Oh dear

john80
john80 Posts: 2,965
edited March 2019 in The cake stop
Quite depressing for 2019 really. Who knew teachers could be asked to resign for teaching about diversity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-47692617
«13

Comments

  • Wayne Plunger
    Wayne Plunger Posts: 444
    The dance troupe?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    john80 wrote:
    Quite depressing for 2019 really. Who knew teachers could be asked to resign for teaching about diversity.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-47692617

    Agreed. As if not talking about it will stop people being homosexual.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Wheelspinner
    Wheelspinner Posts: 6,711
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.
    Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.

    Which our current PM voted against.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    john80 wrote:
    Quite depressing for 2019 really. Who knew teachers could be asked to resign for teaching about diversity.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-47692617

    There's a difference between teaching and preaching.

    I think the parents have a point.

    Apart from the social issues in some communities there's also the timing of discussions. I object to my young children have sex education aged 5. The pressure groups that drive these agendas through society do so without consideration or sensitivity for the wider community. Just look at the trans movement for a good example.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.

    no this preaching causes a hoohaa all over the country. Maybe we have something to be thankful for with the parents in Birmingham.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.


    Is this not a pilot programme? Even if it wasn't it would only cause a fuss (or make national news) in schools that were majority Muslim. Maybe their parents could teach them that their religion might say it's wrong but that other people's lifestyles are not their concern if they're not hurting anyone else.

    I don't know enough about it but, like others have said, my first instinct was that five is a bit young to even be talking about matters like this.
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    Not sure what all the fuss is about. Is this so wrong at 5 years old?
    She said the No Outsiders lessons use a book featuring two mothers and their child, and depicts them doing "normal things".

    The idea is to show children how "all families are different".

    "We are not teaching children about same sex couples in the sense of sexual relationships, what we do teach our children is that there are different families and that there are families with two mummies, two daddies."
    So, no sex education, just making kids aware that families with same sex parents exist, and that it's fine. I can understand the conflict with Islam although, as was pointed out in the article, "In school they need to be educated to the laws of the land and at home they can follow their religion and that is fine; the two sit together". Seems reasonable to me.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I object to my young children have sex education aged 5.

    what do you think they actually teach them at that age? and why do you object?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    edited March 2019
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.


    Is this not a pilot programme? Even if it wasn't it would only cause a fuss (or make national news) in schools that were majority Muslim. Maybe their parents could teach them that their religion might say it's wrong but that other people's lifestyles are not their concern if they're not hurting anyone else.

    I don't know enough about it but, like others have said, my first instinct was that five is a bit young to even be talking about matters like this.

    I imagine parents of children at an orthodox Jewish school might have issues with the teaching material; similarly at one of the more observant RC or CofE schools. It probably wouldn't have made the national news, though.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I object to my young children have sex education aged 5.

    what do you think they actually teach them at that age? and why do you object?

    I object because my belief as a parent is that it’s unnecessary and that they don’t have the maturity to deal with complex issues like it’s ok to be gay. Which it may well be the case but like many things it’s more complex.

    I object to people promoting this type of thing to vulnerable children. And of course children at primary school are vulnerable and impressionable.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Wheelspinner wrote:
    Perhaps instead that school will start classes in stone-throwing and whipping.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/lgbt-muslims-brunei-face-whipping,-stoning-under-new-laws/10938592

    Such a tolerant lot.

    How disgusting of you to vilify a sector of our fully integrated country. Shame on you.

    Except that the same teaching framework is used across the country and has only caused a hoo-ha in a handful of Birmingham schools. So maybe things aren't quite as bad as you fear. Don't forget that the lessons that these parents are objecting to would have probably been illegal under Section 28 until it was repealed in 2003.


    Is this not a pilot programme? Even if it wasn't it would only cause a fuss (or make national news) in schools that were majority Muslim. Maybe their parents could teach them that their religion might say it's wrong but that other people's lifestyles are not their concern if they're not hurting anyone else.

    I don't know enough about it but, like others have said, my first instinct was that five is a bit young to even be talking about matters like this.

    I imagine parents of children at an orthodox Jewish school might have issues with the teaching material; similarly at one of the more observant RC or CofE schools. It probably wouldn't have made the national news, though.

