j.a.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are older people shielding (or just being much > more careful). > > I'm not old but I haven't been out much at all if > I'm representative - I'm not really scared, just > doesn't seem worth it for the hassle (sitting down > at a table, no talking to anyone, ordering by app) > - whilst for teenagers and twenty somethings it > is. One group not shielding was the teaching staff of Trinity School in Lewisham, who all went tO the pub together for a drink shortly before term started. One of them subsequently tested positive and the night before the kids were due to go back, all the parents got an email telling them the school is staying closed for another two weeks while the whole staff isolates! Needless to say, parents not happy.

In fairness, a close reading of the relevant comments from Abbott indicate that he somehow recognised that his personal views weren?t widely reflected in society. All in all it was pretty ?Australian?. There certainly is a line, but as Cat says, a lot of it will be relative to the position held. However, given comments widely accepted (or maybe insufficiently challenged is a better way of putting it) by various nation-state leaders (including Johnson, viz. ?picaninny smiles, letterboxes?), perhaps we?ve allowed ourselves to become tolerant of such language in general for whatever reason. Probably not a good thing.

A lot of people really do mind about Claire Fox. That?s cronyism, pure and simple. She?s a nasty piece of work, and there?s no ?supposedly? about her support for the IRA or her denial of genocide in Bosnia.

Viewed from a purely ?trade? point of view, no of course they shouldn?t have been, but that isn?t the world we live in, is it? As the phrase now goes, ?there is always a tweet?, or in this case a speech. We aren?t disagreeing here. I didn?t say they should have been part of the conversation, I said they were always going to be. And as you say, they weren?t ready for it. Plus ca change....

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To be fair, I don't think the government is > reallty on the hook for trying to confuse the > public on this one. What should have been a > relatively low profile advisory board appointment Nothing concerning Brexit is low profile any more! > has turned into a massive hoopla the past week, > driven by the media latching on to his potential > appointment, and then getting hysterical about his > 'homophobic' and 'misogynistic' views To be fair, those are views you yourself felt you had to distance yourself from at the top of this thread, so I think you can agree they were always going to be part of the conversation. (Matt > Hancock didn't go on to sky to talk about Tony > Abbott, the sky news reporter just cornered him > with a bit of sensationalist questioning)...so if > anyone has conflated anything is the broader press > I'd say.... If Hancock didn?t think he was going to get asked then he?s an idiot. Oh, wait.... The whole thing is typical of Johnson?s governance, where they don?t think through the whole detail of an issue, and are then surprised when they don?t entirely control it. Witness the multiple u-turns over Covid, for example. Look, the points Effra makes are good ones - Abbott may well have a broad strategic view that can benefit us, certainly we need more brains where trade is concerned; only time will tell I guess. However, like so much else, the govt has been caught out again with the message.

That?s a number of good points, and I see the logic in it all. I would reiterate that the UK govt could be clearer in that aspect, and they?re prioritising they installation of ideological soulmates, but then that?s this govt for you. I hope the Board of Trade lives up to expectations; certainly Marcus Fysh hasn?t had a good start. (Not quite sure what you mean by ?spare us the details?, but I suspect you?re trying ineffectually to have a dig at me, whatever...)

I?m mainly dismissive of Effra?s view that just because an actual trade expert gave their view via Twitter, that view is invalid. I probably could?ve made that clearer. However, Abbott is being touted by the UK govt as an ?expert? (see Matt Hancock et al) - and that isn?t the case - and I?d say that the govt is happy to conflate the true role of the Board of Trade with that of the actual negotiators. I don?t think that?s healthy, in terms of the wider debate.

Whatever dude, see what you want to see, ignore what doesn?t fit your narrative. The fact remains that Tony Abbott is not a trade expert; all those deals you mention were actually negotiated by Andrew Robb. Abbott is an ideological soulmate of Johnson, however. If I?d linked to a tweet from Hannon or Mumford I?m sure you?d be fine with it. Crack on, chum...

Effra Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many of you lot are spouting off without doing > adequate research. > > > 3. He negotiated free trade agreements with China, > Japan and South Korea so he is eminently qualified He didn?t negotiate anything. As I said above, read this... He, Abbott personally, isn?t a particularly qualified trade expert. Now if we were getting Andrew Robb it?d be a different matter.

