j.a.

The original point of this thread was for the OP to try and persuade people that sex education should go back to 1977. I think we can all agree that?s very wrong. In terms of the wider issues you?ve mentioned, I?m not sure I?m ready to have that discussion online. As Seenbeen points out, there are some violent bigots that have been given space to vent their appalling views under the cover of tolerance, which is something I hold a strong opposing view to. At the same time I recognise that there are positions and opinions on topics about which I don?t feel qualified to comment. I?m seeing/hearing a lot through the eyes of my kids, and doing my best not to jump to any conclusions in one way or another. I feel there are some things which must be carefully considered and debated widely, and I do despair of those who insist they should be agreed with ?immediately?, as it were. Some things require wide ranging discussion.

Keano, I feel that?s something of a straw man argument. The core of my issue with the OP?s stance is that they want to revert to a style of sex education which was demonstrated to be ineffective 30 years ago. It?s got nothing to do with trans or LGBTQ. I?m objecting to a view of sexual development which is not only out of date but will actually cause harm. Teenagers are roiling bags of hormones, too immature to understand the strong biological urges suddenly possessing them, and living now in a world where the internet can provide answers, but often wrong ones, or at least it?s easy for them to find the answer they ?want?. Add to this the ease with which they can view porn, and you have a vital necessity for responsible adults to engage with them on the basic subject of sexual education. Boys especially need this, because they watch porn and think that?s what sex is, which it isn?t. It?s vitally important not to conflate this with the culture/gender issue. It?s much more basic than that. Communication and honesty is the only way to get a teenager to trust you - and even that may not always work - and parents need to step up to the plate. The OP is openly stating that anything past basic physical explanations should not be taught in schools. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Perhaps in the 80?s you might?ve been able to claim that, but the rise of the web means that if we don?t tell our kids the truth, they?ll find a version of it out there somewhere.

Nidelynodely - stop blaming the schools for stuff that is your responsibility. If you want to indoctrinate your kids in such a manner then you?re free to do so as a parent; that?s your right. You?re literally blaming other people for things that are your problem to handle. Home school your kids or send them to a Catholic school. I find your insistence that everyone else fall in line with your antiquated sense of right and wrong frankly appalling.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > j.a. I only mentioned the gender wars/trans issue > because it?s about relationships and sexual > education, not just the mechanics of sex. > > But agree that it?s a can of worms The mechanics of sex - and the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies and STD?s - are really important to understand, which I?m sure you?d agree with. This shouldn?t get conflates with the far more complex issues that society is only just starting to talk about. I think it?s important to remember that, and not allow a gender/culture war to undermine it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair point pk. There?s nothing wrong with being > tolerant of others? sexual choices. > > But it not that simple is it? It really is that simple. > > Some communities - Muslims, Christians, Jews etc - > might consider some of the practices wrong and > object to their children being exposed to such > material. We saw this issue in Handsworth in > Birmingham recently. Excellent example, because the prime instigators of those protests didn?t even have kids at that school, and I suggest their motives were based more on their personal morality/views on how the world should be, and less on ?won?t somebody think of the children!?. I?m also going to suggest that if someone has religiously based opinions on how they want their children educated, then there are faith schools available for them to attend. > At the end of the day it is social engineering and > what is educating and informing from the > perspective of secular liberal parents differs > from those parents with different religious > persuasions. > Again, if your religion is the dominant concern in your kids education, then go to a faith school, or go and live somewhere that more closely aligns with your beliefs. > Presumably the lessons are not compulsory and > parents can withdraw their children from such > classes if they wish? One would hope so. Simplest solution for those who want to avail themselves of a state-sponsored education but then stick their fingers in their ears when something that conflicts with their intolerant moral code rears it?s ugly head.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... You can only educate and inform ... > > I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a. The OP has openly stated an opposition to pre-marital sex, and believes that teenagers should be actively discouraged from it. Good luck with that, frankly. The realpolitik is that - where sex is concerned - education and information mean people are more likely to make good decisions (remember we?re talking about adolescents here!). The OP prefers the kind of education that prevents sexual activity at all. That is both naive and dangerous, and far more likely to result in trouble. > > Rather the OP?s concern appears to be who is doing > the educating and informing and what agendas is > being followed. > > The gender wars are creating difficulties because > of vocal minorities trying to enforce their views > on others. An example here would be the problems > Stonewall has encountered with an alleged > anti-women trans policy. > > Parents have a right to know who is preparing > these ?educational? texts and to decide if they > consider them appropriate for their children. I?m not getting into a discussion regarding trans issues; to me that?s something entirely separate and it?s own total can of worms. I?m more concerned by the idea that we should move basic sexual education back by fifty years to a point where ?the birds and bees? is all a rampantly hormonal teenager with access to the internet is considered to be worthy of knowing. There?s literally nothing in the OP?s post of 11:25am that I find disturbing, and the idea that you can shield under-16?s from this in the internet age is bluntly stupid. I guess I?m just astonished to find such views still exist, but I suppose I shouldn?t be. As for the Values Foundation? Well, organised religion strikes again...

