News0 min ago
Has Labour totally wrecked the United Kingdom?
53 Answers
Think about it. Recycling bin chips, the yobs, charging fees, the NHS crisis, etc. What do you think of Labour?
Post your views here.
In my opinion, I now prefer Conservitives (Sp?)
Post your views here.
In my opinion, I now prefer Conservitives (Sp?)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JoshPerkins. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Re: Ireland...yes - I've read reports about the Irish mafia too. This was always the case though wasn't it? That in itself is nothing to do with the various treaties that have been negotiated over the years.
The ceasefire is one thing, policing the province is another. To lump them together is somewhat 'goal-post-shifty', isn't it?
The ceasefire is one thing, policing the province is another. To lump them together is somewhat 'goal-post-shifty', isn't it?
Sp as you rightly point out clause 28 prevents the "PROMOTION" of homosexuality. Why remove it unless you want to promote it?
"It also meant that if a gay teenager turned to a teacher for information, advice etc...they would be turned away. That was the effect of this nasty piece of legislation. "
No it did not, that may have been what happenned but there is nothing in clause 28 that prevents discussion, understanding, explanation of gay issues, it just prevents promotion. Some teachers turned away pupils to use them to make a political point so they could get on with their pet project.
"Seriously...do you really want to live in a society where gays and bisexuals are legislated against? "
No I don't neither do I want to live in a world where children are used as pawns to further a political ideology. Homosexuality should not be promoted in schools, it's not relevant. Deal with issuues by all means but don't send my 5 year old with a Janet and Janet book.
"Would you want the civil partnership bill scrapped? "
For the record I've got nothing against this, I just don't want to promote it as an asperation for young people.
"It also meant that if a gay teenager turned to a teacher for information, advice etc...they would be turned away. That was the effect of this nasty piece of legislation. "
No it did not, that may have been what happenned but there is nothing in clause 28 that prevents discussion, understanding, explanation of gay issues, it just prevents promotion. Some teachers turned away pupils to use them to make a political point so they could get on with their pet project.
"Seriously...do you really want to live in a society where gays and bisexuals are legislated against? "
No I don't neither do I want to live in a world where children are used as pawns to further a political ideology. Homosexuality should not be promoted in schools, it's not relevant. Deal with issuues by all means but don't send my 5 year old with a Janet and Janet book.
"Would you want the civil partnership bill scrapped? "
For the record I've got nothing against this, I just don't want to promote it as an asperation for young people.
Everyone - sorry for hijacking this thread (as per usual), but I just need to go off on a tangent (as per usual).
Loosehead - here's what I got from Wikipedia:
Some people believed that Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal. Teachers and educational staff in some cases were afraid of discussing gay issues with students for fear of losing state funding (see Controversy over applicability for more information).
No successful prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
The fact that the clause was there put the fear out there. It cast doubt.
Another point - this 'promotion' thing...you cannot advertise gayness. You won't get a 14 year old saying, "Hmmm...homosexuality...I never thought of that...must get some in at the weekend".
If you're gay you're gay and if you're straight you're straight. What this clause did - and remember it was a clause in the Local Government Act 1988, which covers everything from schools to libraries to civic offices and public services.
So...how do you separate the provision of information from the idea of 'promotion'?
It was a silly act which was not well thought out...or rather it was well thought out, but the consequences and the enforcability weren't considered.
And think about it...since it's repeal, has the gay lobby gone mad, bombarding schools and colleges with information on how to 'do it' with a member of one's same sex?
It's irrelevence was
Loosehead - here's what I got from Wikipedia:
Some people believed that Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal. Teachers and educational staff in some cases were afraid of discussing gay issues with students for fear of losing state funding (see Controversy over applicability for more information).
No successful prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
The fact that the clause was there put the fear out there. It cast doubt.
Another point - this 'promotion' thing...you cannot advertise gayness. You won't get a 14 year old saying, "Hmmm...homosexuality...I never thought of that...must get some in at the weekend".
If you're gay you're gay and if you're straight you're straight. What this clause did - and remember it was a clause in the Local Government Act 1988, which covers everything from schools to libraries to civic offices and public services.
So...how do you separate the provision of information from the idea of 'promotion'?
It was a silly act which was not well thought out...or rather it was well thought out, but the consequences and the enforcability weren't considered.
And think about it...since it's repeal, has the gay lobby gone mad, bombarding schools and colleges with information on how to 'do it' with a member of one's same sex?
It's irrelevence was
Josh I too apologise for hijacking your thread.