Sums it up in my view.

I was planning to engage further with you on this issue, but decided to read more of your published works first. You really are a piece of work. You?re a reactionary bigot who?s religion allows her to believe she is right about everything and we are all wrong. Progressive and liberal? Guilty as charged, I wear it proudly. You don?t like how people think? Maybe stick to your echo chamber. Every pint you?ve made on here had been disproved in its turn, and you keep moving the goalposts of the discussion. The only person agreeing with you is the mental TE44, and I?m sure if you go outside London you?ll find more people to agree with you, but strangely you?ll also find more racists, homophobes and sexists. You yourself hate feminism and think men are undermined (beeeyatch purleeeease!), so I reckon you?ll be happy in the company of people who think things ?used to be better?. Well, maybe, but if you want to talk about how good things used to be then let?s talk about the rampant prevalence of chauvinism, racism, domestic abuse and sexual abuse in society (Catholic church anyone?) back in the 60?s, 70?s and 80?s that you?re venerating. You decry feminism, but did you really like the way women were treated in the workplace back then? Did you think systemic sexism was a good thing? Did you like the police calling BAME people highly offensive names in the street? Society?s morale code IS a progressive thing, whether you like it or not. It?s a continuous conversation we have with ourselves about what norms we consider acceptable and how we feel about things. There was a time we judicially murdered gay people. Then it was just illegal, than just widely condemned on a moral level, and now gay marriage legal, and yet STILL there are people who object to it. And often that objection - and much else when morality is concerned - is grounded in religious beliefs. This is not a theocracy. We have a legal code built on the framework of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but over time we have evolved into a secular legal framework and no longer look to religious teachings as the absolute word on things. People change, hopefully for the better, and things that for all we knows have represented the best thinking of their time are seen as just plain wrong by any modern standard. You see an ideology at work, but I think you?re seeing why you want to see. You?re convinced you?re right and I don?t believe you?re looking for a wider audience than your Twitter feed; you want people to agree with you, and when they don?t you have a problem with it. I have no problem with you having your beliefs, but when you use them to try and persuade people of the merits of a regressive, small-minded policy then it?s wrong. You can think what you like about me, I really don?t care, and I will leave the rest of this thread to you and your small-minded, reactionary opinion. I?ve read a lot of your published work online and feel comfortable in that statement; you describe yourself as tolerant but I dispute that. Laters mate, I?m out.

Erm, I?m not sure that those articles make quite the case you saying they do, particularly the New Zealand and Spain cases. I think it?s good that people are able to challenge lockdowns in court, because otherwise we certainly would be looking at a ?tyranny and suppression? situation, but my reading of theirs links more paints a picture of places where the govt. need to explain themselves better or provide more support. Although America is being its usual basket-case self...

Robbie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Applying discretion as to > who it is to be enforced against is just asking > for trouble. Either scrap it altogether or apply > it consistently. This is off-topic I know, but is that really the best way? That there be no room for nuance or consideration of circumstance? That the law must always be applied, to the letter, regardless of individual circumstance?

Well, I understand you have strong feelings on the matter, but consider this. Over a thousand people turned up, listened to speeches, voiced their opinion and went home. No tear gas, no baton charges, no rubber bullets, no one was kettled. Piers Corbyn is free - and is going to - appeal the fine through the legal system. Honestly, that doesn?t look much like tyranny and suppression to me.

But it?s worth pointing out this law very specifically targets only the organisers of such events. Nobody else is involved. ?10K is a paltry amount to the organisers of the Trafalgar Square demo.

It?s not tyranny and suppression, it?s a law bought in to deal with the raves that have been happening, and it didn?t exist until recently otherwise I pretty sure they would?ve used it against anyone. The govt wants the money after all. Quite a lot of rave organisers also got hit with it this weekend. Piers knew exactly what he was doing, it?s great PR for him, and I?ve no doubt a GoFundMe page will pay the fine. Tyranny and suppression is what?s going on in Belarus.