Unfortunately, to the detriment of society in general, people like you fail to understand that you?re part of the problem, and not part of the solution. I have two daughters, by the way. You cannot expect to dictate to young people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You can only educate and inform and be the best parent you can be, then cross your fingers and hope they don?t do anything too stupid. Anything else is a fundamental - even wilful (and often religiously-inspired) misunderstanding of basic human nature.

I think you?ve taken a wrong turn on the internet, the Victorian morality forums are over there, just next to the self-deluding echo chambers. ETA - if you think under-aged sex is not already normalised in society in general then I have a bridge to sell you (good condition, partly used). Simply ignoring the issue and pretending it isn?t happening has never, never worked. Your personal morality is one that has been on the wrong side of history for a long time.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I note that YOU have no solution- just chucking bs > and insults out as usual. Sorry...are you...talking to yourself there? Certainly seems like it!

So just because someone is elected, they are beyond criticism? If someone is elected, they should be allowed to do whatever they want? There?s a word for that... Would you be saying the same if Corbyn had won? (I know I said I was going to ignore you, but it?s actually fun to point out the massive gaping holes in your logic! 😉)

FelixHA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I think this is the work of masons or illuminati > and in future we should expect something more > dangerous > It is my deal what I do and how much I comment If you need to buy more tinfoil in bulk, can I ask that you get it from Farmers? They?re a great independent who we should support, and I?m sure they?ll do you a discount. You?re plainly going through a lot...

No, sorry. Grayling still edges it, though plucky little Gav is coming up fast on the inside...

And oh look, the judge gave him 23 life sentences and recommended that he not even be considered for parole for 55 years. Tell me again about how ?judges? have undermined us here? I?ll wait...

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately because of legislation in 2002 which > removed powers from the Home Secretary and gave it > to 'judges' another miscreant cannot get a whole > life order... > https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12448683/manchester- > bomber-hashem-abedi-life-sentence-not-21-bomb/ You didn?t read the article you linked, did you? It literally says ?Speaking at the start of the hearing, Mr Justice Jeremy Baker said: "The reality is that if the accused had been over the age of 21, as was his brother, who of course died in the incident, then it would be the prosecution's case that this was a case where a whole life order was appropriate. "It is a matter not at the court's discretion? but a matter for Parliament, which passed the legislation to prevent the court from passing a whole order in this case." Do you understand what you?ve got wrong? Or should I write it in big coloured crayon? I wouldn?t have been so rude about your lack of basic reading comprehension if it wasn?t for the bit where you put ?judges? in apostrophes, thus demonstrating that you?re probably one of those who thinks they are the ?enemy of the people?. An independent judiciary - you?ll miss it when it?s gone...

