Women and Equalities Committee - RHSE Review One-off Session 2.30pm Wednesday 10th May

[NancyDrawed]

For those who might be interested.

Link to session here

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/519616ed-f440-4e1d-9805-79ac4157fb4d

• Witness(es): Lottie Moore, Head of Biology Matters, Policy Exchange; Tanya Carter, Spokesperson, Safe Schools Alliance UK; Lucy Marsh, Communications and PR Officer, Family Education Trust

• Witness(es): Dr Sophie King-Hill, Senior Fellow, Health Services Management, University of Birmingham; Lucy Emmerson, Chief Executive, Sex Education Forum; Jonathan Baggaley, Chief Executive, PSHE Association

Thanks for sharing, will try and catch some of it.

Bumping as it's about to start

Knowing who is on that committee, I think it would be too much for my blood pressure to listen! Very grateful to anyone who can listen and report back though.

Who's chairing?

Who is that with the blue quiff?

Shes not very bright

Kate Osborne is chairing. She has challenged some GC witnesses eg what one meant by 'gender identity'.

Just tuned in now.. Lottie talking about how schools can’t give her the resources and possibly parents, because of the commercial clauses they have with the outside provider hi owns it.

I’m not sure who the woman is questioning them now.., geez

Blue Quiff is Carolyn Harris.

Woman in peachy top very good, very clear. Only caught the end there.

Peachy Top was Tanya Carter, Spokesperson, Safe Schools Alliance UK.

Carolyn Harris was very annoying! Silly question

I'm behind but I can't believe what I'm seeing. Why is it NOT bad for children to be directed to websites telling them how to "deep throat"? Why are adults elected to represent us, defending this? Why aren't they saying "we should be informing the police"? Why aren't they appalled?

Really good point from Tanya Carter that this has unfolded under the Conservatives and the opposition has simply challenged the whistleblowers.

Also it's good they've sent their WHO UNESCO report to the Committee.

This witness is a patronising fuckwit. She thinks that parents wanting to be involved are embarrassed about the whole idea of children talking about sex. She is however happy to educate them and thinks that they're not bad people. FFS.

I am very new to this but why was Carolyn Harris putting so much emphasis on playing Devils advocate asking the panel to comment on 'what ifs' as if it was a foregone conclusion that an independent panel would find the present situation acceptable?

Dunno, Paulo - maybe to make them seem unreasonably intractable when they said no of course they wouldn't be satisfied...?

She wasn't playing devil's advocate. For one thing, she asked them how they would feel if Baroness Casey looked at it and it was all fine.

• Why pick a person for a review? We've no idea if Baroness Casey would / could do this

• Why ask how they would feel? That's irrelevant. The point would be - in her example - that a lack of action would result. That's the question to which the answer is "children would remain unprotected which is a clear concern"

• Why the need to prove there's no problem through such a "devil's advocate"? Why are they refusing to engage with the evidence being put before them.

The Chair put it to Tanya that she'd be saying LGBT people don't exist. She did not say that. What a waste of Parliament's time to have such daft questions.

@ResisterRex and @SelfPortraitWithHagstone thanks for the explanation If these responses and questions are normal from the W&E committee I can see why, in terms, of safeguarding and GC views, we are in the situation we are in
Was the Chair advocating for child led education? Not sure how that would turn out

Again I'm behind but they're spending a lot of time not answering a question about problematic materials and being given a lot more leeway than the previous set of witnesses were, they're being allowed to meander quite a bit, as well as not to answer the question.

I'm halfway through watching and I'm finding the chair and other witnesses very hostile. They do not seem open minded at all and seem to thoroughly support the idea that teaching Gender Identity is LGBT friendly.

The chair does not seem to have read the Cass review or have any knowledge of safeguarding.

Not witnesses, questioners

Oh, chair just asked "Do you believe trans people exist". As I suspected she is 100% captured

Was the Chair advocating for child led education? Not sure how that would turn out

Yes, appeared to be! Seemed to say a child should overrule their parent with regards to what they’re taught about sex and relationships? Crazy

Yes that was so inappropriate. When asked to define trans was very defensive.