) Liberal Democrat 7% (–) Green 4% (–) Plaid Cymru 1% (–) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 28 May
Broken, sleazy Tories on the slide!
Psephological Probings reveal
It’s still only 61 v 36 like the National polling.
No sign of a Dutch Salute we are getting in National polls, because in Red Wall is the one place the theory is actually working if it doesn’t pick up evidence it is looking for.
+2 and - 3 = 5 divided by 2 for swing = 2.5, Wall or Region polling tend to produce bigger swings from poll to poll than National ones - possibly because once you get above L42 and C29 the sample can vary wildly from constituency to constituency and town to town, because MRP and other similar polling point out Labour are doing okay where they need to.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
Pull the other one. The EU haven't made any concessions, Rishi has rolled over and given them everything they wanted for nothing more than a smile and a handshake. He is without doubt the weakest PM we have ever had - a pair of Margaret Thatcher's granny knickers would be better at defending the national interest than he is.
Apparently, according to the story Screaming Eagles posted, he's not even allowed to spend money he's pinched off Roman Abramovich without getting their say so - what the fuck it's got to do with them being anyone's guess.
I’m no fan of Sunak but your post isn’t based on reality . The EU have made concessions.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
Thank you for posting the thing in full, so both the facts and tone of the The Daily Telegraph front page article can be read, where it gave us, watching Westminster from afar and not in the tea rooms or WhatsApp’s, no indication of whats to come next day, in fact what we thought of as the paper closest to the mind of Johnson clearly have his cabinet supporters cheerful last Thursday evening and claiming he wont be forced into a recall election - is it not very fair to draw that very conclusion from the Telegraph article in the few words I used to sum it up 🤷♀️
In hindsight it appears to have been the wrong vibe, I do wholeheartedly and most genuinely concede, so I feel just the same as you do about the post - how could Daily Telegraph have got it so wrong.
Fair point, can't really blame you for the Torygraph's utter-tripe_dressed_up_as_insight.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
well it is the normal mode isn't it?
Ought it to be preferred?
well thats a little more nuanced but its a bit ridiculous that young kids are being taught a word is wrong despite me (a 53 year old reasonably intelligent ,successful and educated man) never having heard of it before.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Do you prefer intercourse with blobfish of the same sex as you, or blobfish of the opposite sex to you? Now, think about that feeling. Do you think you'd change your orientation because you saw some Tiktok videos saying the opposite was trendy?
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
Well I base my experience on someone who almost became my 14 year old stepdaughter about 5 years ago. She asked if we could chat and came out as a lesbian. I asked oh so you will be breaking up with your boyfriend then? Oh no she said. They continued dating and now decided she isnt a lesbian after all last I talked to her mum. She never dated a girl in all that time but did continue with her boyfriend for a further year.
So where did this come from? She declared herself a lesbian but her actions hardly suited her words? And no the boy didn't identify as female then or now
I obviously don't know the details of this case or what was going through her head. I do know 14 year olds say things; they go through phases. They don't change their sexuality because of Tiktok videos. This girl didn't change her sexuality. As far as I can see, no harm has befallen this child. No harm even came to her relationship with her boyfriend.
I didnt claim harm had come to her, I am just saying that from what I gather both from her and my current step that some orientations now are fashionable. Non binary seeming the current popular one. It appears to be a mark of distinction in their peer groups. Mostly its going to be harmless as my previous step because they declare but never act, or harmless because they declare and find themselves right. However there will be those that declare and try and live something they are not. I do think their is a social media influence in this
I agree that there are fashions, and I'd even say that expressions of sexuality and gender-based identities are socially constructed to a degree. However, I think generally who people fancy is pretty resistant to all this. I also think that an open and welcoming culture that accepts everyone -- which I think we have moved towards -- means that there's much less likelihood of people ending up living as something they're not. Living as something they're not certainly happened much more commonly when I was born in the '70s.
Does that mean that I think every Tiktok video out there is good? No, of course not. As someone else has said, all the more reason to make sure kids get a proper education about sex earlier rather than from Tiktok.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
Possibly. Modhi’s version of nationalism is a pretty nasty version, one that sees being Indian as being Hindu, and which glorifies some unpleasant people.
