Tory leadership candidates are now regularly being asked whether they would commit to withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. This is for the birds – you read it here first. Nonetheless, the idea that there should be a U.K. ‘Bill of Rights’ to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 has been floating about in Tory party policy discussions since at least the days of David Cameron, and it is now, at long last, apparently coming to fruition.
It has been difficult for the layperson to get accurate information about what this really means and why it matters. Partly this is because for a long time the substance of what was being proposed was undoubtedly unclear. Partly it is because politicians and journalists have since its enactment done a terrible job of explaining what the Human Rights Act 1998 actually is, and what the problems with it are. And partly it is because many legal commentators – particularly those who are interested in human rights – tend to let their anti-Tory bias get the better of them and become carried away with rather ludicrous flights of fancy about the Conservative Party harbouring ambitions to ‘wind the clock back to a pre-1945 era’ whenever the subject comes up. This only serves to shed heat, rather than light, on the subject.
To get to the bottom of things and elucidate why reform in this area is required, it is necessary to explain a little bit of the history of the development of human rights law since the Second World War. To simplify somewhat, during the war a group of international jurists and diplomats began a movement to establish an international ‘bill of rights’ – the idea being that enshrining a commitment to fundamental rights in an international treaty would prevent the kinds of atrocities that had characterised the previous decade or so. Owing to the rapid deterioration in relations between the West and the Soviet Bloc in the aftermath of the war the vision of a single binding global human rights treaty never came to fruition. But in Western Europe at least it was possible to build consensus around a set of binding commitments to human rights, and this allowed a treaty – the European Convention on Human Rights – to come into being.
From the outset, the U.K. had a complicated relationship with the Convention. On the one hand, this country took the lead in drafting the treaty and giving it diplomatic impetus (it was, ironically, largely a creature of Tory politicians). These days it seems somehow politically incorrect to point out that Great Britain was almost the only nation in Europe at that time that was not either currently under some kind of authoritarian rule or had been in recent memory. But in the late 1940s it was seen as quite natural for this country to exercise moral leadership in this regard.
Yet, probably for the same reason, British politicians (and, for a while at least, judges) were lukewarm about the Convention itself. The prevailing view was that while it was necessary – just for show – that Great Britain be a party to the treaty, the rights contained within it were all adequately protected by the English common law and longstanding conventions of our uncodified constitution. Moreover, as a matter of law, the U.K.’s legal system is a ‘dualist’ one, meaning that even if the state becomes party to an international treaty, that treaty’s provisions do not become part of our law unless a statute is enacted which establishes them as such. For decades after the Convention came into effect, it was therefore possible for politicians to largely ignore it; it was an international commitment but not an enforceable source of rights in domestic law. While it was technically possible for a U.K.-based claimant to sue the Government in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, litigants with the wherewithal to do so were rare.
Fast forward to the New Labour years. Readers who were alive at the time will recall that Tony Blair’s Government came to power with a quasi-revolutionary programme of reform. Among the many changes Blair wished to usher in was to make the rights in the European Convention part of U.K. law through having Parliament pass a statute to say so. He called this “bringing rights home” advisedly; the whole point was that it had been Britain that had taken the lead in creating the Convention in the first place, and his Government was, in this framing, going to finish what had been started all those decades ago.
Why did Blair feel it necessary to do this? It was hardly as though there had been a great clamour among the populace for human rights reform in the 1990s. There was undoubtedly method in his madness: the idea that the British Government was largely a rights-respecting liberal democracy irrespective of its participation in the European Convention was true, if only one were willing to overlook what had been going on in Northern Ireland for decades. Blair and his Government well understood that enshrining commitments to human rights in law was going to be a crucial element in securing trust among the Catholic population of the province, and hence had to be part of the peace process there. But it is also difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Human Rights Act 1998, as it became, resulted in large part from the Blair Government’s squeamishness about the country’s existing institutions (and concomitant desire to ape American ones). Blair, Brown and Mandelson did not like the Britain of the past and were embarrassed in particular by its old-fashioned and fusty constitutional arrangements. They wanted to modernise. Britannia was going to be ‘cool’, and cool countries respected human rights. What better way to show the U.K.’s new face to the world, then, than to make the European Convention part of U.K. law?
