Saturday, 28 September 2019

Gender neutrality and diversity

"This was a story in the UK that came out at the end of last week," said Brian Gerrish on UK Column. "It was a school in Lewes and basically they`ve adopted gender-neutral uniforms and certainly the pupils, the girl pupils, not happy about this at all. So some of the teenage girls protested outside the school gates whereupon the school brought in police. And if you read the article there were people who were complaining that essentially that although the police did eventually go, there was a police officer defending the school against teenage girls who were unhappy at being told they couldn`t go to school because they dared to wear dresses."

"Well if you think this is one-off stuff, it`s not. This is now being rolled out across the country. So we were also given a heads up on this. Nottinghamshire Live report here. And this is about the teaching of sexual education in one of the Nottingham schools, Shirebrook Academy. It says they are set for a new trial of a controversial sex education programme . It`s the Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) material which is due to be rolled out across the country in September in 2020."

Mike Robinson: "So you said `trial`...So these children are being used as guinea pigs ? "

"Absolutely. And this school is particularly proud of that. We`ll get onto to that a little bit more."

"Pupils at the school will be able to give their feedback to the government."

 "I found that a very interesting comment. So the parents gently pushed off to one side, although the government claims there`s been consultation, but it`s the pupils who`ll be able to give their feedback. ... The pupils have given some good feedback to date because they`ve been protesting outside the gates."

"The curriculum guidelines are changing for the first time in nearly 20 years to introduce new topics, such as mental health and online safety. Other topics will include sharing explicit photos and pornography online, sexual and gender identities within families, and the need to respect and protect their relationships."

"Well let`s have a look at one of the key people. This is Mark Cottingham, the principal of  Shirebrook Academy and he said this:"

"There has been plenty of controversy surrounding the inclusion of topics within the updated RSE curriculum, with parents at some schools unhappy with themes they feel conflict with their personal beliefs. Our school already puts a lot of time and effort into teaching tolerance and acceptance and we are proud that this commitment means that we have had no hesitation in agreeing to become an early-adopter."

"So they know there`s been protests - this is what it was about in Birmingham, where uniquely we had Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities, all coming together to protest they didn`t want their children being indoctrinated. This man says: `Yes, we know all that but we`re proud to get this through`, and in it comes."

"He said: `We believe it`s our duty to support all of our students but also to prepare everyone for a world where people have more and more diverse identities. The RSC is not about telling them who or what to be or encouraging one identity above the other but making them aware of the differences and encouraging empathy and openness instead.` These statements, as you see in the government statements, they`re contradictory, because they are putting an agenda to the forefront - that`s the diversity agenda.  If you want to stick with the status quo of heterosexual relationships and one-to-one marriage, then this man`s policy is not for you. But he`s not interested in any other opinion apart from the one that is going to be pushed through the school."

Mike Robinson: "But if you look at what he says there `Also to prepare everyone for a world where people have more and more diverse identities. Who decided the world was going to be one where more and more people had ... diverse identities? Is he suggesting this is a natural evolution? Or is there something else going on?"

"Well, of course, he doesn`t say. If we follow through these sorts of policies we invariably end up at the United Nations, Mike. But the stop before that is of course our own government, and this is where the whole thing stems from: `Relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education ... So I encourage people to go and have a look at this on the government site."
"And Get the Facts. So it says it`s introducing this: `Through these subjects, we want to support all young people to be happy, healthy and safe. We want to equip them for adult life and to make a positive contribution to society throughout our engagement process as we develop this curriculum. We`ve heard a number of wide-ranging concerns - most of which they`ve just simply ignored."

"So these are some of the questions. Do I have a right to withdraw my child from Relationships and Sex Education?" 

"Parents will have a right to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of RSE ... Then it says in the second paragraph. There is no right to withdraw from Relationships Education at primary or secondary as we believe the contents of these subjects - such as family, friendship, safety - are important for all children to be taught."

Mike Robinson: "Who is we ?"

"Who is we ?"

"Well this is the advisers for the government, of course. But we know that many people are deeply concerned about... what they propose to teach primary school children, but they`re being told here clearly by the government: `Well you don`t count as a parent; we`re going to tell you what your child is going to be taught and you`ve got no right to withdraw`."

"And then it goes on: `Will these subjects promote LGBT relationships? No, these subjects don`t `promote` anything, they educate.` Well this is a lie, because the whole of this is promoting a particular agenda, and parents are being told: `We`re going to get hold of your small children and re-educate them and you`re not going to have a say`."
"So I`m going to say `immensely dangerous stuff`. People should read this and see what`s happening. Now let`s come onto the media and here`s the BBC with Teach/ Class Clips. RSE KS2: Identity - Understanding sexual and gender identities. And in this film clip, we are to believe the BBC... these trusted people - we don`t know who they are - and these children are coming out with the most amazing questions about very, very difficult subjects."

