Will Labour introduce Self ID & curb free speech?

I predict there will be more tragedies in mixed sexed toilets that are replacing single sex toilets too.

It’s all so depressingly predictable.

Safeguarding is about prevention.

If Dave and Helen had faced significant harm from handing out the leaflet, and then it came out if was written by a cop, the scandal would have been magnitudes more serious than it already was.
Starmer was promoted to head of public prosecutions not that long after, a top job in the whole country, how many other 'campaigning lawyers' has that happened to?

There's no doubt that the new guidance will have an impact on this and hopefully reduce to zero the number of adults working in schools who think it's their job to keep secrets from parents about their children believing they're the wrong sex. Interesting that the Guardian managed to find some with ease when they reported on it - see link upthread.

The new guidelines state:
"1. Schools and colleges have statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children.
2. Schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places where bullying is never tolerated.
3. Parents should not be excluded from decisions taken by a school or college relating to requests for a child to ‘socially transition’.
4. Schools and colleges have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex.
5. There is no general duty to allow a child to ‘social transition"

They're not perfect but they're a good start. Interesting to see how labour / transactivists will argue with these principles?
There's a thread about the guidelines if anyone wants to discuss specifics:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5009817-schools-guidance-consultation-closes-12-of-march-can-we-collate-ideas-for-responding

I agree 100% with all of this.

If Labour were going to renationalise the railways or do something to actually make life better for poorer people I might vote for them, but they're not. As far as I can tell they're Tory lite but without the free speech and with destruction of women's rights and child safeguarding as a central policy.

The Tories have brought in the online safety bill, which I think is an important first step to protect children of school age, like Molly Russell. Kemi Badenoch, Miriam Cates and most recently Nick Fletcher have been doing the right things on women's rights and child safeguarding. It's quite difficult to turn a tanker around, particularly when arms length institutions which should be politically neutral have been politicised and captured.

And what has that got to do with Starmer? Are you saying he covered that up whilst simultaneously giving free legal advice and assistance to Morris and Steel?

The leaflet was written by an undercover cop.

ArabellaScott · Today 08:15

There is plenty of evidence of this, hence the entire issue with school guidelines.

I detect a fishy whiff and "Arp! Arp!" noises.

if you look at his work in the Mcliable case or the murder of Ian Tomlinson, Starmer has always covered the Polices ass

Can I ask how Starmer covered the police’s arses in the McLibel case? I’ve read quite a bit about that case and can’t work out the connection.

Its difficult to know what exactly Starmer will do as he says very little, and what he does say is almost certainly a lie (he got voted in on the platform of carrying on Corbin's agenda, now whatever you think of Corbin, Starmer was cynically lying his ass off).
I do think though that he is committed to Gender Ideology and will bring in some kind of self ID, and not just because of the very many adherents in the party. For whatever reason there is a deep commitment to Gender Ideology among powerful institutions here and in the US and Starmer is very much a 'deep state' man. (if you look at his work in the Mcliable case or the murder of Ian Tomlinson, Starmer has always covered the Polices ass, and I strongly suspect he was an ACPO man from university days.

I also am also shocked at the idea of voting Tory (I cant actually vote where I am anyway so wont actually be voting for anyone) but you are spot on in identifying there is zero practical difference in current Labour party policy and Tory ideology in regards to social conditions for the majority of people.
In fact I would go so far as to say the Tories might actually be a slightly better bet when it comes to the NHS and social spending, as they are constrained by their reputation in a way Starmer is not.

What Starmer is also certain to do is bring in laws limiting free speech. He is not a fan of free speech in any circumstances (Assange anyone?) and will certainly use BE KIND! as an excuse to limit all kinds of protest and inquiry.

He is bad new all round. Please don't vote Labour.

Here is a short article on the situation in Ireland…

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hate-speech-bill-is-restrictive-and-undemocratic-warns-barrister-as-7000-people-sign-petition/a1608824054.html

I'm talking specifically about the different connotations of the language used to describe the situation, not my understanding of the situation.

I did some reading from links on another thread and could not see that this was an intentional practice in school, more there was a lot of hyperbole and bad research. I assume the government found much the same given how weak their guidance ended up being.

If you want to continue buying into a conspiracy theory that all public institutions have been "captured" and "stonewalled" into transborg factories, that's fine. I think its a huge overstatement of the problem.

I think we will see more crackdowns on freedom of speech from Labour under the guise of hate speech / hate crime laws. Other “Liberal” nations including Canada and Ireland are attempting to bring in pretty draconian legislation and I think Labour will potentially follow suit. There isn’t much money in the pot for them to achieve genuine social change but cracking down on “hate” is a cheap way for them to show how virtuous they are.

Also I suspect that we will get self-ID in all but name. They will make it super easy so that a doctor’s letter and a signed declaration will allow you to get a GRC. The only positive is that I think it’ll be 18 plus so it won’t make it anymore difficult for schools than it already is.

Schools let children change gender

If you think this is literally the problem, I don't think you've understood at all. Please read the threads about it. A large part of it is actively keeping many actions secret from parents. As I said, I don't want to talk for the other poster but it's not just calling a girl "him" or allowing girls to wear trousers (i don't even know many schools where that doesn't happen anyway).

It's not "ban transition", it's complaining against what is actually happening in schools which directly contradicts safeguarding good practice.

I can't tell if you genuinely don't know or are pretending.

Being gay is fine. S28 was wrong in my opinion. But agreeing with kids that their bodies are wrong because of who they are? Yeah, that needs looking at.

It's hard to know what's best isn't it.
When I was at school (section 28 era) there wasn't a single out gay person. There must have been a lot of miserable students. I think its a positive thing that schools can have clubs for gay kids.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, i think trying to ban transition at school is only going to make (some) teenagers more likely to want to do it. I'm glad I'm not a teacher. Who would want the job in today's climate where you can't do right for doing wrong

Some schools definitely are encouraging it; certainly if they have a LGBTQ+ lunchtime club.

At my daughter's teacher training school one trans identified teacher was suggesting to girls "they might be trans".

"Schools have socially transitioned children" is a sentence where schools is an active noun and children is a passive noun. It Implies the schools are responsible for the transition and the children are being "done to".

"Schools let children change gender" is the opposite. It implies the children are driving the change and schools are allowing it.

The latter is accurate. That's a problem and needs addressing.

The former is inaccurate, overly emotive and therefore in my opinion scaremongering.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/schools-let-children-change-gender-without-telling-parents/

There is plenty of evidence of this, hence the entire issue with school guidelines.

Schools have socially transitioned children without informing parents. As Cass notes, this is not a neutral act.

No comment on the likelihood of the Conservatives supporting lesbian mothers then? Surprising

Really concerned about more gender identity clinics popping up under Labour and Keir Starmer possibly curbing free speech
They'll only curb the speech of some. To paraphrase 'Penis-haver good, non penis haver- bad'

"Overreaching" =/= transitioning children though.
I think you are right to be concerned but language is important and saying "the role of schools to educate and not transition children" makes it sound as if schools have abandoned a core principle (education) and instead turned into Frankenstein's trans factory. Which is not true, even if some schools have done things some parents don't like.

Oh unless you think "transitioning" is synonymous with surgery. As if that's somehow anything to do with changing gender.

You keep saying this. There's a long-time poster who has detailed exactly that this is what is happening to their child over the years. I'm not going to speak for them but please do try and realise that you can't know every parent's situation.

Yes. Many of these things are utterly unremarkable and sensible. So why don't they do them?

Sorry - didn't mean to derail this onto schools - just wanted to provide evidence about the dire situation in some (not all) schools