Asda partners with Diversity Role Models and gets angry response to "love has no age limit" message [Edited by MNHQ at OP'S REQUEST]

[stumbledin]

"Asda teamed up with partner charity Diversity Role Models to create a home learning pack for primary school children for ages three to 11, which was sent out to Asda customers and includes the controversial phrase in a section on challenging racism.

In an email sent out on Sunday afternoon from the store's clothing department George, it said: "We've partnered with Diversity Role Models because we believe in a world where everyone embraces diversity and can thrive.

"By teaching empathy, understanding and how to be a good ally to the LGBT+ community, we hope to eliminate homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and language from the classroom for good."

But a section on the primary school pack has drawn fierce criticism online from concerned parents who claim promoting discussion of "love has no age limit" may be advocating underage sex."

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/asda-sparks-furious-paedo-backlash-22201608

A letter to Asda regarding their ‘home learning’ packs - Safe Schools Alliance safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2020/06/18/a-letter-to-asda-regarding-their-home-learning-packs/

Then say that it's shocking, but don't give the wrong facts. And don't make stupid accusations against someone because they correct a factual mistake.

I've also been on MN for several years and have posted a lot on the feminist board, because I feel strongly about transgender issues (on the same side of the debate as most of you). FGS. I also, like most people, feel strongly about child sex abuse. But get your facts right, especially if you're putting in a complaint to a major supermarket, and don't assume that because someone points out a mistake they are your greatest enemy and are grooming children. That behaviour reminds me of how people on the other side of the debate tend to behave.

So let me get this clear, we now have a (new, never seen them before) poster who thinks that ASDA promoting a book that talks about 6 year olds giving oral sex is fine as long as it specifies that the recipients are also children?

That hasn't happened though, and I'm not sure why anyone is claiming that.

Literally no one has said that the passage isn't deeply concerning.

Why accuse someone who pointed out a factual error that was being repeated - it was on the ABU thread too and seems to have been in the letter send by the baroness to Asda - that could be picked out to undermine the general statement which was a strong one. We all know that sort of technique would be used without compunction and that some people reading about the controversy would not look farther than "oh, they are making things up, those people are not reliable."

Why the need to jump all over someone making an innocuous factual point anyway? What's the issue with saying - oh yeah, actually it looks like that is true, we should amend what we are saying slightly?

Who is this "we" you speak of? The Baroness does not appear to have a Mumsnet account. If anyone wants to correct any mistakes she may have made about the book then she is on Twitter and does often respond to people directly.

My guess is that she made the mistake she did because she read something inaccurate on Mumsnet. But I may be completely wrong - I haven't checked the date of her letter against the original MN discussion, for instance. Anyway, it doesn't much matter how the mistake was made - it's a good idea to check the facts yourself before you send a letter like that.

We is anyone who read that it was reffering to an adult when it wasn't. The following paragraph made it clear it wasn't.

The fact that it seems to have been an error on MN that was repeated in the letter is a concern because it makes it look like it's just MN propaganda.

In any case the main point is why say someone is making claims about it being ok for kids to have oral sex when they said that the book didn't have a kid giving an adult oral sex. That's quite a leap.

Again, if you're worried go talk to the Baroness, she's on Twitter. "People will think this is MN propaganda" just makes me roll my eyes.

I'm not at all sure the baroness is on mumsnet, to be honest.

She seems to engage almost exclusively on Twitter.

And appears to be quite fresh to a lot of the debate. Something you would not expect from someone who was getting their information here.

I have read through most of the long AIBU thread and the thread is clear that the issue is a six year old performing sexual acts.
Unlike the Baroness letter it doesn't reference adults abusing dc in that passage.
There will be an adult somewhere in the chain of abuse that ended with the six year old undertaking these acts.
The six year old is both acting in way that is sexually abusive and also victim of abuse themselves.
It is impossible to tell how old the "guys" in the book are, my impression was older dc but not adults.
I agree that it would be better not to have made this error but the it is a minor point in child protection terms.