Mops

Slightly amazed we didn?t make this list when I?m only just receiving letters which were sent first class during the first week of December... Royal Mail lists areas hit by Covid postal delays https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55591063

I wondered if anyone else was getting regular power outages? UK Power Networks have had to assist 3 times in the last week as we keep getting power cuts. They always seem to start around 6/7pm and are at the network level not the house level. We live near the north end of Lordship Lane. Wondered if anyone had more info on what?s causing them/ how to get a more permanent fix! Thanks

The *Conservative Woman. Not sure if that was irony or an unwillingness to acknowledge such doggerel.

niledynodely Wrote: > > Of course I think there used to be homophobia in > the 60s, 70s and 80s - I don't know where you get > that idea from. And there is still plenty of > homophobia today. > > But it isn't coming from me. NN/ OP In your post of Thursday evening at 11:55pm you said: ?I don't think we should make anal sex seem normal, it really has some serious health risks and I think we should tell young people about this. The only reason we don't is because we are afraid of being homophobic but I think it is far more damaging to gay people to not properly inform them of the risks of anal sex. I think the vast majority of us just accept gay people without thinking to much about what they get up to. And to be honest my generation grew up by and large perfectly accepting of gay people without having to go through some sort of programme in order to accept them.? Having told us you?re of a 60s generation, I believe this is where you have suggested homophobia was not prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century. I certainly hope you don?t cherry pick resources for your academic research with the same confirmation bias you apply to your homophobic rhetoric. OP, you assert that you?re not homophobic. Why don?t we call a spade a spade here. I think the article ?the myth that gays [sic] are bullied at school? for ?The Conservation Woman? is a pretty good example of your deep seated homophobia (together with the aforementioned twitter video). It?s a shame you do not realise that non-heterosexual relationships will exist and LGBTQ+ identifying people will continue to be born whether you like it or not. The option isn?t whether these sexualities or sexual preferences exist; it?s whether we include each other as equals or whether we perpetuate or exacerbate intolerance, hatred and bigotry. Given the choice between including and accepting or vilifying someone, based on something entirely involuntary (and a ?protected characteristic? might I add), surely there?s no question.

The Values Foundation publishes, on its website, material authored by proponents of gay conversion therapy. I?m honestly aghast Niledy, a researcher, is comfortable demonstrating reliance on this source so publicly on the internet but at least we know where the anal obsession is coming from.

I cannot begin to describe how disappointed and frustrated I am by the misinformation being peddled here. If I didn?t know this was the OP?s genuine socio-political beliefs (which Google has made clear) I?d presume this was trolling and wouldn?t reply. As someone who seems to repeatedly assert their role in the field of research, I implore you to please undertake some critical analysis of your primary sources. This ?Values Foundation? you keep quoting has incredibly damaging material on its website which falls very close to the realms of hate crime and discrimination. For anyone interested, please look up their website and from the drop down menu select ?Evidence? (the title says it all really). You will find a one drive account full of homophobic and discriminatory personal beliefs marketed as some kind of fact or ?evidence?. This is dangerous material which should not be being relied upon as good authority. I appreciate you are stressing a personal concern but please take care to not perpetuate discriminatory beliefs or disseminate misinformation.

I can appreciate the OP is coming from a position of genuine care and concern, however I am worried they may have misunderstood the context around RSE. Let?s take this particular example of the dice exercise and of anal sex being mentioned more generally in RSE lessons in senior schools. Whilst you could interpret this exercise as ?our teenagers being taught how to have all kinds of less traditional of non-reproductive sexual interactions?, you could also see this exercise as an educational opportunity in a safe space to inform young people that there is no ?one? or ?right? way to have sex; sex can take lots of difference forms and means something different to different people - what is key is consent. The effect of this exercise would be the inclusion and acknowledgment of sex for non-heterosexual individuals. In the long term, this reduces homophobia, discrimination and bigotry and actively includes young people who identify as LGBTQ+ or whose parents/ families/ carers may identify as LGBTQ+. Sex is in pop culture, it?s all over the internet. It?s on social media, in films, throughout song lyrics. A lack of information has far greater capacity to cause harm than any uncomfortable conversations in an educational setting may do, or even teaching a young person about something sex related they hadn?t yet come across. I appreciate 13 may seem very young, but it is important to remember (1) the typical exposure a teenager of 13 will already have had, whether in conversation, in pop culture or on the internet; and (2) just because certain RSE topics are designated ?13+? doesn?t mean they?re taught at 13; they could be addressed at 16, 17 or 18. I hope you can try to see this from another perspective, the same way I can appreciate you are trying to protect young people in the way you think is best. My advice would be that it is important to think about how we can protect (and include) all young people; not just those who act like us or who share our own beliefs or sexual preferences.

We can also recommend Hussein (07491 113 036)! He did a lovely job on our house just off Lordship Lane pre-lockdown. Hussein is polite, responsive and more than willing to accommodate any changes in plan. He worked quickly, efficiently and we would have no hesitation in recommending him.