This is why nobody is taking the Leader of the Opposition seriously on this matter. He is as fickle as the wind. Yesterday, he attempted to say that Section 28 does not prevent teachers from answering questions children may have about sexual health or sexuality, despite teachers themselves saying they would feel at risk if they did so. Today, he cries merry hell at the idea that those same teachers should dare to dream of answering questions on the very same topics. His position is, as always, clear as mud.
There is already a set of laws protecting children from inappropriate content. There is already a curriculum that does the same. Section 28 is not necessary to protect children, it is actively harming some of them.
This Government stands for something very simple; schools for are education. Section 28 is preventing teachers tackle bullying, it is preventing teachers from answering honestly children's questions. It is unsafe and it has to go.
PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
- Astrid Goldman
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:36 am
- XP: 7
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Aaron
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Astrid Goldman, Lady Goldman MP
Labour Party| Member for Pontefract and Castleford
Secretary of State for Education and Children 2001-present
Previously: MoS for Schools 1998-2001
Labour Party| Member for Pontefract and Castleford
Secretary of State for Education and Children 2001-present
Previously: MoS for Schools 1998-2001
- Elizabeth Tanner
- Labour MP
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:01 pm
- Constituency: Westminster North
- XP: 10
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Morgan#2072
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Once again, Mr Croft fails to actually listen to what I say instead he hears what he wants to hear. He has become so enthralled by his backbenchers all he can hear are the words they whisper into his ears. Schools are a place for learning, schools provide sex education and a part of that education would naturally be students asking about sexuality or things they are confused about, because that is how children learn by asking questions. At no point will schools turn into Mr Croft's apparent fears because there are already guidelines and laws that protect children from harm and inappropriate content. If Mr Croft paid any attention to the education instead of burying his head in the sand he would know this.
Elizabeth Tanner
MP for Westminster North
First Secretary of State
Secretary of State for Foreign, Defence and Commonwealth Affairs
MP for Westminster North
First Secretary of State
Secretary of State for Foreign, Defence and Commonwealth Affairs
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:04 pm
- XP: 9
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Kinbote
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
There is no such thing as a gay or lesbian child - there are just children. Children are too young to decide whether they wish to follow the decent, moral path or to descend into Hell. Children are children, let us not corrupt them. Gay and Lesbian is a sexual choice. Our children are not to be sexualized - It is only in the minds of the paedos and perverts, the Von Aschenbachs and the Humberts that they are.
- Rebecca Flair
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:15 pm
- Constituency: Westmorland and Lonsdale
- XP: 0
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: DylPickle
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Less than a month ago the Leader of the Opposition travelled to the United States to discuss the importance of freedom of speech, today and for the entirety of the last week they have sought to defend legislation which does nothing but restrict that freedom for an entire group of people. Every young person who has a question to ask their teacher about what is a very delicate subject runs the risk of seriously endangering that teacher's future and creates an impossible choice for that teacher, they either leave the student struggling alone and most likely walking away to be preyed upon by an older man with "answers", or they answer the question themselves and run the risks that that entails. Repealing Section 28 is the moral thing to do from a freedoms perspective, an argument that the Conservative Party used to understand, but it is also the right thing to do from a safeguarding point of view. Better a child learns from their teacher than from a creepy neighbour with tinted windows and sound-absorbing curtains after all.
Rebecca Flair
MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale 2010 - Present
Leader of the Liberal Democrats 2015 - Present
MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale 2010 - Present
Leader of the Liberal Democrats 2015 - Present
- Ege
- Labour MP
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:10 pm
- Constituency: North Somerset
- XP: 5
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Ege#5944
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Rebecca is being very flippant with her comments about the Conservative Party used to understand freedom of speech, I wonder how she will react when she finds out it was the Conservative Party that put Section 28 into the law. It was not against freedom of speech then and it is not against freedom of speech now. Just because she wants to court Conservative voters doesn't mean she can change the past.
Annette Faure MP
Member for Blackpool South (2015-present)
Member for Blackpool South (2015-present)
- Ege
- Labour MP
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:10 pm
- Constituency: North Somerset
- XP: 5
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Ege#5944
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Frankly, this is all about two different sets of values, a smug professorial do-gooder with Edinburgh values and common sense traditional British values. Mary MacAndrews's Edinburgh values versus Brit values, this is a battle of values and belief sets. Mary MacAndrews and her Edinburgh values are set to poison the minds of our youth across the country. Mary's Edinburgh values are foreign to me, and people I represent, and people most of the Tory Party represents.