seenbeen Wrote: > > Why should Boris keep several dogs and bark > himself? Because at a time like this, leadership matters. Hiding away gives the wrong impression. He has masses of experience Debatable. He was a 'reasonable' constituency MP (albeit one who made sure he was out of the country during a crucial vote on Heathrow runway, which is in his constituency), but had a reputation for laziness at City Hall. He had to be forced to come back from holiday during the London riots, for example. and did not > win the 2019 election so comprehensively without > having appealed to the majority. Please don't underestimate the rank stupidity of Corbyn et al in that election. They threw away the Red Wall because they failed to understand the feelings of natural Labour voters on a number of issues, not all of which were Brexit-related. A Conservative victory was never in doubt, but don't go thinking Johnson would have done as well as he did if Corbyn wasn't such a total fool. The relevant > cabinet ministers- i.e. Gavin Williamson > -Education, The Gavin Williamson currently f@*?ing up the future of young people from deprived areas while advancing that of those already in privileged positions because of the algorithm they used to 'moderate' A level grades? That Gavin Williamson? You think he's doing ok? The Gavin WIlliamson who isn't giving teachers any kind of solid information on how they reopen schools in THREE WEEKS TIME when there's a nasty virus going around? That Gavin Williamson? Ok chum... and Grant Shapps- Transport to keep > people on the move- The Grant Schapps who is obsessed with aviation and is currently looking to cut huge swathes of rural train services that will in all likelihood never return? That Grant Schapps? The Grant Schapps who is making it more expensive for pensioners and children to travel, just so the Tories can cripple TFL for their own ends? That Grant Schapps? Ok chum... are important Transport and Education are not the Foreign Office or Home Office. Do you see those ministers popping up? No. Do you know why? It's because Patel and Raab made such utter twats of themselves during the lockdown that they aren't allowed anywhere near press conferences. All the more reason why Johnson should be at the forefront. after the > devastating impact of the bloody covid 19 which is > UNPRECEDENTED....and since you Boris naysayers are > NOT part of the solution you are part of the > problem imo. So..."you're either with us or against us". Well, apart from the fact that it's a silly position to take, I'd suggest it's also nonsense, but I suspect you know that. Whatever happened to nuance and considered thought? > And how do you know if Boris is a grafter? Have > you got covert cctv in his office or something? He has quite the reputation for not being 'across the details' and a certain amount of laziness. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I hope the pandemic has knocked some sense into him, but when experienced MP's are calling him incapable of running a whelk stall, and former bosses describe him as utterly lazy, and it's widely known that he was felt to be the laziest foreign secretary we've ever had (though I appreciate there's a certain amount of "it's common knowledge down Feathers" about that statement, though I trust my sources), then yes, I feel there's grounds for keeping a keen eye on whether our current leaders are actually doing a decent job. I have to say that thus far I'm not convinced about how they will be when Covid flares up again in a couple of months. And it will. To quote the CEO of a major London hospital - "Right now you could lick the pavement in London and not get Covid. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't last."

Wow. Well, I?m new here so idled away the last hour going through your posting history. Now, I?d heard you were vile, but wow... There is nothing I can say to someone like you who is plainly so deep in his/her own echo chamber, so I?m going to go and have a shower to wash the stench of your posts off me, and then will happily ignore you. (It must take so much effort to hate the world as much as you do, I?m not sure I could do it)

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > she seems to have flipped- again! > Ah, typical Uncle Racist. Using YouTube as a primary source? Is that the best you can do?

If you don?t want best quality scallops you shouldn?t be buying them at all. Dredged scallops are environmentally disastrous, very small and not worth the money. You should only want the best, freshest scallops. You want to pay a reasonable price? Are you aware that *at least* ?20 per kg is a reasonable price. Put another way, each good scallop will cost you ?2 or more. I only buy fish at Sopers, but Jason is on holiday right now. Wait until he comes back then go there. Moxons are fine, but if you don?t want to go there right now you?ll have to wait a couple of weeks until Jason has finished lazing around a barbecue in Sussex.

uncleglen Wrote: > > It is not a conspiracy....it is real and it came > from China and was spread around because of the > failure of the WHO to allow the banning of > passenger flights...especially this bit > 'However, the necessity and benefits of this > public health response are outweighed by its > violation of international law. Under the > International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), > binding on all World Health Organization (WHO) > member states, health measures ?shall not be more > restrictive of international traffic and not more > invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably > available alternatives? [(4), art. 43]. Given the > effectiveness of community-based public health > measures such as social distancing (5) and contact > tracing (6), the necessity of travel bans must be > weighed against less restrictive alternatives, > increased global divisions, and violated IHR > obligations (7).' > > from > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6485/14 > 36.2 If you genuinely believe that sovereign governments were about to let the WHO dictate what they could do with their borders then you're even more stupid than I thought. They pay lip service to the WHO - which was what resulted in China being able to dominate it in the first place, be careful what you wish for mate - and the realpolitik is that no one is going to listen to them regarding border controls if they don't want to. The British govt has admitted that they locked down too late, and we know they closed the borders too late. But sure, blame the WHO if it makes you feel better. Run off back to your mum's basement to conjure up more selective quotes that back up your racism. I'll wait...