NN - so you admit, it?s your faith that is at the basis of your objections. And on the basis of YOUR faith, you believe things should change, and that people who disagree with you are being intolerant of your religion. Has it occurred to you that your beliefs make you intolerant of other people?s way of life? I state - yet again - no one is telling you that you can?t talk to your kids about this. You seem to believe that the school has some kind of hierarchy over you. You are a parent, take some responsibility. TE44 - I do not agree with ?cancel culture? in general, I think it is a dangerous path that leads to blindness. I?m not cancelling anyone, but am I arguing with them where I think they are so wrong that it is detrimental to society in general. You can?t seem to tell the difference. The exception being anti-vaxxers. You are a clear and present danger to the human race. I don?t care how you feel.

To be honest I?m conflicted on the issue of faith schools. I went to a CoE primary that was fairly benign in its application of religion, but hardcore secondary faith schools are a different kettle of fish. I totally appreciate people of genuine faith will want their children bought up in an environment which reflects that. The problems are when personal religion supersedes common morale values held by society. Someone (of devout faith) once told me they believed religion was for the home and place of worship and nowhere in between, and I?ve often felt that has merit. You don?t like how society does stuff? Go somewhere else.

I really don?t feel the need to be lectured on tolerance by an anti-vaxxer. Though I will say - no, I don?t have tolerance for the views the OP holds. They?re dangerous and reactionary and outdated and have the potential for harm. Tolerance for differences is fine - it?s what we should strive for - but when fundamental religious beliefs get involved then the choice is to take your child out of the state system and use a faith school. We do not - and it?s not possible to - create an education system that can encompass everything from Orthodox Judaism, fundamental Catholicism, atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Bhuddism and more besides. So we don?t. We try to be secular. Some religious beliefs have unpleasant attitudes to women and gays in them. That?s not who we are (or should be) as a society, and it?s those beliefs that are the problem. This a pluralistic society. That includes people without religious beliefs. This is why we have faith schools. Send your kid there if that?s what you want, the rest of a will then have a discussion if we?re still concerned. You feel free to agree with her, that?s your problem.

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. From your own words - "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." That's absolute rubbish. Homophobia was rampant in your generation. You personally may not have been (though the pinned video on your twitter feed makes me question that), but if you think it wasn't basically part and parcel of life then you're deluded. And there is still plenty of > homophobia today. > > But it isn't coming from me. Debatable. > > I don't think the approach we are taking in > schools re: homophobia is the best one. There is a > great deal of indoctrination going on and I would > rather people accept gay people because they are > accepting tolerant individuals than because they > are indoctrinated. That's generally what's going on with normal people. This is London in 2020. No one cares if you're gay. Well, no one reasonable anyway. However you don't have to go too far out of London to step back in time 30 years, so yeah, maybe some people do need to be helped to understand that it's not the end of the world if little Alfie has two dads. We are indoctrinating our > children with ideologies rather than teaching them > to be open minded and accepting. No, no we really aren't. Being a reasonable and tolerant human isn't an ideology. It's basic good manners. You only need to > see the ire directed at people who hold > conservative or traditional views to know that we > are not teaching young people tolerance and > acceptance. For 'traditional' read 'outdated and unwilling to accept others views'. Check yourself first before assuming it's other people who are displaying intolerance. > > I think there is an interesting discussion going > on although I don't think you are part of it! Ah, diddums. You don't like being challenged (well, you do write for the Daily Heil)? Well, surely you and TE44 can just reinforce each others views via PM. I note that you aren't exactly having a discussion; for example you responded to Mops first post but ignored her subsequent two where she disagreed with you. Hardly having a debate now is it? For the record I think the views you hold are dangerous, and if you were in charge of my daughters sexual education I'd be making your life extremely difficult. > > Someone raised the question of why I am here - it > is because I want to know how other people think. I can save you some time. A lot of people disagree with you. > I find on twitter you always end up talking to > people who think the same as you so that isn't so > valuable. Also there are not enough words for a > decent discussion whereas here there are enough > words. > > I'm not obsessed with anal sex but RSE materials > do seem to be. That is why I keep banging on about > it. No, sorry, don't believe you. You bring it up repeatedly, you bought BDSM into it, you are manifestly intolerant of any sexual identity that does not fit with your religiously-framed view of how people should be allowed to express themselves physically. You refuse to accept that others lead healthy, loving lives in the embrace of a variant of sexuality that you would decry as sinful and immoral. > > Yes I would like to see the sex education system > changed. For decades now we have had rising rates > of sexually transmitted diseases, very high rates > of teenage pregnancy, huge levels of mental health > issues, and now we have young children confused > about something as basic as their sex yet we keep > doggedly ploughing on in the same direction. Yes I > would really like to see it changed. And you think AAALLLLL of that is because of RSE? You think we're descending into some kind of cesspit of sexual depravity because of that? Rising rates of STD's? Debatable. 2018 was up by 5% on the previous couple of years, where it hit stabilised after dropping down from the high points of 2012-15, and now is generally hanging around where it was in the years 07-12. You're trying to give an impression of skyrocketing STI's and that isn't the case. 'Very high rates of teenage preganancy'? Wrong. Just wrong. It's actually declining. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/teenage-pregnancy "The under-18 conception rate has decreased for ten years running. In 2017, there were 16,740 conceptions to women aged under 18 in England and Wales, equating to 17.9 conceptions per 1,000 women. This was a 5.3% decrease compared with 2016, and a 57% decrease compared with 2007. There are many factors that could explain recent reductions in under-18 conceptions, including programmes to improve access to contraceptives, a shift in aspirations of young women towards education, and the perception of stigma associated with being a teenage mother." So you're talking rubbish there. And you say you're a researcher... Mental health issues? Yes, there's teenage mental health issues. Part of that - a large part - is better understanding and awareness of mental health in general. It's not just in teenagers that it's rising, adults too. It's got very little to do with RSE, and it's frankly a strawman argument to suggest otherwise. As for trying to bring in the trans argument - nope, sorry, not going there. Nice try, not biting. That's an entirely different discussion; you started this talking about basic sexual education and trying to make out that having open and frank conversations with teenagers in the modern age was dangerous and could lead to the downfall of society. You don't like RSE, mainly because it conflicts with religiously-informed beliefs that you hold very strongly, and you're looking for stuff to back up your argument. You haven't found it yet, you just think you have. > > This isn't about my children. I just have this > weird thing where I really care about the world I > live in and future generations. And so do the rest of us. And frankly I think you might want to ask yourself why your views are in the minority yet the world still keeps functioning? Purely apropos of, you know, nothing at all, did you happen to see what went down with Jerry and Rebeccca Falwell? Wow, I mean, they presumably had exactly the kind of attitude to sex that you do, and yet he would stand in the corner of the bedroom watching his wife with the pool boy? Yup, telling people not to do something, that's a sure fire winner, every time...