The problem with doing this, and the real source of the ongoing issues with the Human Rights Act for reasons we will come to, is that in the U.K.’s constitution Parliament is supposed to be ‘supreme’. All that this means is that Parliament (meaning really the House of Commons) is the ultimate law-maker; what the sitting Parliament decides should be law, will be so, and will trump any existing laws which conflict with it. Parliament, in other words, could pass a Human Rights Act. But any time it wished, a future Parliament could create a new law superseding it. Lawyers call this the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’: if a newly enacted statute conflicts with an existing one, the newly enacted one prevails – it “impliedly [sic]” repeals the old Act. For Blair’s Government, which wanted in the Human Rights Act to create something foundational and long-lasting, the problems were obvious. Parliament could create a statute saying that citizens have, say, the right to freedom of expression. But a future Parliament could just so happen to make a new Act curtailing freedom of expression and this would trump the contents of the Human Rights Act through implied repeal. The Human Rights Act would exist only under sufferance, in other words.
It was the circumvention of this problem that led us to the issues we confront today. The Blair Government’s wheeze for getting around implied repeal and, ultimately, Parliamentary supremacy, was to give the judiciary hitherto unknown licence to challenge the settled will of the legislature, through a mechanism contained within the Human Rights Act 1998 itself.
The mechanism in question is found in section 3 of the Act, which permits judges to interpret any statutory provision in such a way that it does not conflict with one of the Convention rights “so far as is possible to do so”. If a new Act comes onto the books which on its face contains a provision appearing to go against one of the Convention rights, then it would not in fact, as would normally be the case, impliedly repeal the relevant provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 – so long as the judge could find a way to interpret the language such that there is no conflict. The text of primary legislation, in other words, is not given its ordinary meaning, or the meaning intended by Parliament – it is given almost whatever meaning the judge can give it in order to ensure it is compliant with the Convention.
While ostensibly a method for entrenching the Human Rights Act 1998 as a quasi-constitutional document, section 3 has had much farther-reaching effects. This is due to the wording of the section, which makes it clear that the interpretive licence it gives to judges with respect to primary legislation does not just apply to newly enacted statutes. It applies to legislation “whenever enacted” – i.e., it is a freestanding power granted to judges to interpret any statute or statutory instrument in such a way that they see fit so as to bring it in line with whatever they consider the provisions of the European Convention to really mean. The reason given for this was to allow courts to “build a new body of case law” so as to ensure that Convention rights could find full effect.
This quite often means literally changing, adding to or taking away the words of statutes themselves. Indeed, courts have taken the view that the words “so far as is possible to do so” in section 3 in fact mean they can give whatever reading they like to a statutory provision unless it is ‘plainly impossible’ to do otherwise. The most famous example came in the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza, in which the House of Lords (at the time the highest court of appeal in the U.K.) found that the words “a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant”, which appeared in the Rent Act 1977, included persons in unmarried homosexual relationships. But it takes place regularly: a recent prominent example was the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s finding in O’Donnell v Department for Communities [2020] that a claimant was entitled to a particular benefit despite not meeting the explicit requirements stated in the relevant statute (the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015), because that statute ought to be interpreted so as to include her in an exception which the Court itself invented from thin air. In both these cases, the alternative interpretation was given to ensure that the statutes in question were not in conflict with Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination.
Giving judges free reign to interpret legislation in line with their own notions about ‘compatibility’ with other laws, rather than the will of the legislature, would be problematic in any circumstances in a country like the U.K. Judges in this jurisdiction are not elected, so they are not subject to direct democratic oversight. Parliament alone has that privilege. This is, indeed, what Parliamentary supremacy is in the end all about: since only Parliament is elected by the people, Parliament must be the supreme law-maker in the land. To permit judges to usurp that principle by essentially amending statutes of their own volition was therefore a demonstration either of the New Labour Government’s profound lack of understanding of the nature of the institutions it was reforming or lack of respect for democracy (probably both). The point is not that the substantive outcome in Ghaidan or O’Donnell or any other such case was wrong from a moral perspective. It is that it is for the people’s elected representatives in Parliament, not judges, to make these kinds of decisions.
So the principle behind section 3 is bad enough. What has made matters much worse is that, in the decades since the European Court of Human Rights began hearing cases, judges in the Court themselves had busily set about developing a doctrine of so-called ‘evolutive’ or ‘dynamic’ interpretation with respect to the Convention itself. The idea behind this doctrine is simply stated: the rights contained in the Convention are broad principles whose meaning necessarily alters over time as societies change. What “freedom from discrimination” meant in 1950, say, is different to what we understand by “freedom from discrimination” in 2022. So the meaning of the Convention itself must change across time too – judges must be free to interpret its text in a way that is different to the original meaning, and which departs from the intentions of the drafters, in accordance with social change.