Blah Blah, Remember please that TE44 is an avowed "anti-vaxxer". Check out their post history for examples of such drivel. I respect that you feel they are worth debating (personally I wouldn't waste my time), but please remember that people like him/her are dangerous individuals who do not believe in science, but rather in their own beliefs, (un)substantiated as they are by whatever corner of the internet they pay attention to.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In an attempt to get this thread off football > thugs and a potential brexit tangent (there's more > than enough threads to argue over brexit).....:) > > I started this thread talking about the BLM > language, and problems associated with > language/narrative, which I find divisive and > counter productive. In the time since...I've seen > very well meaning friends on social media > constantly argue with people about semantics of > language, and feeling a constant need to 'educate > people' on what simple phrases 'really' imply. If > you have to constantly 'educate' people that the > phrase all lives matter doesn't actually just mean > all lives matter, and constantly defend the term > 'privilege'...even though the concepts may be very > sound...your messaging obviously needs a lot of > work. > > My starting position is that the overwhelming > majority of people are NOT rascist. So if you're > an anti-racist campaign group...most people > already agree with you...should be an easy win. So > to get many people's back up about your message > seems to be a spectacular own goal. > > Some may ask why I'm banging on about language > when there are bigger issues at play. Well...If > the language was more 'inclusive' (ah the irony) > then perhaps we wouldn't be constantly debating > semantics about phrases, and we could all just > agree that we all dont like the idea of a black > man being stopped and searched just because he is > black....then maybe, just maybe we could engage a > larger section of society around pragmatic > positive steps.... This is my first post on this forum, and it will be my only one. I'm making it because I feel the need to address the points that you've made, TheCat. I am a middle-aged white man. So are you, I'm assuming. The language involved is annoying you, you find it 'divisive and counter productive'. Hmmm, ok. Well, I see your point. A lot of people agree with you, and what I say to that is the problem with "All Lives Matter" is that it makes a falsa assumption. It treats all lives equally - and of course that's what any reasonable human wants - but it makes the mistake of believing that we are at that point now. We are not. By any measurable standard, black people are not treated equally in society. That is a simple fact, and as white people we have to accept it and work to change it. To say that All Lives Matter is to say that all lives are currently given equal weight and value. You say that your starting position is that an overwhelming majority of people are not racist. Leaving aside the point that I feel you are giving society too much credit, what you refer to there (and I accept I'm making an assumption about your meaning here) is 'overt racism' - the stuff that's easy to spot and challenge. But there's a lot more to it than that, isn't there? Unconscious bias is very dangerous, and it's everywhere. Moreover, the worst thing, in my view, that happens these days is the reaction of white people when a black person stands their ground on a issue. We've all seem it, I'm sure; in a situation where a white person would be seen as standing up for themselves, a black person is too often painted as "angry". Go and ask any black person you know, they'll tell you I'm right. It's an incredibly pejorative and frankly abusive response that essentially, on a subconscious level, tells a black person not to make a fuss, to accept what they've been allowed to have. I'm trying to get to my point, which is basically that white people, whether we like it or not, are going to have to listen to a lot to really uncomfortable things about race in order for this conversation to get to a productive point. You don't like the term white privilege? Well, I'm sorry about that but it exists, and black people are entitled to be unhappy about that. I think (and this is just my opinion) that the best thing white people can do right now is LISTEN. Listen and accept that we may be wrong about some things. Look, the black community is not a hive mind, nor is any community. What one person tells you may be contradicted by what someone else tells you, but the important point is to give everyone the space to describe their experiences and feelings, and don't tell them what language they can and can't use. If we do this then we will begin to have an actual conversation and debate, because we will understand that everyone involved is listening. As I say, Black Lives Matter is an important phrase because it is NOT, NOT, NOT about saying only black lives are important - of course it isn't - but it's about saying that, thus far, black lives have not been seen as being as important as white lives. We all know it's true, no point pretending it isn't. I don't feel I've made my point very well, but I've gone on long enough. I think you want the same things everyone else does, and I think you mean well in how you're trying to analyse the language involved, but as one middle-aged white man to another, I'd ask you to consider the idea, as I said earlier, that "All Lives Matter" or any other phrase that seeks to undermine Black Lives Matter, works from the false principle that all lives are considered equal in our world. They are not. There an awful lot of racists out there still; I'm reminded of the phrase Gerry Adams used about the IRA - "they haven't gone away, you know". There's a huge amount of unpleasant folk who simply don't like black people. I have just one other thing to say, and I promised myself I'd only do one post on here then log out. Uncle Glen - you say that yobs and former service personnel couldn't be the same thing. I don't know if you're na?ve, stupid or lying, but you obviously have no experience of the forces. Well, I do. You're wrong. Very, very wrong. I'm not going to go into detail, but you are basically making it up, I reckon. I won't be wasting any more breath on you, except to say that you live in some kind of fantasy world.