NEW: Late-night letter from Boris Johnson to Privileges committee appears to have delayed report release.
"A letter enclosing further representations from Mr Johnson was received by the committee at 11:57pm last night. The committee is dealing with these & will report promptly". https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1668657769073848334
How long does it take to respond to "MWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"?
Time wasters and provokers want to cause a reaction which will at least partially make their wild claims look more reasonable. So even though those responding know it is just done to irritate them and delay them, they have to take the time and extra effort to hold back from the response they want to give.
For the time waster they cannot lose, they annoy those they want to annoy either way, and if they are lucky the other party will slip up in their outrage.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
Possibly. Modhi’s version of nationalism is a pretty nasty version, one that sees being Indian as being Hindu, and which glorifies some unpleasant people.
I know that UvdL was "elected" to her position (through a fucking odd "election" that seems to basically wave through the selection of the leading party in the MEP elections)
But wasn't she just selected as a mate by Merkel, much like Boris's HoL picks?
President of the European Commission is the most powerful position in the EU, not one that should be filled by a Prescott or a Dorries
UvdL I think has been pretty good overall and it’s amazing what can happen when the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults and not pathetic whiny children .
The EU would never have agreed any changes to the NI protocol if the fat lying oaf was still in charge .
Just as they'd never have agreed any changes to the backstop.
Until they did.
With the fat, lying oaf.
That was before the fat lying oaf proved beyond a doubt to the EU that he was a fat lying oaf. Sunak got the EU to move because he’s seen as pragmatic and more trustworthy. There was zip chance the EU would have agreed the WF with Johnson .
The EU knew he was a fat, lying oaf when they negotiated with him the first time. Everyone knew he was a fat, lying oaf before he became Prime Minister - that wasn't news to a single soul.
They negotiated because he was Prime Minister and left them no choice but to negotiate. That's how the EU works, they're entirely used to dealing with oafs, liars, crooks and worse.
The EU would have agreed the WF with Johnson, or Truss, or anyone else prepared to hold the line, because of realpolitik. That is the only thing the EU respects. They don't respect integrity, or solidarity, or giving away half the rebate on a promise to have reform if you do that.
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
Which would also be wrong, my point is things like this shouldn't be secretive and parents should be able to see and discuss course materials with other parents
As I understand it, the parent was able to see and discuss the course materials, but she wasn't given a copy of the materials because of their commercial value. So, it does not appear that the school was being "secretive" in this case.
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.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
Thank you for posting the thing in full, so both the facts and tone of the The Daily Telegraph front page article can be read, where it gave us, watching Westminster from afar and not in the tea rooms or WhatsApp’s, no indication of whats to come next day, in fact what we thought of as the paper closest to the mind of Johnson clearly have his cabinet supporters cheerful last Thursday evening and claiming he wont be forced into a recall election - is it not very fair to draw that very conclusion from the Telegraph article in the few words I used to sum it up 🤷♀️
In hindsight it appears to have been the wrong vibe, I do wholeheartedly and most genuinely concede, so I feel just the same as you do about the post - how could Daily Telegraph have got it so wrong.
Fair point, can't really blame you for the Torygraph's utter-tripe_dressed_up_as_insight.
To build upon this discussion, would it not have been better for Rishi and the government if the Telegraph had been more accurate and things played out as expected? The cabinet source spoke of a cathartic moment, which I take to mean drawing a line under this whole drama and moving on, Boris, for his own self interest seems to have wrecked that, and perhaps extended the drama by swerving the cathartic moment it needs?
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“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.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
Which is sort of the point really as far as I am concerned. Now she may have an agenda and that is quite possible, it is also possible her complaint has merit. The materials however are not available for any of to make that determination.
I think we all as taxpayers should have access to what our children are being taught. After all we are paying for it and should have to right to dispute it if it is meretricious.
While the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been talked about for months, one of the considerations as to why the West will want this wrapped up fairly quickly is the timing of the US (and UK) elections in 2024. There are probably only five real months in which the Ukrainians can launch the offensive and, if you are the US in particular, the last thing you would want is the war dragging on into 2024 and impacting the Presidential elections both directly (Trump asking why aid is continuing, for example) and indirectly (it is keeping inflation higher than it needs to be).
