Tanya Carter from SSA live on Radio4 at noon today #RSEdebate

Just wanted to add I've noticed the 'Nosecretlessons' twitter has a link to the brave Mum's crowdjustice crowdfunder at the top.

I've just donated.

This seems like an important case, though I'm not clear what's going on with it given the last update was last November (which said the appeal would be heard now-ish) and given the government have clearly stated now that RSE materials should be accessible to parents I cannot really see how they'll lose this case - it beggars belief that copyright was put above safeguarding in the first place - but obviously the Mum in question will still need money for legal fees.

A bit of gardening on Mother's day. Just lovely. My Mother's day present to myself.

Yes, the bit at the top of this page is utterly horrifying. The theoretical waffle that follows is head-banglingly bad, but the classroom part where they ask children to recreate and re-experience their abuse, with no support or follow up ... I'm lost for words.

And their conclusion is 'Hurray, we can prove children are receiving abusive material - so they aren't innocent'!

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637211552519471105?s=20

Surely describing this parent as acting in 'bad faith' is defamatory?

Could the parent take legal action? I will donate to a crowdfund for this.

Parents are rarely in 'bad faith' when it comes to protecting their children - we've seen several times on here parents being defamed in this way. We need to stop it.

It's DARVO in action too - accusations are admissions. Anyone who is trying to groom children by getting them to repeat details of sexual harassment they've experienced (as this 'charity' seems to have done) is very much acting in bad faith - they don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of children.

It's all so shocking, the absolute abandonment of journalistic integrity, the abandonment of proper safeguarding in schools, and perhaps most chillingly the abandonment of schools being willing to work co-operatively with parents. Viewing of reasonable requests by parents as aggression - why? You only act that way if you have something very damning to hide.

Thank you those women who are brave enough to fight this very clear injustice which goes against all the principles schools are supposed to sign up to - that they are acting in the children's best interests.

However, most parents - especially those struggling to feed, clothe and house their families - would be silenced.

It's clear in this example, just as with Vebrithien's thread, the parent is being seen as an aggressor - simply for asking why the hell their child has come home talking about 'heteronormativity' and 'sex-positivity', which any decent parent would. The fact they've described this parent as in 'bad faith' is just staggering - when it's clear this parent was initially acting very much in their child's best interest and now in all children and parent's best interests (thank you).

The fact they denied access to resources is illegal - and goes against KCSIE - the statutory safeguarding guidance. When are heads going to roll over this? Why is one of the chief architects of this staggering safeguarding failure invited on BBC Radio 4 to justify their safeguarding failures?

Personally I think it should now be illegal to use outside organisations which are not bound by the same safeguarding rules as schools (staff with enhanced DBS and trained on KCSIE every year).

What they are doing in these lessons fits the description of abuse in KCSIE for goodness sake! It IS - as described by the statutory safeguarding guidance for all schools - abusive.

That paper... 😰

That whole thread is absolutely chilling and should be read to the very end. Especially the jaw-dropping 'research paper' from Sophie Whitehead about the 'play-doh and dick pics' exercises which they were so very keen to get into schools, and which she airily waved away. Not so.

It was in the Dark Ages, obviously, but I was the prototypical rather innocent, agonisingly shy child in a mixed-sex school with very lairy boys in my class, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would have gone home from school traumatised and never wanting to go back had I been subjected to SSE's 'fun' experiments.

Hmm, the plot thickens:

Perhaps HazelCMorgan BBCr4Today journalist and Trustee of the SSE, could give a view on the very favourable presentation provided for SSE yesterday?

I'd say unbelievable, but we know it's not.
Buried at the bottom of that excellent thread from the parent is the information that following her formal complaint to the school governors they "concluded that there was no evidence I was a harasser and that the SSE’s values were inconsistent with the school’s and their employment would be terminated and the issues referred to the DfE"

Every time people scratch the surface of these groups desperate to talk to children about sex, a mess of sex positivity and queer theory which is totally incompatible with safeguarding children is exposed.

I'll say again, Tanya did fantastically to say as much as she did, given the evident attempts to silence her.

I'm shocked speechless. No, actually, I'm not. Those who self-identify as Good People seem to have zero problem with lying and smearing the Unholy, and enabling such. This clearly includes the Righteous SSE and the Righteous "journalists."

Melroses · Yesterday 23:49

It seems Sophie Whitehead was allowed to talk about a particular parent in an ICO tribunal case without that parent having any right of reply:

Surely Whitehead must be in breach of the rules about speaking about an ongoing case? And how absolutely shocking of the BBC to allow her to do so, unchallenged; haven't they got a legal department?

No Secret Lesson Plans said: it's an hour long advert for SSE and I agree with her.

There's an impressive speech, a long way down the thread:
twitter.com/salltweets/status/1636966573629149184

A round of applause for Sall Grover.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Sneaky, disingenuous bastards

This has made me so angry!😡

Feeling foolish to have trusted the BBC were finally being fair here.

I can only imagine how betrayed and outraged that mum must have felt listening to the program.

This is SO WRONG!

I think we need to flood Feedback and/or BBC complaints on this one.
I don't have a twitter account (and don't want one) so can't do anything on there.

I'm partly commenting to to bump this so others can see and respond/complain too.

(I see the mum has copied Adam Fleming and the BBC into the tweets. Be interested if there's any come back.)

Every time a little bit of faith in sanity returning comes back, it gets
bloody knocked back again.

Thanks for posting Melroses. Painful to read but rather know the full truth.

God. You must be so frustrated Tanya!

It seems Sophie Whitehead was allowed to talk about a particular parent in an ICO tribunal case without that parent having any right of reply:

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637187426605989891

Sorry that sounds a bit arsy.

Was meant as a pointer as where feedback can be fed back to Feedback!

clear as mud

Oh, thank you!

You can always complain to the Feedback program if you think it was u fair or you have positive comments. Has anyone actually counted how many times each was cut off?

Thanks for the info - I’m going to look out for this on BBC Sounds.

Sophie's lack of understanding of child psychology, group teaching and how to manage difficult discussions in a classroom was on show. Like so many allegedly "trained" in safeguarding, understanding age appropriate issues when talking about sex to children was sadly absent.

Sex ed teaching has to be "conservative" in schools - restricted in scope because of the different needs of children in the same class. A class of 11 year olds (or any age group) will have a range of experiences, beliefs, levels of physical and emotional maturity, not to mention children with SEN, different faiths, shy children, abused children and so on.

The assumption that there's a core of "sexual knowledge" that all children need at certain ages is poorly evidenced. These organisations trample all over children's rights to privacy & right to be protected from age inappropriate sexual information because they're poorly trained in educating children.
They're a menace.

Thank you Mrs Overton

Just listened. I thought that it was a bit one sided favouring Sophie and putting a stop on Tanyas opinions ,more. But the elephant in the room was bouncing about. Funny that the NSPCC was held up as a bastion of safeguarding after the rubber wank man incident. As long as nobody says no, it is a free for all and children will be damaged.

Here you are:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001k13f