Annette Faure MP
Member for Blackpool South (2015-present)
Member for Blackpool South (2015-present)
- Alex Cardigan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:22 pm
- Constituency: Kensington
- XP: 8
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Cardigan
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Cosette Beauvais-Becker's fabulously incoherent comments earlier today deserve some discussion. She accused the Prime Minister of being a "do-gooder" with "Edinburgh" values. Like many philosophers, her line of questioning actually reveals more about herself.
I am no huge fan of the PM, but what's wrong with doing good? And what does Edinburgh values mean? I've always quite liked Edinburgh anyway. It's a nice city and my wife is a great fan of the fringe, which we go to every couple of years. Also, more to the point, Scotland isn't a foreign country? If this sort of incomprehensible gibberish is what 47% of Tory members believe Britain needs at the helm, then it is yet more proof the Liberal Democrats are the only real party of opposition to Labour.
I am no huge fan of the PM, but what's wrong with doing good? And what does Edinburgh values mean? I've always quite liked Edinburgh anyway. It's a nice city and my wife is a great fan of the fringe, which we go to every couple of years. Also, more to the point, Scotland isn't a foreign country? If this sort of incomprehensible gibberish is what 47% of Tory members believe Britain needs at the helm, then it is yet more proof the Liberal Democrats are the only real party of opposition to Labour.
The Rt Hon. Alexander Simon "Alex" Cardigan MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition (2015 to present)
MP for Kensington (1974 to present)
Secretary of State for International Development (2010 to 2015) | Shadow Secretary of State for International Development (2005 to 2010) | Shadow Secretary of State for Trade (1997 to 1999) | Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1995 to 1997) | Secretary of State for National Heritage (1992 to 1995) | Minister for Schools (1990 to 1992) | Minister for Foreign Affairs (1979 to 1981)
Bright Blue | Vote Blue Go Green!
Deputy Leader of the Opposition (2015 to present)
MP for Kensington (1974 to present)
Secretary of State for International Development (2010 to 2015) | Shadow Secretary of State for International Development (2005 to 2010) | Shadow Secretary of State for Trade (1997 to 1999) | Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1995 to 1997) | Secretary of State for National Heritage (1992 to 1995) | Minister for Schools (1990 to 1992) | Minister for Foreign Affairs (1979 to 1981)
Bright Blue | Vote Blue Go Green!
- Astrid Goldman
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:36 am
- XP: 7
- Trait(s): None
- Discord username: Aaron
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
I have just come from the House of Commons where I was pleased to be able to speak passionately in favour of the Government's repeal of Section 28.
It was important as Secretary of State for Education and Children to sharply dispel some of the many myths the Tories have attempted to spread around Section 28, it's legal basis and the impact on children and young people. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to tell parents absolute nonsense about their right being taken, their legal recourse being limited and that the DfEC are somehow trying to indoctrinate children. I am here to tell you from a place of actual authority; your rights are staying the same, your legal standing is unaffected and your curriculum isn't changing.
I believe deeply that we should listen to professionals in schools and social work offices who are telling us that the culture of fear around Section 28 is preventing young people getting access to the services and support they need. This is a matter of safeguarding. Keeping children safe is everybody's responsibility; every person, every time.
It was important as Secretary of State for Education and Children to sharply dispel some of the many myths the Tories have attempted to spread around Section 28, it's legal basis and the impact on children and young people. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to tell parents absolute nonsense about their right being taken, their legal recourse being limited and that the DfEC are somehow trying to indoctrinate children. I am here to tell you from a place of actual authority; your rights are staying the same, your legal standing is unaffected and your curriculum isn't changing.
I believe deeply that we should listen to professionals in schools and social work offices who are telling us that the culture of fear around Section 28 is preventing young people getting access to the services and support they need. This is a matter of safeguarding. Keeping children safe is everybody's responsibility; every person, every time.