"Now to my mind the average seven, eight, nine year old does not know these topics. So these topics have been introduced, the pot stirred for the children, to then [they] come forward confused and ask questions. We`ve got an unknown group of people who are giving the answers. To my mind, immensely dangerous. As a parent, immensely dangerous, but here`s the BBC standing up to say it believes in transparent media, fair media, involved in what I consider to be propaganda."  

"This is one of the documents - it`s from the BBC: LGBT Culture and Progression. I think that`s a very interesting picture of where the BBC stands on this topic. We`re not discussing right and wrong, we`re simply saying how much effort is put into a particular topic."

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

No safety studies for 5G

Former Microsoft Canada President, Frank Clegg, speaks about the risks of 5G wireless technology.

Gender neutrality: a step too far?


Confusion is also going to be created more widely.

For example:
"Trans people will be permitted to change their sex on the next official census, despite warnings it could mean the statistics become `skewed"

"Guidance for the forthcoming survey in 2021 will give respondents the option to state their sex is `different from what is on your birth certificate`."

"It is feared the advice, which applies to both adults and children, could distort population data upon which the Government bases future policy." [This is an important point since the pattern of diseases is different in the two sexes and so are the needs for maternity services.]

Friday, 20 September 2019

Scotland celebrates the passing of the Named Person

[UK Column News: 20 September 2019]

David Scott talks about the repeal of the Named Person legislation in Scotland:

"Well, yesterday was a bit of a red letter day... a brief moment of celebration, because Mr Swinney, the responsible minister, stood up in the Scottish Parliament and announced that the whole thing - at least in a legislative sense - was being scrapped. So here we see the report from the Christian Institute who led the legal challenge and led the `No to the Named Person` campaign... They`re saying `Named Person scheme axed by Scottish government. Parents are celebrating today after the Scottish government officially announced the end of the intrusive Named Person scheme. Three years after ...the Supreme Court ruled against key elements of the scheme, in a case spearheaded by the Christian Institute, the government has finally agreed to repeal the entire Named Person legislation`."

"So it`s all - at least in a statutory sense - going to go."

Brian Gerrish: "I was just going to say: `and this really shows people.` We have so many people who say: `Yes, we now understand what`s happening in this country, how all this crass legislation is being brought in, what can we do about it? And it has been consistent work by a relatively few - a relatively small group of people - that`s brought this change about in Scotland. I don`t know whether you`d like to add a bit to that."

David Scott: "Well it has. This is real people power because the state developed this in secret; it has every state department on board; it had all of the charities that receive significant government funding involved in developing the scheme. And all of the organisations that are meant to protect human rights were all either asleep at the wheel or actually enabling this to go forward. So it was left to a small number of individuals to tell the people what the scheme actually was, and the thing that really destroyed it - then the legal case was an excellent spearhead and did a lot of damage - but the thing that really destroyed it. [was] that they could not persuade the people to accept this intrusion into their lives and it was getting that message out that really turned the corner for them."

"So this is the Herald supporting it here as a political story. Swinney `humiliated` here as another of his flagship plans is scrapped. Now this is correct, the Scottish Government`s having a lot of failures at the moment, but really the... true story here is that a major move into fascism, into totalitarianism, has been defeated by public pressure and helped by the Supreme Court. It`s noticeable that the courts in Scotland all backed the government but when it went to the Supreme Court, the story was different."


"The BBC reported it - here we are. BBC News: `Named Person scheme scrapped by the Scottish government.` Now, in the very next line, this is the line they put in bold... underneath the article they said the following: `The Scottish government has scrapped its controversial plan to appoint a named person to safeguard the welfare of every child in the country`."

"So six years into the national campaign which they have been reporting all the way along, the BBC still get it wrong... I just want to emphasise how stupid this is, or craven, because this is the lie that the state`s been saying. This is the lie that the state`s been pushing the whole time. When there was a debate up in Inverness and the minister responsible then, Aileen Campbell, was getting ripped apart by people who knew what they were talking about, and she was on the phone, you could hear the adviser whisper to her `child protection` because the line has always been that this is about child protection; it`s about welfare. Welfare is defined in law; it`s risk of significant harm. There`s nobody in the country who`s saying that children should be put at risk of significant harm. That`s a lie by the BBC, right."

Emphasising once again that the Named Person was never about welfare, David Scott says: "It`s not about welfare; it`s about wellbeing, which means anything the government wants it to mean and is completely undefined. And six years into this campaign, the BBC is still pushing out the lie."

"It`s pathetic."