So teachers refused to discuss/debate/ counsel because they where afraid of the act misinterpreting their actions. I think the intention of the original act is very clear, wikipedia merely reports how it was interpreted by the some sections of the public sector.
on the other subject:
"The reason it was a nasty comment is because it supports the idea of the predatory gay male lusting after 16 year old boys."
So are you saying there's not a significant number of predadory gays? why then after the act was passed did Peter Tatchell no less say words to the effect :"Well it's a giant step forward by the governement but really we should consider lowering the age to 14!" - explain that one! ( sky news)
So teachers refused to discuss/debate/ counsel because they where afraid of the act misinterpreting their actions. I think the intention of the original act is very clear, wikipedia merely reports how it was interpreted by the some sections of the public sector.
on the other subject:
"The reason it was a nasty comment is because it supports the idea of the predatory gay male lusting after 16 year old boys."
So are you saying there's not a significant number of predadory gays? why then after the act was passed did Peter Tatchell no less say words to the effect :"Well it's a giant step forward by the governement but really we should consider lowering the age to 14!" - explain that one! ( sky news)
Yep - you're correct...Peter Tatchell did say that. But he's not an elected official, mandated to speak for all gay men.
Also, just because someone says that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, doesn't mean he's about to leap on his moped and get down to the school gates!
Peter Tatchell goes on to argue that:
A third of lesbians and two-thirds of gay men have their first same-sex experience before the age of 16, according to research by Lesbian London magazine (1992) and Project Sigma (1990).
Well that may be the case, but I think that age of consent standing at 16 is perfectly right.
I just don't think that 14 is right, and I bet if you took a straw poll of most people, gay or straight...they'd say the same.
Getting back to the 'predatory gay male' thing...think about all the famous paedophile cases there have been over the past few years...all those child murderer...
...how many of them were gay men?
...and how many were married, or in relationships with women?
You see what I mean?
Also, just because someone says that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, doesn't mean he's about to leap on his moped and get down to the school gates!
Peter Tatchell goes on to argue that:
A third of lesbians and two-thirds of gay men have their first same-sex experience before the age of 16, according to research by Lesbian London magazine (1992) and Project Sigma (1990).
Well that may be the case, but I think that age of consent standing at 16 is perfectly right.
I just don't think that 14 is right, and I bet if you took a straw poll of most people, gay or straight...they'd say the same.
Getting back to the 'predatory gay male' thing...think about all the famous paedophile cases there have been over the past few years...all those child murderer...
...how many of them were gay men?
...and how many were married, or in relationships with women?
You see what I mean?
Ok - so coming back to the original question......
Why is it seen fit to blame "the Government of the day" for all the woes of the modern world?
Crime? 'Hoodies'? Education?
The last time a Conservative Government was in power, there was no such thing as DVD's or i-pods - and mobile phones were for wealthy people.
Then, kids got robbed of their dinner-money (or Top Trumps) -which was hardly a reportable crime. Now - it's a �150 mobile-phone or i-pod which IS. Is it any wonder that crime figures have gone up? It would have happened whoever was in power.
If people are so naive and blinkered that they blame the government of the day for all the ills of society (a society that they are also part of) - then they are more ignorant than I thought.
Yes, government is directly accountable for many of its actions - from closing down our industries, quashing Unions and waging war on Middle Eastern countries - to introducing knee-jerk legislation. For these they should be criticised.
However, blaming general "crime rate", "paedophiles" and the "lack of respect from the youth-of-today" on the prevailing government of the day is nothing new amongst the tabloid-believing faithful of any denomination.
Why is it seen fit to blame "the Government of the day" for all the woes of the modern world?
Crime? 'Hoodies'? Education?
The last time a Conservative Government was in power, there was no such thing as DVD's or i-pods - and mobile phones were for wealthy people.
Then, kids got robbed of their dinner-money (or Top Trumps) -which was hardly a reportable crime. Now - it's a �150 mobile-phone or i-pod which IS. Is it any wonder that crime figures have gone up? It would have happened whoever was in power.
If people are so naive and blinkered that they blame the government of the day for all the ills of society (a society that they are also part of) - then they are more ignorant than I thought.
Yes, government is directly accountable for many of its actions - from closing down our industries, quashing Unions and waging war on Middle Eastern countries - to introducing knee-jerk legislation. For these they should be criticised.
However, blaming general "crime rate", "paedophiles" and the "lack of respect from the youth-of-today" on the prevailing government of the day is nothing new amongst the tabloid-believing faithful of any denomination.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.