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

[2fallsfromSSA]

Tune in the BBC Radio 4's Anti Social programme at noon today to hear our spokeswoman Tanya Carter discuss the #RSEDebate with Sophie Whitehead from the School of Sexuality Education.

She will be discussing topics such as how to protect girls in schools from sexual harassment and whether modelling genitals out of play doh helps. She will be talking about the importance of putting #safeguarding at the heart of all school policies and how this is particularly important for RSE. She will hopefully be discussing some of the examples that have been shared with us by parents and teachers and explaining why they contravene safeguarding frameworks, government guidance, and the law.

This is what we have previously written about SoSE:
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/02/05/the-school-of-sexuality-education/

We hope to also be able to discuss this book as whilst the topic of tomorrow’s debate is explicit sex education and not gender identity ideology in schools, there is very much crossover between the two subjects.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/03/05/inclusive-teenage-guide-to-sex-and-relationships-a-review/

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

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!

Ohhhhhhhhh. Sneaky, disingenuous bastards

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.

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."

I was coming here to post the no secret lessons thread about SOSE but see you are already talking about it. The whole thread is illuminating.

However I'd like to draw your attention to the fact a BBC journalist working in the today programme is a trustee of SOSE!

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637215766972977153?s=20

Sorry this is the link to that tweet

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637215766972977153?s=20

Hazel Dean has blocked SSA on twitter. The easy ride Sophie got compared with the treatment of Tanya is becoming clearer.

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.

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?

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.

Here is our review of that paper

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/02/05/the-school-of-sexuality-education/

That paper... 😰

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.

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.

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

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.

a BBC journalist working in the today programme is a trustee of SOSE!

Holy what, now?

twitter.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1637409000219131904

It is quite possible that Ms. Deen taught my daughter, but the school, the SSE and even the ICO have all refused to tell me who was in the classroom. They say the privacy of a teacher outweighs the public interest to know who is teaching our children.

This is worrying. Surely this is information that should have been given upfront to the school, and by the school.

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)

This is what peaked me with the BBC originally. They did a very one-sided puff piece on Radio 4 about a woman that was bringing her 4 yo boy up as a girl. No discussion afterwards. A few days later, news broke of a court case where a man had gained custody in the Family Courts of a child he had been cut off from by the mother who was bringing him up as a girl with the advice of Mermaids. She had withdrawn the child from two schools and was no longer working with SS. The court case is a difficult read but is the banal everyday reality of this ideology. No-one is magically born in the wrong body or with a different brain to their sex.

@dimorphism Thanks. I've donated too. A Mother's Day gift from one mum to another.

Does Miss Deen or whomever did the lesson have Qualified Teacher Status?

Did they hold an enhanced DBS as teachers need to have? Do they complete safeguarding training covering the latest KCSIE yearly? If not, why the hell are they teaching kids one of the most sensitive subjects there is?

Also it's anti safeguarding to just insist appropriate safeguarding took place. There should have been an investigation. This mother was raising a safeguarding concern, just blocking and shutting that down and essentially just saying 'trust US' is a safeguarding failure in itself

Why the hell aren't Ofsted involved?

Think you'll find Ofsted were in thrall to Stonewall until very recently. According to Sex Matters it was revealed that "Stonewall encouraged it to threaten primary schools with the prospect of low ratings if they did not ensure that all children were aware of “sexual orientation and gender reassignment” by the time they moved on to secondary school".

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/leaving-stonewall/

That's how political activists work to enforce their preferred ideas on society.

That research paper! At one point she explicitly says they're looking at ways to sneak things into the curriculum!

She doesn't understand the difference - in either reality or law - between adults and children. She doesn't understand safeguarding.

The thing about the dick pics is clear abuse.

She should be nowhere near children and especially not teaching RSE

Having listened to half the R4 show, one of the things that struck me was the elderly professor who said his role was to make children understand the consequences of sex after the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases after WW2 including gonorrhea and syphilis. Which spreads to those who don't know you've got either - Randolph Churchill infected his wife and went mad. I had one young friend who didn't understand anal then vaginal sex could end up with life long cystitis. And a gay friend who was buggered so much he is now in nappies. Perhaps the sex educationists could explain that while a lot of sex is pleasurable, there are reasons why you need to take care.