More about the BBC`s coverage of the Named Person scheme is on Friday`s UK Column News:

Saturday, 7 September 2019

The Royal Connection

Brian Gerrish in the UK Column studio, 28 August 2019: "Well, let`s end with the subject of Jeffrey Epstein. Of course this came to a head about the time we did our last news early in the month, but the story is continuing to drag on. Here`s the BBC: Jeffrey Epstein accuser urges Prince Andrew to `come clean` So it`s saying a woman who accused the late financier Jeffrey Epstein of sex abuse and alleged she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew as a l7-year-old has urged the UK royal to `come clean`... She`s said this in writing but she`s also said this in front of cameras very recently. `Speaking after a hearing for alleged victims in the wake of Epstein`s death, Virginia Giuffre told reporters the prince `knows what he`s done`. "

"The Duke of York denies the accusations; and then it said: `Epstein killed himself in his prison cell this month while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges`. That was remarkably convenient and got rid of a lot of problems for a lot of people I think." 

"But let`s follow the BBC report through because they don`t actually give the main detail about Prince Andrew. You`ve got to connect via web links embedded in the article. So it`s very interesting to see how the BBC plays this. If you do connect on the links it all becomes a bit explicit because here`s Prince Andrew together with his young lady ... on location in one of Epstein`s houses and of course this is the other picture which won`t go away which is of Prince Andrew with Epstein in Central Park after Epstein had been released from prison and was, therefore, at that stage a convicted paedophile. So where does this go?"

"Well if you follow the BBC article through who did it end with? It ended with a picture of Epstein alongside Trump. So there`s all the charges. What was Epstein charged with? That`s listed quite simply. What`s the last image that the BBC puts in your mind? It isn`t Prince Andrew, it`s Trump. I thought this was a very carefully crafted article."

"But this was the Guardian. `Prince Andrew knows what he`s done says Jeffrey Epstein accuser. Royal has previously denied Virginia Giuffre`s accusation that she was forced to have sex with him and this is what Andrew said. He made Epstein`s acquaintance in 1999 and saw him once or maybe twice each year. The prince also said he stayed at several of Epstein`s homes. He did not see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to Epstein`s arrest and conviction.` So that`s good. He added. `I`ve said previously it was a mistake, an error, to see him after his release from prison in 2010 and I can only reiterate my regret that I was mistaken to think that what I thought I knew of him was evidently not the real person, given what we now know`."

"That`s surprising isn`t it? Because he`d been released from prison after being found guilty of what was effectively a paedophile offence."

Mike Robinson: "Yes that`s an untenable position to be taking."

Brian Gerrish: "I think this is desperation because it`s complete rubbish. `The prince also said his suicide has left many unanswered questions and I acknowledge and sympathise with everyone who`s been affected and wants some form of closure`..."

"We`d like to say that as far as the Prince is concerned we remember: Oxford and Cherwell Valley CollegeIt`s going back to 2011 when the UK Column did a lot of work on the abuse of youngsters at that college; and we also became aware that Prince Andrew was due to visit the college and warned one of his aides that the college had been involved in some pretty appalling stuff with the students. But Prince Andrew continued with the visit and he went and visited one of the worst of the workshops where abuse had taken place. So he didn`t seem very concrned about that angle."

"But somebody took up the case though and they started to ask some Freedom of Information questions about the college and his visit and I just thought people would be interested to see that the response that Mr Roberts got was effectively to say: `Well we can`t give you too much information because it concerns the Royal Family."

"I refer to your recent request concerning all letters and emails relating to the recent visit of Prince Andrew to the College. I would refer you to section 40 relating to personal data 37 (1) (ac and ad) in respect of communications with the Royal Family and the Royal Household and Section 38 which relates to endangering the safety of an individual..."

"So if you ask questions about a royal visit to a college where the abuse of children has taken place they can`t tell you anything because it might endanger the Royal Family."

"Yes brilliant."

"And here we`ve got a bit more.... 37 ac and ad are qualified exemptions and therefore subject to a public interest test. But essentially, the public is not going to get any information when they ask questions."

"And we`ll end on this report from the Mail. We`ve got another lady coming forward to report abuse: `British actress, 42, went to school with Kate Middleton, revealed she was manipulated coerced and sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein as a teenager at a hearing alongside 30 of the paedophile`s victims`. But embedded in the Mail article was this paragraph."

"`Epstein`s lawyers were also given a chance to speak. They suggested, shockingly, that he had been murdered and said his neck injuries were more consistent with a homicide than suicide`. They told the judge they had hired their own experts to look into whether or not the disgraced paedophile might have been killed."

"That was the little piece buried in the article. The Mail to its credit put a bit more information in. They had this:" 
"Officials said Epstein hanged himself with a bed sheet from the top set of bunks. He was found with several broken bones in his neck, including the hyoid bone, when guards were doing their morning rounds. Revelations of the broken bones in his neck lead to speculation that his death was a homicide. Breakages to that specific one can occur when people hang themselves but are more commonly seen in victims who have been strangled, according to forensic experts."