The conclusion from that is that the West is probably going to give Ukraine all that it needs to finish off the job by the end of the 2023 campaign season.
Comments
Nadine Dorries is in no rush to resign from parliament. She knows Rosie Cooper took two months. She will take as much time as suits her rather than what suits Rishi Sunak!
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1668679969881374720
Until they did.
With the fat, lying oaf.
Quite pleasant.
I went to a bonfire party near here at midnight of the Millenium. It looked like the Battle of the Somme laid out before me. That was actually stunning.
I presume you'd also agree wealthy well-educated home owners free of a mortgage are also a strong group for the Liberal Democrats.
She was given the most important EU job as Merkel’s failed minister mate
How was she better qualified do to that job than, say, Dorries would be to do the far less significant job in the HoL?
These are new lawyers, right, ones he's hired himself since kicking out the government provided ones?
The big question is what his aim is. It may be to stay out of jail.
Rishi Sunak asked him to "do something I wasn't prepared to do" by overruling the panel that vets appointments to the House of Lords or to "make promises to people". This is being reported in the Guardian as "make promises to the MPs offered peerages by Johnson, who wanted to delay their resignations so as not to cause byelections". If you actually watch the speech, that's not what Sunak says. He just says "to people". I doubt they were MPs at all. Probably some names haven't been made public. Even if MPs were involved that doesn't tell you who owns them.
Johnson made promises. If Sunak has his way, the promises won't be kept. Johnson feels heat heat heat.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2023/jun/12/rishi-sunak-says-he-refused-boris-johnson-honours-request-because-he-wanted-to-change-politics-video
Some are projecting Trump onto Johnson.
But the number of children who fall into that category is surely tiny. 99% of parents are better parents than the state. Not least because the state in a lot of cases seems to be trotting out some very weird messages.
The foothills of it look a fair bit like England.
What astounded me about the edges of the Shendandoah is the corner store I went into, the only shop in the village, that had absolutely no fresh food whatsoever, and offered simply a range of highly sugared additive-riddled packet food to the locals.
You’ve been remarkable unadventurous with your choices on this trip, so far.
Ah, Roy Cohn - lawyer for John Gotti among others. I'm quite prepared to believe that if Gotti talked to Cohn about "removing" someone, Cohn didn't take a written note.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20
1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’
8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
JD Vance in 2016: Jesus wouldn’t want us to defend Donald Trump
JD Vance today:
https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1668691430129147925
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
Mwahahaa
NEW: Late-night letter from Boris Johnson to Privileges committee appears to have delayed report release.
"A letter enclosing further representations from Mr Johnson was received by the committee at 11:57pm last night. The committee is dealing with these & will report promptly".
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1668657769073848334
It also varies from subject to subject. For instance, I've taught my son (8) some fairly advanced maths. It's something we both enjoy. A lot of parents won't have the maths knowledge to teach him. He loves English, and I have the skills to help him what the school are teaching. I can teach him programming, if he ever becomes interested.
But if it comes to (say) music, I'd be a *terrible* teacher. The same if it comes to RE - especially for religions that are not Christianity or Islam. And if it came to CDT, I'd be excellent at teaching him to hit his thumb with a hammer.
And when he eventually starts GCSEs, I'd not be able to teach him loads of subjects as well as a reasonable school.
This is one of the reasons I would not consider home schooling (another being the social aspects of school). I won't do it as well as a good school. But I can be a reasonable fallback / helper for some subjects.
During lockdown, I realised what teachers have to do. They're (generally, obvs) awesome. And I only had one kid to deal with.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/13/us/trump-indictment-arraignment-court?referringSource=articleShare#here-is-the-latest-on-the-trumps-court-appearance
BREAKING FROM PRETTYMAN:
Nevada GOP Chairman spotted inside the DC courthouse where the Jan. 6 et al grand jury meets.
“Not on my bucket list,” Michael McDonald joked when I asked him about appearing the same day as Trump’s court date.
