Skip to content

Dodgy Americans tried this too

Parents blocked from checking their child’s trans sex education lessons
Watchdog rules parents of children at Hatcham College do not have right to see teaching materials taught by external providers

So the sex education material asks the pupils to “Pupils are then told to write down “a list of words that could relate to sex E.g., stroke, wet, hard” and then to “try reading them out loud looking in the mirror (or on a video call with a friend)”.” at which point you can just imagine teacher playing with summat behind the curtain, can’t you?

The mistake here – if mistake it is – is that Sex Ed is supposed to be teaching about, not to.

But the specific here. The folk doing this sex ed insisted that their materials are copyright, so the parents can’t see it. To do so would be to breach their copyright.

Which is fun, innit? Copyright actually applying to copying not reading. Still, nice attempt at insisting no one to ever know what they’re doing.

And also a tactic just used by an American co. doing the same thing. The American courts told ’em to bugger off….

12 thoughts on “Dodgy Americans tried this too”

  1. The Daily Mail calls it commercial confidentiality.

    It says that Baroness Morris of Yardley, a former Labour education secretary, has tabled an amendment to the Schools Bill to give parents a legal right to see all teaching materials.

    Good luck to her. This is obviously one of those rare instances where I think Labour is right.

    If you’re curious, another was when Harold Wilson withdrew from East of Suez.

  2. Many oddbods and wrong ‘uns love to talk about their perversion. Sometimes this is disguised as healthy open debate – the Guardian often features this – but it’s obvious that they are getting off on it. I think that there is a large group of “counsellors”, advisers, therapists and teachers working with children who get excited by the idea of the kids thinking or talking about sex.

    I worked with a bloke who was an extreme example of this. He taught theatre studies to 16-18 year olds, and they complained that he got them faking orgasms as a warm-up exercise. He left under a bit of a cloud.

  3. Kiddie fiddlers want access to children – not shocking. The shocking thing is that a big chunk of the Establishment support them.

  4. The SoSE, which provides workshops on “consent, sexual health, porn and positive relationships” through the viewpoints of decolonisation and inclusivity, was hired by Hatcham College to deliver Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) sessions.
    SoSE’s core principles in teaching RSE include an “aim to recognise and address the impact of colonisation” and to focus on “our commitment to equity and social justice”.


    Torches, pitchforks, and a long row of gallows.

  5. This is easy:

    Other questions for students in the lesson include: “Explore how the parental figure… perpetuate[s] heteronormativity”

    “Heteronormative” activity is what makes kiddies.

  6. Wtf is a ‘viewpoint of decolonisation’ in Sex Ed? Are they going to teach the benefits of apartheid or Wahhabi gender roles? Or maybe some gauche fetish-roleplay of the Partition of India?

    Anyway, solution is simple: if they won’t let you see it, presume the worst. Send round the plod. Or at least, that’s what you’d do in a civilised country.

  7. @BiND Thradithion.. Goes with the torches and pitchforks. Unless you want to employ the french solution..

    Doesn’t mean we can’t have the main perpetrators ( and financers…) entertain our feline compatriots.
    But the dearth of famished felines and/or enraged mustelids does make it a option.

  8. Wtf is a ‘viewpoint of decolonisation’

    I think decolonisation is a procedure favoured by people who promote surgery on divers pipes, entrails, gibblets and appendages so this is a technical term for scraping the barrel of the bottom.

  9. The point of any IP law is to ensure public accessibility, interesting that an IP argument is being used to deny access to the information to the public.
    The breaking of this “patere” obligation, especially for software, is why software companies are so wildly valued.
    There are no generic software companies, since there is no access to the source code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *