Why are ASDA normalising paedophilia and Child Abuse?

[Sunkisses]

Is it OK for ASDA to send parents emails linking to an organisation that normalises paedophilia with red flag phrases such as "love has no age", and recommending books for children that contain explicit descriptions of child sex abuse? Why are they doing this? Are ASDA experts in home schooling and safeguarding? More details in this excellent thread by Safe Schools Alliance: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1272638132589035520

[HarryD89]

If you see a poster saying "get out there and vote" and you're already a voter, then the poster obviously isn't made for you, is it. Same applies here.
If you are already actively fighting these things, great! If not, it's time to get active.

[SarahTancredi]

With all due respect what makes you think we havent

We have written to.organisations and mps
and God knows what else and have been fir years

[ProfessorSlocombe]

Mums, I think it's time you all opened your eyes to the agenda and hostile takeover of our culture.

Little tip, mate. I won't presume to speak for anyone else but myself, but if you really want to lose the maximum amount of respect in the shortest time from me, just start a post "Mums" ...

But thanks for the view from the land of the free.

[HarryD89]

Mums, I think it's time you all opened your eyes to the agenda and hostile takeover of our culture.
Some of you may think you're being helpful and supportive by supporting "Trans rights" I assure you, you are not.
Transsexualism is a form of Dysphoria which comes from the deepest levels of shame, guilt and self hatred. This is brought about in 99% of cases by childhood sexual abuse. You need to understand that we have an elite class of pedophiles in society who run a number of the largest corporations, religions and political parties in the Western world. The Transgender movement is a stepping stone in plan to normalise pedophilia.
Did you know 200 years ago The Bible read "A man shall not lay with a child". They changed it to "A man shall not lay with another man" in over 80% of European Languages. The BBC are a pedophile sanctuary. They protected Jimmy Saville and NONE or those complicit with his crimes were even prosecuted. Did you know the BBC commissoned a number of works by a sculptor named Eric Gill, when Eric Gill when was exposed as a pedophile, all companies removed his sculptures except for one... The BBC who still proudly display his statues to this day.
The American Liberal Democrat Party has been caught entangled in over 40 well known pedophile and child trafficking scandals, many of which key witnesses have "committed suicide" before they were able to testify to the involvement of The Clinton Family and Foundation.

My point to all of this being, we are ALL complicit if we do not protect our children from this mass indoctrination. We need to be as vocal and perhaps more, than the LGBTQ movement. We need to express our distaste towards this pro-pedophilia agenda. I will be writing to Asda personally as well as my local news paper and I very much hope you all do the same, because otherwise we will all suffer for our silence.

[ProfessorSlocombe]

RTB has a lot more time - or faith - than I do ...

Whilst there is nothing incorrect in what you have posted, I refer you to my preceding point. The UK doesn't; never has; and never will prosecute criminal cases where corporate liability is involved. (To remain technically accurate such prosecutions could occur in future if the law were changed ...).

[RedToothBrush]

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416003/Fact_sheet_-_Offence_of_sexual_communication_with_a_child.pdf

The publication of sexual material to a child or children may, depending on the content and circumstances, amount to an offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This offence attracts a maximum five year prison sentence. It does not attract automatic sex offender registration as it can be committed through the dissemination of material which is not of a sexual nature.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604931/circular-commencement-s67-serious-crime-act-2015.pdf

SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH A CHILD: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 67 OF THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2015

Section 67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 inserts a new offence into the Sexual Offences Act 2003, at section 15A, criminalising sexual communication with a child.

The offence will be triable either way and will carry a maximum 2 year prison sentence. The provisions will come into effect on 3 April 2017 and will not be retrospective. The new offence will apply in England and Wales.

These changes will:
criminalise a person aged 18 or over who intentionally communicates with a child under 16, who the adult does not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, if the communication is sexual or if it is intended to encourage the child to make a communication which is sexual. The offence will be committed whether or not the child communicates with the adult.

The offence will apply only where the defendant can be shown to have acted for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification and is subject to a 2 year maximum prison sentence

This change was brought in because:

What is the current law in this area?
^It may be possible to prosecute individuals for a range of offences in relation to this kind of behaviour, depending on the circumstances. For example, sections 8 and 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the “SOA”) make it an offence to cause or incite a child under 13 or 16 respectively to engage in sexual activity. These offences carry
a maximum 14 year sentence. They could, depending on the circumstances, apply where a communication with a child (whether sexual or not) could be shown to have caused or incited some kind of penetrative sexual activity by the child. However, these offences are unlikely to apply if a communication (for example in the
form of an e-mail or a text message) sent to a child contains sexual content but does not in any way ask the child to engage in sexual activity.^

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network (including the internet) if its content is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing.
Depending on the content of the message, this offence could apply where sexual messages are sent to a child by some form of electronic communication, such as text, e-mail or phone (although it would not cover non-electronic written messages or verbal communication, or electronic messages sent by a private network such as a school intranet). However this offence is not a sexual offence and does not attract sex offender registration. It would not be appropriate to change that position as the offence criminalises behaviour that may not be sexual in any way.

I think Asda are probably off the hook because of the intent section of that, but the former stuff about the Obscene Publication Act could be rather sticky for who ever is promoting and publishing this Magenta Book to minors. The paragraph about the 6 year old CAN NOT be claimed to be educational.