    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I object to my young children have sex education aged 5.

    what do you think they actually teach them at that age? and why do you object?

    I object because my belief as a parent is that it’s unnecessary and that they don’t have the maturity to deal with complex issues like it’s ok to be gay. Which it may well be the case but like many things it’s more complex.

    I object to people promoting this type of thing to vulnerable children. And of course children at primary school are vulnerable and impressionable.

    What is wrong with telling children that gay people exist? that is about all they are doing. there will be more and more children going to school who have been adopted by same sex couples so are you going to ban your children from seeing them until they are old enough? when exactly do you think children will be old enough to learn that some people are gay?

    what is complex about saying it is ok if you are gay?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,866
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I object to my young children have sex education aged 5.

    what do you think they actually teach them at that age? and why do you object?

    I object because my belief as a parent is that it’s unnecessary and that they don’t have the maturity to deal with complex issues like it’s ok to be gay. Which it may well be the case but like many things it’s more complex.

    I object to people promoting this type of thing to vulnerable children. And of course children at primary school are vulnerable and impressionable.

    What is wrong with telling children that gay people exist? that is about all they are doing. there will be more and more children going to school who have been adopted by same sex couples so are you going to ban your children from seeing them until they are old enough? when exactly do you think children will be old enough to learn that some people are gay?

    what is complex about saying it is ok if you are gay?

    Are they going as far as saying that it's a gay couple? Or just that Chris has 2 Daddies and Alex has two Mummies.
    The obvious question that's going to raise is "Why?" because that's what young kids ask - I very much doubt that they'll go into the why's and wherefores of the reasons for people living together...

    Yes - at primary school, kids are very impressionable - which is why it's a good idea to teach tolerance of all family setups accepted in this country.
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I object to people promoting this type of thing to vulnerable children. And of course children at primary school are vulnerable and impressionable.
    Promoting acceptance of other people? Yeah, I can see why that'd be a problem... :roll:
  • homers_double
    homers_double Posts: 8,331
    Mowgli is going to have some serious 9iss ripped out of him in year three!
    Advocate of disc brakes.
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    Slowbike wrote:
    Are they going as far as saying that it's a gay couple? Or just that Chris has 2 Daddies and Alex has two Mummies.
    Obviously this is my interpretation of what's written in the article, but it sounds like it's this.
    The obvious question that's going to raise is "Why?" because that's what young kids ask
    "Because they love each other" - easy answer :D
    I very much doubt that they'll go into the why's and wherefores of the reasons for people living together...

    Yes - at primary school, kids are very impressionable - which is why it's a good idea to teach tolerance of all family setups accepted in this country.
    Exactly.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Are they going as far as saying that it's a gay couple? Or just that Chris has 2 Daddies and Alex has two Mummies.
    Obviously this is my interpretation of what's written in the article, but it sounds like it's this.
    The obvious question that's going to raise is "Why?" because that's what young kids ask
    "Because they love each other" - easy answer :D
    I very much doubt that they'll go into the why's and wherefores of the reasons for people living together...

    Yes - at primary school, kids are very impressionable - which is why it's a good idea to teach tolerance of all family setups accepted in this country.
    Exactly.
    Sounds entirely reasonable to me ...

    Although our 3yo did burst into tears when I explained that Mummy and Daddy love each other which is why we live together.... for some reason he thought that excluded him!
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    Slowbike wrote:
    Sounds entirely reasonable to me ...
    Quite. Unless you have a problem with gay people and think that even just telling your kids that same sex couples exist will somehow influence them to be gay...
    Although our 3yo did burst into tears when I explained that Mummy and Daddy love each other which is why we live together.... for some reason he thought that excluded him!
    Haha, poor thing. Still, just wait until he's telling you he only loves Mummy and that you're "fired from the house" for being a horrible daddy (as my 7 year old told me recently) :shock:
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Veronese68 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.


    The Guardian reported a poll a few years ago in which 100% of Muslim respondents said homosexuality was morally unacceptable and just over 50% thought it should be illegal. Maybe it's time that we join the dots and realise beliefs have consequences. This protest shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. What's ironic is that I'm pretty sure Muslims were one of the religious minorities included in the programme.