It will surprise nobody with half a brain that while the stated purpose behind evolutive interpretation is to just to keep the Convention up to date with social change, what it really represents is an opportunity for judges to try to drive that change through relentlessly expanding the scope and nature of human rights obligations set out in the Convention – usually in the sphere of social policy. It is, in short (as Lord Hoffman once put it), “a banner under which the Strasbourg court has assumed power to legislate”. The result is an unpredictable and eccentric, but always remorselessly growing, set of obligations which were never envisaged by the people who drafted the Convention and which are imposed upon European states by unelected judges based on highly tendentious interpretations of what the provisions of the Convention ‘really mean’. And, because our judiciary has tended to slavishly follow the interpretations offered by the Strasbourg court, the result of the section 3 power is much more dangerous that it would otherwise have been. Domestic judges indulging in law-making via creative interpretation of statute is bad enough; doing so in concert with judges in an international court that is entirely remote from the electorate is far worse.
This situation ought to be intolerable in a mature democracy and it is right that the Government is seeking to rectify the problem through its proposed Bill of Rights. The solution it is proposing has three prongs. The first is to make clear that the U.K. Supreme Court – not the European Court of Human Rights – is the ultimate authority when it comes to questions concerning Convention rights as they arise in domestic law. Our courts, in other words, are not to simply transpose the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court into their own decisions. The second is to specify in the text of the Bill of Rights itself that, in interpreting the text of Convention rights, U.K. courts are not to deploy evolutive interpretation, but are supposed to have regard to the text itself and its “preparatory works” (meaning the documents which indicate the intentions of those who originally drafted the Convention). And the third is to make clear that U.K. Courts do not, as they have considered it their own role under section 3, have the authority to interpret statutes as being compliant with the Convention ‘unless it is impossible’ to do so. Rather, they may only expand the protection offered by a right if they have “no reasonable doubt” that the European Court of Human Rights would give the same interpretation.
Taken together, these measures are designed to put a filter in the pipe by which the European Court’s decisions have been pouring unchecked into domestic law, to rein in our own courts’ departures from the will of Parliament, and to restore the original intentions of the drafters of the Convention, which were to create a judicial barrier to serious violations of fundamental rights rather than a license for judges to pursue progressive social policy through the vessel of human rights law. This is not all that the Bill of Rights Bill is supposed to achieve – headlines in particular have focused on its proposed provisions which will make it much more difficult for ‘foreign criminals’ to challenge deportation orders – but in the respects I have identified in this article at least it is entirely sensible.
Readers may wonder whether it is likely that this will work in practice. Won’t judges simply find other ways to ‘develop’ the law, as they would put it, in directions they see fit? And won’t that continue to give legal development in the U..K. the soft-Left Lib-Demmish tenor it has been taking on for decades? Perhaps. In truth, however, there is reason for optimism. The judiciary has been notably more deferential since the heady days of 2019 and its confrontation with Government over Brexit, largely because it has been sent clear signals by elected politicians that it faces a backlash. Historically, the relationship between politicians and judges in our jurisdiction has been carefully calibrated, with the two being broadly responsive without undue deference on either side. It is to be hoped that the Bill of Rights will restore that kind of modus vivendi by reminding the judiciary that the principle of Parliamentary supremacy exists because it is Parliament that represents the electorate, who are sovereign. In a trial of strength between the judiciary and Parliament, in other words, the latter will always win. History suggests that the English courts are highly sensitive to this fact. On the Government’s part, the proposed new Bill of Rights hardly represents a revolution – it is, rather, a modest set of measures designed to achieve a compromise position between hardliners on all sides. In this respect, it is broadly welcome.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor at Northumbria Law School.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Can they not just let kids be kids?
‘ Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.’ – Lenin
This is an odd one – a version of the famous Jesuit quote. I can’t find the direct source, just the attribution. Anybody?
“Give me the child until he is seven and he will be mine for life”, I believe.
Stolen from Ignatius Loyola – but he needed them until the age of seven.
Lenin- never original.
I can’t find where and when Lenin is supposed to have said it or written it. Internet not proving helpful!