"So that didn`t appear in the BBC report but the Mail did get it out, but our take on it  is that it is a very convenient death - of Mr Epstein - and of course the palace will now do their best to stay in the background. and let it all disappear into the long grass."

Mike Robinson. "I hope that will not be allowed to happen."


Celtic FC may face legal action


[Stephen Deal]

"Celtic FC could face legal action in the coming weeks over sexual abuse at Celtic Boys Club, a law firm has said."

"A solicitor representing abuse survivors said preparations are being made to bring a `small number` of test cases against the Scottish champions."

"A number of senior figures at the boys club which was not formally affiliated with Celtic FC, have been jailed for sex abuse.
Thompsons Solicitors represents more than 20 abuse survivors from the boys club. Patrick McGuire, a partner at Thompsons said: `Celtic lawyers have refused in any meaningful way to discuss these cases and we find ... the only way forward is to take a series of test cases to the courts`."

"James McCafferty a former youth coach, was jailed for more than six years in May after admitting a string of historic sex offences against boys. In February, former youth football boss Frank Cairney was jailed for four years while last November James Torbett, who was involved in setting up Celtic Boys Club, was jailed for six ears."

"During the summer, Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said that the club had been conducting its own investigations for the last two years, led by a `wholly independent and experienced lawyer`."

[Metro September 4 2019]

The dangers of the HR5 Equality Act:

[Dr. Michael Laidlaw ]

"No child should be prescribed cross-sex hormones - meaning hormones of the opposite sex. Girls are being injected with high dose testosterone. Boys are receiving high dose female hormones like estrogen. These medications bring about serious cardiovascular risks such as heart attack, strokes, and deadly blood clots, and therefore should NEVER be given to children. This should be obvious."

"Mastectomies of perfectly healthy breasts are happening to girls as young as age 13 and 14 in the United States. How can these girls provide informed consent as they are not fully mature adults? This should never happen."

"When I learned that the NIH had given nearly $6 million to four pediatric gender clinics in the United States with no control group and no randomization as would be expected in a study of this type, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with my colleagues to obtain the study records. While I was unable to obtain the unsigned consent forms for human research, I did uncover this absolutely stunning finding:"

"In 2017, the principal investigator, pediatrician Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles lowered the age of cross-sex hormones (meaning hormones of the opposite sex) from age 13 to age 8."

"Tell me, how can a little child consent to this? How can they possibly understand the harms? How is this permissible legally or ethically?"

"I'm very concerned that H.R.5, the Equality Act will lead to medical protocols like the one funded by the NIH being implemented all across the nation."

Telecom transmitters outside schools

Mark Steele reports that he has been getting a lot of questions about 5G transmitters being placed near schools. How safe are they?

"It`s a bit bizarre," he says "How these telecom companies - allowed by councils -  are putting transmitters up next to schools. 
The Council of Europe says the radiation transmitted should be no more than 200 millivolts."

Mike records a level of 1500 millivolts outside a school where hundreds of children are playing in the playground.

Wednesday, 4 September 2019

Call for EMF guidelines

"There is currently an international appeal ( php/emf-scientist-appeal) signed by 237 EMF scientists from 41 nations urging the UN and particularly the WHO to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development."

Monday, 2 September 2019

Keeping children safe

Adoption concerns

[Julie D]

"Three years ago, I wrote a blog post, `Can an adoption order be undone?` The answer was, only in very exceptional circumstances. A new High Court judgment..., ZH v HS & others [2019] EWHC 2190, has not broken any new ground, but gives us a further example of the sort of procedural flaws that are so serious they undermine the granting of the order. ..
No one had noticed that T had not lived with the ‘adopters’ for the statutory period required

The correct notice had not been given to the local authority

The required checks on the aunt and uncle were not carried out

The required medical assessments had not been undertaken

The parents had not been notified, nor their consent sought

The local authority’s report to court had several omissions and had not been written with the ‘adopters’ understanding that they were taking on full parental responsibility for T.

The court didn’t appoint a Cafcass guardian.
It is almost impossible to understand how such a flawed application could have proceeded through the local authority and court processes."
 Julie D


Although we are told that the above case is not about forced adoption it does not inspire confidence in any of the adoption processes. Years of complaints have not improved the situation.

Here`s a recap from RT [2015]:

Escalation of concerns:

"Up to five years ago ... the only abuse was physical abuse, neglect and sexual abuse... Then there were two and a half thousand cases reported each year to... social services. Two and a half thousand causes of intervention."

"Over the five years a new category has come into being called emotional abuse ...there were thirteen thousand eight hundred cases... involving social services intervention ... This is a result of an unholy alliance between social workers and the psychiatric profession."

[Brian Rothery, retired journalist, human rights activist, Ireland]