[TickleMeElbow]

I was told when I sought help for my depression that if I disclosed historical sexual abuse that they would be obliged to report it.

This person was underage the age of criminal responsibility when they abused other children but shouldn't someone speak to them about paedophiles who approached them?

[ProfessorSlocombe]

I think the police could become involved as I believe there is an offence related to sexualised content being deliberately targeted at minors.

Well if no crime has been committed, it's clearly now a police matter, thank goodness. Get Humberside police onto it. They can turn up at Rogers place of work and demand answers and check his thinking.

Meantime, nothing whatsoever will come of this. Mainly because the UK doesn't do corporate prosecutions. Never has, and never will. Maybe why the paedo peddlers chose that channel ?

[RedToothBrush]

I think the police could become involved as I believe there is an offence related to sexualised content being deliberately targeted at minors.

I think someone mentioned it way upthread.

I think thus us possibly now why Asda are shitty bricks BTW. That letter recks of 'oh shit the legal department have looked at this now someone in authority has been in touch and shit there is a problem'.

Newspapers should now be all over this, now Asda have admitted the error and it wasn't someone made up (all the 'prove it' posts on this thread are utterly appalling apologists).

[SerenityNowwwww]

Criminal offence! Oh yes - misuse of communications or something like that?

[RedToothBrush]

What the letter doesn't say us whether relationship Asda has will this organisation that has peddled this shit not been ended.

Baroness Nicholson says she's following it up.

She also is seeing if any criminal offence that the police should look at, has occurred.

[Mimishimi]

This is so disgusting. Then they scratch their heads and wonder why birthrates are at an all time low in Western societies. Pack of vultures.

[SerenityNowwwww]

Does anyone know if their diversity includes people with disabilities (simple BSL sighs you can learn, how braille works, guide dogs, what is autism, a day in the life of someone who uses a wheelchair/with MS ...), ten fun facts about each of the major world religions (with recipes and crosswords), my family (step-parents and siblings, gay parents, foster kids, living in multi-generational households), foods of the world, a house like mine, I have 12 fingers...

It's not hard NOT to ram lgbetc down kids throats at every opportunity. Especially when you sell potatoesd and socks.

[LillianBland]

@DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

Why didn’t anyone else get a response like that, Mr Burnley?

Hope the press are still looking in this direction.

Funny that, isn’t it? The rest of us had responses that implied that we nothing but a silly TERF. I can just picture the colour draining from the grownups faces and a collective shrivelling of balls, when they realised the Baroness was on it. 🤣

[DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong]

Why didn’t anyone else get a response like that, Mr Burnley?

Hope the press are still looking in this direction.

[Thelnebriati]

22"°'June 2020
Dear Lady Nicholson,
Re: Diversity Role Models
Thank you for your letter dated 19“ June regarding the home learning packs produced by our charity partner Diversity Role Models.
I would like to wholeheartedly apologise for this situation; it should go without saying that we do not support any form of abuse and I am completely aghast that we have allowed ourselves to be associated in this way.

As soon as we became aware, we asked for the material to be removed, but our checks should have spotted that it was clearly inappropriate before the email was sent. I have asked
that we review and strengthen our internal processes and controls, especially around partnerships and content produced by third parties, so that an error such as this does not happen again.

The home learning packs were intended to celebrate diversity and help parents to talk to their children about LGBT+ issues. it is incredibly disappointing that this intention, and our genuine support for the LGBT+ community, has been undermined as a result.
Yours sincerely,

Roger Burnley
Chief Executive Officer
Asda Stores Ltd.

[Datun]

Excellent news.

[JemimaShore]

All we needed to do was a get a Baroness on side.... Ordinary mums - no chance! Fobbed off. Baroness Nicholson - deep apology and a promise to review procedures.

Mmmm. Thank you to the Baroness though. The reply is attached.

[IfNotNowThenWhen2]

I do like the look on the kid's face

[DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong]

That ad is great. Agree that telling the mum off for not restricting access would’ve made it even better.

[Binterested]

Imagine if Asda had funded this ad instead - what credibility they would have. Instead of looking like lazy careless idiots facilitating the normalisation of child abuse.

[whataloadoftoshasusual]

I can't believe that people actually think this is appropriate for our children. Teaching about inclusion does not require our children to be taught specific sex acts. Why are they sexualising our children - WTAF?

Nor should it be about reinforcing gender stereotype - girls like pink and boys like trucks - so if you like pink and you're a boy you must be in the wrong body. Children are so unbelievably impressionable that this is indoctrinating them - insidious.

I have just found out all this horror - I have emailed my MP, still waiting for a response - I hope everyone on this thread who feels the same emails theirs.

[LillianBland]

That a brilliant advert, justanotherneighinparadise. 😁

[hoodathunkit]

One of the many things about NZ that is awesome

I love the ad, very effective

[justanotherneighinparadise]

[quote JemimaShore]I remain steadfast in my view that this stuff should not be promoted to kids in the name of "diversity training" or under the guise of lgbt acceptance. There are better ways.

An awful lot of parents I know are concerned about the extreme porn accessible to teens. That dice normalising people sticking objects up each others bottoms is not the answer.

Stuff like this is the answer: [/quote]
Genius!