    Have there been similar Christian or Jewish dominated protests at state schools? I think all three religions are homophobic to a certain extent but Christianity (in the UK) has generally become more accepting than Islam.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Sounds entirely reasonable to me ...
    Quite. Unless you have a problem with gay people and think that even just telling your kids that same sex couples exist will somehow influence them to be gay...
    Not really - wouldn't want to be one, but I have no issue with "them" - the only issue that bothers me a bit is when "they" want to be OTT about their sexuality, but that's across the board
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Although our 3yo did burst into tears when I explained that Mummy and Daddy love each other which is why we live together.... for some reason he thought that excluded him!
    Haha, poor thing. Still, just wait until he's telling you he only loves Mummy and that you're "fired from the house" for being a horrible daddy (as my 7 year old told me recently) :shock:
    Not there yet - thankfully - he does try to play us off, but we're pre-wise to that so he (mostly) gets the same response from both of us.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    nickice wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.


    The Guardian reported a poll a few years ago in which 100% of Muslim respondents said homosexuality was morally unacceptable and just over 50% thought it should be illegal. Maybe it's time that we join the dots and realise beliefs have consequences.
    Depends on the validity of the poll - statistics can be used to push an agenda - 100% of respondents confirm that (both of them).
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Slowbike wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.


    The Guardian reported a poll a few years ago in which 100% of Muslim respondents said homosexuality was morally unacceptable and just over 50% thought it should be illegal. Maybe it's time that we join the dots and realise beliefs have consequences.
    Depends on the validity of the poll - statistics can be used to push an agenda - 100% of respondents confirm that (both of them).

    I'm almost regretting saying this already - but if they follow the faith to the letter then they should be very against it and some interpretations say that it should be punishable by death.

    this goes for pretty much all religion - the difference being that the other religions (orthodox aside) leave themselves open to reform - Islam less so. It is believed to be the word of god so unlikely he/she/it would have made a mistake - the other religions are based on the various prophets teachings and word of mouth so easier to change things going forward.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Slowbike wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.


    The Guardian reported a poll a few years ago in which 100% of Muslim respondents said homosexuality was morally unacceptable and just over 50% thought it should be illegal. Maybe it's time that we join the dots and realise beliefs have consequences.
    Depends on the validity of the poll - statistics can be used to push an agenda - 100% of respondents confirm that (both of them).


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may ... osexuality

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... sharia-law

    Nobody ever questions poll validity on here unless it involves confronting uncomfortable truths.


    This sentence stood out-Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.



    I'd suggest these events do nothing to discount the validity of these polls. Quite frankly, I don't care what people believe as long as they don't interfere with others' rights.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I think the fact that it's a non-religious state school might be the reason it's making headlines.
    I think the fact that it suits certain agendas has more to do with it.


    The Guardian reported a poll a few years ago in which 100% of Muslim respondents said homosexuality was morally unacceptable and just over 50% thought it should be illegal. Maybe it's time that we join the dots and realise beliefs have consequences.
    Depends on the validity of the poll - statistics can be used to push an agenda - 100% of respondents confirm that (both of them).

    I'm almost regretting saying this already - but if they follow the faith to the letter then they should be very against it and some interpretations say that it should be punishable by death.

    this goes for pretty much all religion - the difference being that the other religions (orthodox aside) leave themselves open to reform - Islam less so. It is believed to be the word of god so unlikely he/she/it would have made a mistake - the other religions are based on the various prophets teachings and word of mouth so easier to change things going forward.

    You have said nothing uncontroversial. The fact that some people would consider it controversial is the most disappointing thing.
  • joenobody
    joenobody Posts: 563
    Slowbike wrote:
    Not really - wouldn't want to be one, but I have no issue with "them" - the only issue that bothers me a bit is when "they" want to be OTT about their sexuality, but that's across the board
    Across the board, as in for overdone displays of hetero affection too? If so, I agree. Not relevant in this case though.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    JoeNobody wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Not really - wouldn't want to be one, but I have no issue with "them" - the only issue that bothers me a bit is when "they" want to be OTT about their sexuality, but that's across the board
    Across the board, as in for overdone displays of hetero affection too? If so, I agree. Not relevant in this case though.
    exactly ...

Categories