These psychopaths can’t leave anything good alone. Their goal is to irreparably taint all that is pure and wholesome.
I think the aim is to normalise paedophilia, I would be unsuprised if sex with children will be legalised withing the next few years, Governments, the legal system and “educators” seem to very much favour it. I wonder how many will be allowed to protest or will big Tech and the media once again fall behind the dogma and claim anyone who does not support love between Adults and Children to be some kind of phobe
That’s the inevitable outcome of attitudes to sex over the last fifty years.
Back to Victorian times, when new little girls in brothels fetched higher prices because they were virgins and couldn’t give clients the clap – though the converse was, of course, not true.
Harriet Harman wrote a paper back in the seventies, which included the proposal to drop the legal age of consent to at least 14 years of age, plus legalise incest.
The radical Left seem to be obsessed with sex. It’s the only thing they’re liberal on.
Back in the 60s, 70s, 80s any young kid hanging round music venues was a target. The teenagers thought they were being cool, the pop groups and hangers on enjoyed their teenage groupies. The Walton hop was bad enough, goodness knows what was going on in London.
The exploitation gig has merely expanded into other cultural groups.
Walton as in Walton on Thames??!!
Not only Harman, Patricia Hewitt too. There were posters in some public libraries advertising the Paedophillia Association, later removed. I went to my local library and searched it for these posters with the intention of tearing them down loudly and publicly, but there were none. My children were four and six at the time, and my friends were as outraged as me, especially the fathers. Only public outrage stopped this. But these deviants will never give up.
The left are trying to make paedophillia just another sexual preference, with our children as their prey, and if we don’t make a stand now it will be too late as we’ll be accused of hate crime. Well, I DO hate them, and the only crime about it is letting it happen.
The Paedophil Information Exchange(PIE) was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties for three years while Harriet Harmen, her husband Jack Dromey & Patricia Hewitt held senior positions in the NCCL Harriet Harmen campaigned to reduce the age of consent & resist controls on child pornography. In 1978 Harmen claimed that sex abuse images should be given back to paedophiles by police who had seized them because doing otherwise would be censorship
Today Labour are extremely embarrassed by their association but it seems Drakeford’s Wales is not. Could it be revenge for his son being in prison for a sexual crime?
What was the rationale?
It seems this way. I have been atheist all my life but watching the world now I am beginning to think I have made a mistake. I find no other terms to adequately describe a lot of what I see than demonic.
Kiddy-fiddlers.
You have to start them young – indoctrinate them quickly before they begin to think for themselves. Probably.
If they want to counter-act otherwise natural development, they have to start early.
Nope. Sexuality isn’t the only thing kids are indoctrinated with. They are also brainwashed into the climate orthodoxy and much else.
Go back in time and they were indoctrinated into Christianity.
Kids have always been instrumentalised.
So what is the difference between education and indoctrination?
Being told what to think, and being taught how to think.
Neatly put.
Nothing currently.
My five year old nephew berates his parents about leaving lights on because it kills polar bears.
I’m convinced by the time he is ten he’ll be shopping in the Cohens a few doors up even though they have blonde hair.
My friends daughter was asked if she felt safe at school and all the kids had to tick a box stating their choice. Any kid that said that they didn’t feel safe was questioned by the teacher regarding their choice.
How old were these kids, 4 for FFS!! The following week they told these very same kids about how burglars break into houses. Understandably the parents are livid.
Tell your nephew that the polar bears are doing just fine. Their numbers have been going up, not down.
Yes, indoctrinated into loving God and their neighbour, telling the truth, being charitable, doing honest work and being obedient to their parents. How utterly awful.
That’s the destructive bit.
When you’re in need of charity you may change your tune.
Charity in it’s traditional sense is fine, but when it’s corrupted to pay executives of charitable organisations salaries of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, does that conform to charity?
When even the UN admits that it’s lucky if 50% of it’s charitable donations actually reach the intended victims, the rest going to warlords and corrupt government officials who perpetuate the situation that enrichens them, is that charity?
When, in the interests of charitable kindness people are cancelled from social media, the MSM, their businesses, educational institutions and virtually hounded from public life because they say ‘unkind’ things. Is that charitable?
Charity might be defined as teaching a man to fish, not being compelled or induced to support a useless scrounger in the life to which he has become accustomed and doing the fishing for him.
The time to change your tune, is before you can no longer provide for yourself.