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1668656490176032782
Modern British politics consists in not building anything, banning stuff, telling people off, and calling anyone you disagree with evil/a racist/unworthy of holding an opinion.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1668370528044761088
"Us: Ok, student 1234 got 60% so that's a 'C'"
"Them: .... There has been a mistake. Student 1234 got 95%!"
"Us: ... urm.... okay.... So they get an A?"
"Them: Yes!"
"Us: Ok, student 5678 got 45% so that's a fail"
"Then: .... muttering .... Ah, there has been a mistake. Student 5678 got 95%!"
"Us: .... errrr...."
Rinse and repeat.
The money's great though, so I've heard.
I don't know about you, but I feel my heterosexuality is pretty ingrained. I think kids are the same. So, yes, teach them to feel positive about themselves, because you're not going to change who they fancy.
In which case Labour are at some point going to have to come clean of the relation of the hard Brexit we've had to that, rather than just talking about the Tories having crashed the economy, when asked why they can't afford any of their most treasured plans.
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
So where did this come from? She declared herself a lesbian but her actions hardly suited her words? And no the boy didn't identify as female then or now
Dutch oven on the other hand.
He’s walking out of court on his own recognisance
Any other government employee would be in custody.
Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
Apparently, according to the story Screaming Eagles posted, he's not even allowed to spend money he's pinched off Roman Abramovich without getting their say so - what the fuck it's got to do with them being anyone's guess.
Blood Meridian is one of only a few novels that absolutely blew my mind on first reading.
By a set of curious chances;
Liberated then on bail,
On my own recognizances;
She got the near guaranteed vote by being Angela’s mate who’d massively failed at German MoD
In hindsight it appears to have been the wrong vibe, I do wholeheartedly and most genuinely concede, so I feel just the same as you do about the post - how could Daily Telegraph have got it so wrong.
You get a pretty good idea of its approach from the materials on there.
He has his strengths, but sticking with an idea as PM and seeing it delivered? Well, it's not easy even for those temperamentally suited.
Does that mean that I think every Tiktok video out there is good? No, of course not. As someone else has said, all the more reason to make sure kids get a proper education about sex earlier rather than from Tiktok.
Seen a few discussions as to whether BM is filmable in the last couple of weeks.
For the time waster they cannot lose, they annoy those they want to annoy either way, and if they are lucky the other party will slip up in their outrage.
They negotiated because he was Prime Minister and left them no choice but to negotiate. That's how the EU works, they're entirely used to dealing with oafs, liars, crooks and worse.
The EU would have agreed the WF with Johnson, or Truss, or anyone else prepared to hold the line, because of realpolitik. That is the only thing the EU respects. They don't respect integrity, or solidarity, or giving away half the rebate on a promise to have reform if you do that.
The judge has set a condition.
The judge said that former President Trump could have no contact with any witnesses in the case -- including Walt Nauta -- who currently works for him.
https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1668699539052609536
Eventually the case goes up before his little buddy who got slapped down by the appeals court anyway, so all's good.
https://www.gbnews.com/watch/live
As a bonus, you can just catch the end of Jacob Rees Mogg's State of the Nation.
The tech industry in India growing at an even faster 12% rate
https://peopleofcolorintech.com/front/india-is-one-of-the-fastest-growing-tech-hubs-in-the-world/
I think we all as taxpayers should have access to what our children are being taught. After all we are paying for it and should have to right to dispute it if it is meretricious.
And that evil woman Hilary, the rampant socialist –
I don’t think she’d be missed – I’m sure she’d not be missed!
Chorus: He’s got her on the list – he’s got her on the list;
While the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been talked about for months, one of the considerations as to why the West will want this wrapped up fairly quickly is the timing of the US (and UK) elections in 2024. There are probably only five real months in which the Ukrainians can launch the offensive and, if you are the US in particular, the last thing you would want is the war dragging on into 2024 and impacting the Presidential elections both directly (Trump asking why aid is continuing, for example) and indirectly (it is keeping inflation higher than it needs to be).
The conclusion from that is that the West is probably going to give Ukraine all that it needs to finish off the job by the end of the 2023 campaign season.
It might work as a tv series, à la The English.