Yeah, Glen is very pro-LGBT rights. Hates everyone else though... NN also retweets racist Twitter accounts, by the way. She?s keen for everyone to know that George Floyd and Jacob Blake has criminal records, not sure why (obviously we know why).

NN is a fervent Christian who opposes feminism, writes for the Daily Mail and Conservative Home on subjects that include why men are getting a raw deal, and has a pinned video at the top of her twitter feed which comes dangerously close to homophobia. It would be wise to understand that there isn?t a debate to be had here, NN?s views are entrenched (in the 19th century) and underpinned by religious belief. She isn?t looking for discussion, she just wants the entire sexual education system changed to better reflect her personal options. She seems obsessed with anal sex and seems to think there was no homophobia in the sixties, seventies and eighties (haha!). This - ?You can find out more about the resources here: [rsereview.org]? is just another link to the Values Foundation, who are clearly working an agenda, shall we say? And yes, I?ve read the link in its entirety. Mostly she?s just blaming the education system for something that she?s fully empowered as a parent to handle. TE44 is an anti-vaxxer; nuff said.

Literally nobody is saying that kids should all get into bum sex (you seem obsessed with this) or watch a ton of porn. That?s your spin on what?s been posted. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, we live on a world where there is almost too much information. Schools and parents need to parse that down into solid facts, which will allow people to make informed choices. Some of them will make bad choices, that?s human nature. If I didn?t know better I?d say two different people were writing your posts. ETA - also, what Mops said. Values Foundation = Lunatic Nutjobs