Yes because it invariably means doing it with somebody else’s money taken from them by coercion or emotional blackmail and then claiming the credit.
I’m experiencing a lot of that at the moment every time I use the self checkout of any major chain of shops – all of them. A form of coerced giving.
I agree Annie..people are misunderstanding what you are saying with hindsight as adults……as a child I went to a C of E primary school. We said prayers in assembly and sung hymns…carols in winter, which I loved, and still do. We celebrated in church rarely, I do remember harvest festival, when we all took food in for charities….we had May Day, a May Queen, and a Maypole…it was fantastic fun. I don’t know anyone who went on to be overtly religious, because most of our parents weren’t and I don’t think we felt indoctrinated…but I still believe the things I learned then are important, kindness, politeness, telling the truth, charity to those less fortunate…and inclusivity…before it was fashionable.
Careful… it can also include, fir example, hating non-believers, that martyrdom guarantees a place in Paradise, believing your Protestant father can’t go to Heaven so he will spend Eternity in that part of Hell called Limbo.
Children are “indoctrinated” into all religions, depending on parents, culture country. It’s not just Christianity.
At least Christianity provides a moral framework. It’s the rejection of it that has led to precisely this sort of legislation.
i think the more appropriate word is ‘instructed’ and learning by example. Religious extremism deserves the word indoctrination.
But instruction in religion (is done openly) is not contrary to the socially accepted norms of culture, custom and tradition and in school would not include anything nit taught or observed at home. in addition it is clear that it relies on Faith, not evidence. Faith underpins religion, without it it wouldn’t be religion, and if there were evidence no Faith would be needed.
Indoctrination about climate change, racism/slavery, sex/gender, etc is based in pseudo-science, falsehoods, distortions and selective facts, political ideology presented as if supported by irrefutable evidence. Dissent, searching for alternatives to test the doctrine is nit taught and even forbidden.
It is done clandestinely at school away from parental scrutiny, and being State organised, parents are powerless to challenge it if they even know what the indoctrination is – it can be very subtle, so the child may not be conscious of what is going on.
But we expect better now.
No, they can’t, because they’re nonces. This is a fetish for them. They want to talk to little children about sex, because they want to rape little children.
It really is that simple, and we need to start being honest about it.
I agree. At the very least we need to challenge them, openly and in public.
I admire the Welsh woman for taking them on to prevent it. Who can blame her. But we need a public figure taking them on asking awkward questions. Why the interest in children?
RIGHT ON WITH MODERN LABOUR – ASK STARMER ABOUT IT
No.
It’s a nonce’s charter. They like to get them as young as possible.
These lessons can screw up their lives. Young eagle was distraught at the wierdo reactions in the class, left them feeling very uncomfortable, I can only describe it as meeting a flasher / pervert and having to be decompressed from the incident.
Two other parents have described the awful time their children had in the first year of secondary school. Children naturally gravitate to own sex friends as they grow out of primary age. These children interpreted their preference to be with same sex friends to mean they were lesbian / gay or whatever. Having declared this liking to their mates, it blew the friendship circles apart. Trashes your school experience, utterly mortifying when they realise 4 years later. For children, devoid of the critical hormones, the interpretation of the indoctrination lessons means something entirely different!!!
I agree.
Yet another mandate; yet more compulsion. We should be reducing them and removing them.
Not when they’re “learners”
God Almighty. WTF is happening in this country? My stomach churned just reading the headline.
This is seriously SICK.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with education and denying parents any say compounds the evil.
This is SATANISM writ large and the bloody teachers should be leading the way on this. Teachers have to say NO.
This is sheer, unbridled, perverse heathenism.
Christ Almighty.
The Fringe Extremists have staged a coup against our entire culture and our stable society. It started with “political Correctness” the forcing of their discourse and narrative onto ordinary people against their own instincts and beliefs. “Covid” now recognised as being a ‘man made’ virus used so effectively to impose blind , unreasoned conformity was followed by the stealing in plain sight of the 2020 US Election.
As Trump said: “It is you they are after , I was just in the way” Their “tanks and guns” are the pernicious Social Media freaks from Silicon Valley backed by megalomaniac Billionaires and allied to any funded fringe extremist movement going, all exploited by Deep State operatives at every turn. Closing down and ‘cancelling’all opposition and forcing their unquestioned Narrative in all things was the objective.