Astrid Goldman, Lady Goldman MP
Labour Party| Member for Pontefract and Castleford
Secretary of State for Education and Children 2001-present
Previously: MoS for Schools 1998-2001
Labour Party| Member for Pontefract and Castleford
Secretary of State for Education and Children 2001-present
Previously: MoS for Schools 1998-2001
- Barclay A.A. Stanley
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
- Constituency: Macclesfield
- XP: 0
- Trait(s):
- Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933
Re: PC 8: Section 28 Repeal
Okay, so here's the thing. Section 28 repeal is not that important to most people. Sure, the gays love it and homophobes hate it. Sure, parents are a little squeamish about their young children potentially being exposed to explicit material. But when it comes down to brass taxes, it is low on most people's priority list. Basically, this is an area wherein all three parties gain literally nothing by taking the positions they took.
What is notable is that the Conservatives didn't lose anything either, which is important. We were explicit earlier in the round in saying that the Tories had yet to bottom out and that's still true. But they managed to stop themselves from bottoming out here. And they so easily could have because it is kind of a no-win position. Go too hard on the effort to sustain Section 28 and you lose your middle ground. Don't go hard enough and you lose your base. By allowing the Monday Club the free reign to go crazy, Croft and company managed to keep their base satisfied that the Conservative Party is the only party for them; by letting the rest of the party come out with some reasonable and tepid support for repealing Section 28, with notable caveats, allows the middle to feel a little less uncomfortable.
But this has got to be said: this debate was going on while everyone was supposed to be preparing for the budget which everyone knew was coming, and for which everyone had access to the budget sheet. Based on what I'm seeing here, the Tories devoted significantly more resources to this debate than they should have, given how their budget season went. If I had to guess, I would say that notable Tories, including the shadow chancellor, spent more time worrying about winning an unwinnable debate on Section 28 than they did in preparing for the budget. The Leader of the Opposition is not immune from this either. Based on the lack of preparedness both of these high-profile Tories demonstrated when the Shadow budget eventually came out, and based on the lack of cohesion that both of them demonstrated, their time would have been much better served working on that rather than the Section 28 stuff. I recall giving this advice fairly strongly at the time, and then it was born out in the polling that Blakesley released, so there can be no surprise at this note.
Labour and the Lib Dems, unsurprisingly, championed the repeal and made some good arguments. Alex Cardigan's first comment in the Press Cycle was notably strong, quoting Tony Benn's early opposition and then restating his case. Ultimately, though, neither party is really gaining much that they didn't already have established: social liberal credentials.
This debate, all four unneeded pages of it, yields no change in momentum and no XP. It was largely ignored at the time and then quickly overshadowed by the budget.
What is notable is that the Conservatives didn't lose anything either, which is important. We were explicit earlier in the round in saying that the Tories had yet to bottom out and that's still true. But they managed to stop themselves from bottoming out here. And they so easily could have because it is kind of a no-win position. Go too hard on the effort to sustain Section 28 and you lose your middle ground. Don't go hard enough and you lose your base. By allowing the Monday Club the free reign to go crazy, Croft and company managed to keep their base satisfied that the Conservative Party is the only party for them; by letting the rest of the party come out with some reasonable and tepid support for repealing Section 28, with notable caveats, allows the middle to feel a little less uncomfortable.
But this has got to be said: this debate was going on while everyone was supposed to be preparing for the budget which everyone knew was coming, and for which everyone had access to the budget sheet. Based on what I'm seeing here, the Tories devoted significantly more resources to this debate than they should have, given how their budget season went. If I had to guess, I would say that notable Tories, including the shadow chancellor, spent more time worrying about winning an unwinnable debate on Section 28 than they did in preparing for the budget. The Leader of the Opposition is not immune from this either. Based on the lack of preparedness both of these high-profile Tories demonstrated when the Shadow budget eventually came out, and based on the lack of cohesion that both of them demonstrated, their time would have been much better served working on that rather than the Section 28 stuff. I recall giving this advice fairly strongly at the time, and then it was born out in the polling that Blakesley released, so there can be no surprise at this note.
Labour and the Lib Dems, unsurprisingly, championed the repeal and made some good arguments. Alex Cardigan's first comment in the Press Cycle was notably strong, quoting Tony Benn's early opposition and then restating his case. Ultimately, though, neither party is really gaining much that they didn't already have established: social liberal credentials.
This debate, all four unneeded pages of it, yields no change in momentum and no XP. It was largely ignored at the time and then quickly overshadowed by the budget.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield
Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield
Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.