this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
76 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3100 readers
230 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] christophski 49 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Who the fuck is asking for this? Literally nobody, the government is just doing whatever they want at this point

[–] zeet@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Nobody is asking for it, but that's not the purpose: the purpose is to stir up opposition.

I suspect a significant portion of the population will be indifferent to the proposal. At best, they'll shrug and say, 'Sure, makes sense if that's what's needed,' without bothering to think it through fully.

More liberally minded people react with justified opposition to the proposal. At that point, the Conservatives will rally the indifferent against 'the woke'. They hope to gain support by convincing people they have a common enemy.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What the Conservatives hope to do is call anyone who opposes this a paedophile.

[–] OrlandoDoom 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean I already call the Tories nonces

[–] Flax_vert 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

MP means Mega Paedophile. If you sit on a green seat, then to children you beat your me-

[–] echodot 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Other occupations are of course also available, such as religious leaders and children's TV personalities.

[–] Flax_vert 0 points 6 months ago

And School teachers

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago

and it’s sex! and children! if you don’t agree you’re a groomer! therefor woke = groomer!

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Thank you. I really needed a good way to describe what i was seeing the current election cicle.

All these weird promises, bad ideas, sudden legislations i am seeing around are so detached from the problems i witness. Every time i see an ad for a party i want to vote for em less. Some of it even feels like it laughing in my face and taking the piss at us.

They are just doing what they want at this point!

Thank you!

Edit: This rant has little to do on the subject of sex education in the uk.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Inventing controversial non-solutions to non-problems in order to avoid discussing solutions to real problems that they themselves have caused or worsened, which would all, in some way, involve giving money to non-rich people or spending money on non-rich people, which they see as an egregious waste of money.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There's basically a hierarchy in political decision making.

  1. Doing things that are good for the country.
  2. Doing things that voters want.
  3. Doing things your party wants.

1 should be the reason you get into politics in the first place because you want to make the world a better place. 2 is also super important, we live in a democracy and if you don't give people some of what they want you're not doing your job. 3 is basically day to day politicking. You throw red meat to members of the party so they continue to support you.

The Tory party is now so up their own arses that they only do 3 in the hope that they won't tear themselves apart. This is some random anti-woke bullshit, that will mean it's harder to catch and prevent child abuse, and kids can't learn basic biology. And it doesn't even appeal to what's left of their fanbase.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

it’s not even really 3 - i’d say we’re at 4 - inventing problems that don’t exist to avoid doing 1 and 2

these aren’t even things their party wants - they don’t really care… they just need to distract from the mess they’ve created to avoid fixing it for another election cycle

[–] apis@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

Or at 5 - salting the earth to make 1, 2 & 3 much, much harder for Labour.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

There are definitely people asking for this, but its pedos, rapists and pro lifers.

[–] echodot 2 points 6 months ago

Yes party donors.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Certain parents are asking for this but the government is dumb/opportunistic for listening to them. Also seems strange to have a blanket ban when the complaints I've heard on the radio are about the teaching resources being used. Suspect that a blanket ban is an easier headline to understand for the people they want to pander to.

[–] GreatAlbatross 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I had one of those parents at my work once.

"These bloody schools want to teach 5 year olds about sex. Only parents should be allowed to choose what and when kids learn about this stuff".
Fantastic mate. So your teaching method will be "avoid the subject", then "vague religious murmurings" then finally "son learns about love and consent on his own from 4chan"

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My wife used to teach primary school in Scotland and the type of sex education they get before 9 is pretty simple consent stuff. The lesson would use an anodyne example like making a cup of tea: "If someone asks for a cup of tea it is nice to make it for them but making a cup of tea for someone when they don't want it is not respecting their wishes/consent."

I believe there was also a lesson about how people don't need to like things stereotypically associated with the different sexes. For example girls can like football; boys can like the colour pink. That kind of thing.

Despite the cirriculum being those kinds of things she still had certain parents opting out 🤷

[–] GreatAlbatross 6 points 6 months ago

Now that I remember it, the co-workers exact words were "they want to give our kids sex lessons".

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 48 points 6 months ago

Wouldn't want those kids to know what abuse is.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Obviously they think it's better to fill the newspapers with arguments about gender than about the cost of living crisis, Trussonimics, housing, the state of the NHS etc etc etc.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think anyone is teaching primary schoolchildren about sex. It's just a means to pander to gullible Tory voters

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

We had some sex education in primary school at age 9.

It told the girls that they're going to have periods. At age 9 some of them will be so I think this is a good idea. Parents were able to opt their kids out if they wished.

It told the group as a whole that puberty is a thing, and we might start it soon. Some changes might happen like body shape changes, voices getting deeper, hair growth etc.

None of it was about how to have sex, or how children are made. It was simple stuff that kids that age would benefit from knowing.

I don't understand why anyone would even be on the fence about their kids knowing this stuff.

[–] Docus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Isn’t that just biology?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This sounds reasonable but really the lesson is more about the stages of puberty than sex ed. Puberty is part of sexual health and development but it isn't what everyone thinks of when hearing the term sex ed, a lot of people tend to think of sexual intercourse, protection/sexual health, and gender identity when thinking of sex ed.

[–] BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is the second comment of yours I've seen on this thread being like "well yeah sure but that's not sex ed" what exactly do you think sex ed is?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I'm more so trying to state that sex ed is a broad spectrum and without specification of the exact teachings people will assume different things. Theres a big difference in teaching kids about puberty and teaching kids about how and when to use protection or the process of child birth. Specifying when kids will be taught what could clear a lot of debate about when sex ed is acceptable

[–] HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I guess they didn't cause gender, but the rest are awkward subjects for them

[–] ScreamingFirehawk 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What this country really needs to do right now is make sure that children are as vulnerable to sexual abuse as they can possibly be. Without some level of sex education to teach them what is absolutely not okay for an adult to force them to do they won't know that they should seek help and won't know how to describe what's happening if they do. Ideal for the paedophiles in power and their friends.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 months ago

uk citizens: can we have housing????

uk politicians: best we can do is bring back section 28

[–] echodot 7 points 6 months ago

The Conservatives have heard about culture wars from their friends in the US, but they haven't quite grasped the fundamental principle that it has to be about something that anybody gives two hoots about.

Then they wander around been sad that their voting numbers are down, and they really can't work out why.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The BBC has not seen the new guidelines but a government source said they included plans to ban any children being taught about gender identity.

The National Association of Head Teachers has previously raised concerns the review is "politically motivated", saying there is no evidence to suggest a widespread problem with pupils being presented with age-inappropriate materials.

The review was announced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak following concerns that some children were being exposed to "inappropriate content".

The government believes that clearer guidance will provide support for teachers and reassurance for parents.The proposals, which are expected to be announced on Thursday, will set out which topics should be taught to pupils at what age.

Under current guidance, external, it is down to primary schools to decide whether they need to cover any aspect of sex education to meet the needs of their pupils.

Last year more than 50 Conservative MPs wrote to the prime minister claiming children were being "indoctrinated with radical and unevidenced ideologies about sex and gender".Separate guidance published last year stated teachers should inform parents if their child wished to change their gender identity at school.


The original article contains 281 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 33%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!