Destruction of the ‘Bourgeois Family’ and family bonds and relationships – including between parent and child – now even challenging biological sexual identity on a universal scale and destabilising even young children into self-doubt – all must take part in their game – has been the objective of Critical Theory and Marxist extremism for 80 years – the silent, stealthy take over of all Institutions, deconstruction of all the shared values of ‘society’ to create chaos and enable Communist dictatorship has been the objective of the founders of Frankfurt School since they were forced out of Nazi Germany and established themselves in the US. The pseudo ‘Green” movement is just another tool Carbon -0 hardly taken seriously outside the writ of “the West:’.
These ‘new’ Marxists are really better defined as Fascists, combining Corporatism with the State, without even the sham of a higher “moral purpose” It is an Empire built on lies and contempt for humanity. It now seeks a Global Government based on tyranny and total repression of the individual through the abuse of technology.
The UK ‘running dog’ has dutifully trotted along behind the increasingly dysfunctional and confused US State in social, cultural and foreign policy for 60 years – if not much longer- Johnson is just the latest actor dutifully following his brief.
David, I salute you.
I think the number of reasons which would justify sensible parents taking their kids out of school and educating them at home, or setting up their own community schools grow with every passing day.
What they propose is indeed sick. As is much of what is proposed for almost every walk of life under government control these days.
Knowing the political left, I remain convinced that this is all about power.
The power to nonce about with impunity?
But were it that simple.
It’s about teaching children that the state knows better than their parents.
Precisely.
There are some appalling parents; but nobody has the right to assume that parents are bad or inadequate, and that a committee of any sort anywhere should take over matters that should clearly be left to them.
Totalitarians believe that adults have either no capacity or right to make decisions for themselves, or to teach others anything that has not been approved by the state.
It is about replacing their parents altogether.
Pupils in Welsh schools already underperform in exams compared to pupils in English schools.
I can’t see this new RSE curriculum will improve the situation; rather the opposite, I should think!
Just look at the educational disaster Scotland has become under the SNP.
And what topics are going to be dropped to fit all this in. Children in Wales already lose teaching time for conventional topics because of the demands of bilingualism, and whether this is right or wrong morally (and I think it is wrong), it will further disadvantage Welsh children.
When not another county in the world recognises traditional Welsh as a language, of course it’s wrong. Teach them English and Spanish so they have a foundation to communicate in the two most used languages on the planet.
There’s nothing wrong with learning and using your own language in your own country.
Just don’t teach a dead language to children on the public dime.
It’s a b…..y disgrace. Not content with shoving poisonous “vaccine” into children, of all ages, they now wish to indoctrinate them with this equally poisonous claptrap. The Taffia who run that benighted country should be ashamed of themselves, but then again, what do you expect from someone like Drakeford, whose offspring has apparently learnt quite a lot about sex, especially how to demean and rape a woman.
There’s a theory that gay people are not usually into sex with children. Yet so-called sex education of them is all they seem to be interested in. And that’s obviously supposed to be same sex sex education. Just to ensure that three year olds don’t form prejudices, y’know, like refusing to have gay sex once they’re of age. That would sort-of limit the pool of people one can in future have relaxing fun with. Which would obviously be very bad.
NB: I’m presumably (and not unhappily) terminally single and childless. But if this was different, I’d advise any primary-school level same sex grooming expert to stay well clear of them in his own, best interest. Some things are not tolerable in a human society.
As the saying goes, homosexuals don’t breed, they recruit.
The drive to sexualise children at an increasingly early age is something that should concern all Adults who are not sexually attracted to children. The Education systems across the western world, supported by politicians and the MSM would appear to favour children barely out of nappies to be inculcated into the world of sex. Why?, That is the question concerned Adults need to be asking of these people, Why does a 3 year old, indeed any child up to the age of 11 need to be instructed in sexual practices. Children need to be left alone, haven’t they suffered enough at the hands of these very same people over the past 2 years plus? Children need to be allowed to be children, to be innocent, to question and explore the world, what they do not need is a group of frankly suspicious Adults in the Education and political world grooming them for sexual practices.
I can only think this is the slow creep to the normalisation of paedophilia by the people who are behind this push.
Time we began to protect our children from those who seek to prey on them in plain site.