niledynodely Wrote: ------------------------------------------------- > > > I think if you give children boundaries it raises > the bar. > > Also it is just I have a different idea of what > sort of information we should be giving young > people. For example I think we should teach young > people that when they have sex with others actual > physiological things happen which bond them to one > another. This means that you can end up getting > really attached to someone who you might not in > fact be that well suited to. This bonding, which > has been shown to happen also means that it is > particularly distressing when you break up. Also > there seems to be evidence that the fewer sexual > partners you have had when you get married the > more likely your marriage is to survive. And that > people who have had fewer sexual partners actually > enjoy sex more. We should teach all of this in a > factual way backed up with data. > > Similarly I think we should teach children how > masturbation and pornography can be addictive so > they need to keep an eye on that. And we should > talk to them, particularly to the boys about how > the more you masturbate to pornography the more > difficult you find obtaining sexual satisfaction > with a real person. So if they want to go out into > the world and really enjoy sex avoid porn. Even > excessive masturbation can make it more difficult > for you to orgasm with a partner rather than with > yourself. Yeah so these are some of the useful > things we could be teaching our children. I can > think of other things too. > > And quite frankly I can't think of anything more > likely to destroy sexual pleasure than having it > taught to you by your teachers at school. And that > is what we do. Insane. Now, all of that is a lot more sensible and realistic than the utter drivel you were spouting at the start of the thread. I still think that you need to realise that you?re competing with the internet, and if you don?t have honest conversations with teenagers about a wide range of subjects then they?ll go off and find their own answers, which is fairly risky. Adolescent hormones put up a hell of a fight. You refer to ?boundaries?, and I would say that with teenagers all you can do is explain why those boundaries exist and then hope they stick to them when they?re out of sight. This applies to everything from road safety to drugs. Why shouldn?t teachers be part of it though? They?re part of great swathes of our kids development, why wouldn?t they have conversations about this? When I was at GCSE level part of our week was a 45 minute session in a small group with a teacher where nothing was off-limits and everything utterly confidential. We discussed what I will only describe as a wide range of topics between us, and it was of great benefit to our personal development. I think like so much else it depends on the teacher. Some teachers are useless and you wouldn?t trust them with the emotional development of a mayfly, but some are wonderful human beings who can help immensely. Writing off the idea entirely is short-sighted. However, fair play to you, that?s a much better angle.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would suggest a dice game with your 13yr old > children, invite your friends to let them see how > open minded you are so 2020. If by that you mean tolerant and understanding of the modern world, then guilty as charged. I know it's hard for someone as reactionary and antiquated as you to grasp, but some of us have a grip on what's going on. Who knows with > everything so open and moved on, and we know its > nothing to kids these days with internrt porn etc > who knows the age of consent may be needing > reviewed. Stop being stupid. > I cannot believe there is no concern over some of > the content for children. Its ridiculous. Now you're being wilfully disingenuous, and i shows you up for the unpleasant character you so plainly are. You believe that just because people don't agree with your exact dogmatic beliefs then they have no concern for their children?! How dare you! If > parents are happy to have there kids playing a > game like the dice game, I would say, buy it > yourself for ?75 and teach yourself whatever > educational lessons you pick up from it. > Thanks Niledynodely. Its good to know people are > making people aware of this weird shit. It's hardly 'weird' to want to have mature, honest conversations with teenagers about sex. I can't > imagine why 13yr old need to discuss retrievable > objects in the anus. Children who have/are being > abused, hearing some of these suggestions for > conversations may feel confused further by there > own feeling of sexuality which may be very > different from children who have not encountered > sexual abuse. Strawman argument, try to engage with what was actually said. There is room for change and more > openess but this should be done very carefully and > with thought for all differences. Do we really > need children to be put into situations where they > are seen as open/bigoted if they dont wish to > speak nor hear about what people want to do with > there tongues and an anus. Again, that's not what was actually said. The descriptions of bigotry referred to cases of open homophobia and the demands for violence against gay people, for example. No one said anything else, you're just making stuff up now. > Since this was posted in family room I have been > speaking with family and friends and I've not met > one person that thinks this is appropriate or > helpful for children. Well of course they did - you presented your own version of what was said here so they agreed with you. Given that you've wilfully misrepresented people's post in just a couple of paragraphs I'm not surprised that you managed to basically lie to your 'friends and family' to get the answers you wanted. TE44, you're obviously a lunatic so I don't expect much sense out of you, but if you're going to argue a point try not to make stuff up. You've basically taken this whole thread out of context, bounced it round your own little echo chamber and decided to be revisionist. Do one.