Yes indeed, when i was young I seem to remember being interested in Custard, riding my bike through the stream in the local park and swapping things with a mixed group of boys and girls. I do not recall gender coming into our consideration at all, it would have just messed up a very happy childhood. I do not suppose the adults understood what I was doing and I certainly only had a vague understanding of the funny world of adults. You should not impose gender stuff on a 5 year old who is still getting to grips with the mystery of custard!
“when i was young I seem to remember being interested in Custard
I do not suppose the adults understood what I was doing”
Eh?
When I was around 4 years old I threw a stone through our downstairs toilet window. My mum rushed out and shouted “Why did you do that?!” and I replied “I felt like it.”
My favourite hobby as a five year old was waiting until my bigger sister went in the garden and then locking the door behind her and laughing hysterically whilst she shouted about how she was going to be late for work. Happiest days ever!
Being fascinated by custard is not as ridiculous as it might sound, as it is a curious non-newtonian liquid;
” But a few liquids behave differently – including custard! Custard is a liquid that doesn’t obey these laws. It’s a rebel liquid, or a non-Newtonian fluid. When a non-Newtonian fluid is put under pressure, sometimes called stress, the molecules lock together and immediately form a temporary solid.”
I would suggest that somehow the curiosity of youth had managed to pick up on this phenomena and aroused my fascination.
Had hours of fun with custard thixotropic mixes over pudding. Also, if you spit back too much saliva on your spoon the custard goes runny, shows the action of amylase enzyme in saliva turning starch to sugar. Biology lesson on top of apple crumble. Bags I get the skin.
~Boke~.
Even if it is scientific.
Young eagle could turn milk into yoghurt overnight when spitting milk back into the tommee tippee, like they do. Maybe that’s how yoghurt was discovered…There’s a PhD in there somewhere!!
You sound as if you were a bit of a psycho as a kid. I hope she clipped your ear at least.
I strongly suggest avoiding pseudo-learned terms like child sexualisation. Someone who wants to send dick pics to children is a paedo. It’s really that simple. If that someone’s working for the UNESCO and has a degree in applied, political bullshitting, he’ll be able to come up with a really sophisticated cover story for that, but that’s what it boils down to after the layers upon layers upon layers of false sophistry have been stripped away.
You’re behind the times. The preferred term in academia is “minor-attracted persons.”
Look out for it making an appearance in the mainstream soon.
Our education authorities seem to be ever more keen to teach children all the things that are most appropriately learnt elsewhere,
But ever less keen on teaching them the things that are best taught in a formal education environment.
If your mindset is total control, it makes sense. We see it more in the US for now. Teachers caught off guard admitting their annoyance that parents wish to shield their 9yo from discussions about gender or sex; what bigots etc.
Groupthink as well as an authoritarian streak is not a good combination. Plus the overall mentality at play seems to be this is all progress. We got the women out of the kitchen and now we are settling scores with the colonists. We can do no wrong since we are morally superior.
You know things were going wrong when this bunch of weirdos turned up.
BBC …at it again!
It all started with Master Bates, Seaman Stains and Roger…the Cabin Boy – all sailing with Captain Pugwash.
Teachers are experts in things like science, art and literature.
Parents are expert in sex, so parents are quite capable of teaching their own children about the reproductive process.
What experience of childbirth does a childless teacher have?
Paedos.
/thread.
When will this joke government, which we gave an 80 seat majority to, dump the Equality Act?
Good on the parents, sex education for 3 year olds, dare I say it, sounds pervy
This is what happens when the Welsh are given a modicum of responsibility to govern themselves
If any of us really governed ourselves the adults with unhealthy interest in children wouldn’t be broadcasting their predilections in quite so confident a fashion. They’d be keeping well out of the way and we all know it.
You have a government headed by Dung, it will act like dung, as it has been acting right through the bollox.
Here you go, Annie, two for the price of one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-45600558
Eeeeeuch. Fetch the honeycart.
My eyes. My eyes.
When I was 9 my mum told me that “Uncle ” Alfred, who had been their (single mother because of abandonment, only child) lodger from when she was 13 until she was 19 or 20, didn’t like women.
I was puzzled by this: my mum was a woman and he clearly wasn’t faking his pleasure whenever he saw her.
I can’t believe I’d have been happier or better off knowing about homosexuality.
My mother delicately explained the Birds and the Bees to me when I was about 7 years old. When she finished she asked if I had any questions.
“Just one” I said “Is that what they call fucking?”
It was one of Mum’s party stories for many years.
At 7 years I’d never even heard the ‘f’ word.
I must have picked it up in primary school. Presumably I got the general idea of what was going on from friends.
He’s Scottish.
What makes you think that?
The left are utterly obsessed with teaching kids about sex.
How many hundreds of billions of people have magically produced offspring on planet earth, over tens of thousands of years, barely any of them with the ‘benefit’ of instruction on what to do, how to do it and who to do it to?
The single most basic instinct man has other than personal survival, and the left think they can improve on it.
This is exactly what’s been going on in America, with the sexualisation of very young children. Ron Desantis brought in legislation in Florida which is the exact opposite of what the radical Left Welsh government are trying to do. Even Democrats oppose this, and support Desantis’ bill.
We all knew this sort of thing was present in schools already, but this puts it into law, and is a precursor to making paedophilia legal, which seems to be a goal of the radical Left.
The parents absolutely must fight back against it, and if necessary, a complete boycott of all schools until this legislation is withdrawn.
Laughably, this behaviour is simply uniting the right and many decent left leaning people who object to this type of behaviour.
Here in Bristol, the ‘Family Sex Show’ at the Tobacco Factory was cancelled due to protests. Reported in Bristol Post and BBC.
The BBC said, “A sex education theatre show aimed at children has been cancelled after the venue said it had received “unprecedented threats and abuse“.
Are they charging others with the very actions they are perpetrating – unprecedent abuse towards young kids of 5 years old?
Edward Coulson must be spinning in his canal
I smell an Arts Council or some such other arty type funding here. Paying these performers who can’t fulfil their desire for attention by appearing on Broadway, so conspire to present increasingly bizarre subjects as ‘art’ and make a living from it.
The news overview has a link to a Mail article on this topic: Among others, they’ve been funded by the national lottery.
Sounds very much like The League Of Gentlemen’s sketch: Legz Akimbo Theatre Company, whose motto is “put yourself in a child.”
Kids under 10 don’t need to be educated/indoctrinated about sexual matters but some of the comments about this article stink of the same prurient vicarious joy that pedo hunters exhibit in their alleged actions on behalf of the moral majority and clearly don’t hold sway in society given the sentences handed out to loners who peruse online images but aren’t real life abusers. I am not excusing anything but an international jet set pedo cabal is surely pure conspiracy theory – Epstein’s victims were hardly primary school kids and anyone with half a brain cell instinctively knew Savill was dodgy.
“anyone with half a brain cell instinctively knew Savill was dodgy.”
Careful. He was VERY good friends with quite a few members of the royal family. There still exists the hand written letters he and the future king used to exchange, where Sir Jimmy used to advise the future monarch on how to handle his marriage.
deleted
Don’t just sit there complaining, change the world!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dont-just-sit-there-complaining-change-the-world/
Frank Wright
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road
Monday 25th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A332 Windsor Rd &
A330 Winkfield Road,
ASCOT SL5 7UL
Wednesday 27th April 4pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3408 London Road &
Wokingham Road
Bracknell RG42 4FH
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Brilliant TCW article.
How to fight back. One person at a time. Probably going to be the only way to survive this.
Another pair of deviants.
About time something stirred the Welsh – are they still wearing their masks in their cars?
Yes, they are.
Is this the same Wales who’s First Minister’s son is a convicted rapist and paedophile?
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/24/fuhrer-drakefords-son-is-a-convicted-rapist-and-paedo/
That would be the one.
Let’s face it – if they didn’t indoctrinate little children in schools about God and Jesus the whole christian edifice would wither and die. What’s the purpose of religious schools? Jesus first education second.
Sounds like the Paedophile Information Exchange has infiltrated (or is running) the Welsh Government.
How about making those woke teachers have real sex in front of three year olds. Get a precocious one to video it on their iPhone and upload it to YouTube. ‘Teacher in disgusting public sex outrage!’
Already been done to a degree – the pupils were not so young. ;>)
Monty Python – The Meaning of Life.
Jump to 4:40 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing.
Good to see their opposition; we all need to support them.
Nothing new under the Sun.
Normalisation of pædophila has been tried before.
‘The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties – now Liberty – in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?
A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as “Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib”.
It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.’
https://www dot bbc dot co dot uk/news/magazine-26352378
I wish them success. Nice to see parents fighting back. There is a lot of depravity. I am very worried about all our children, it feels like they are being groomed by the state.