Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
First of all it isnt somebody writing something you dont like. But it might be.
There is a difference between an opinion piece and something that purports to be factual. The former is is neither here nor there but the latter is expected to have some semblance of balance.
Here is an article that I pinched from a different thread posted today.
I will explain why it is "fake news". My comments are in bold.
Perversion Watch: Kindergartners Taught Sex-Ed And Parents Can't Stop It
Perversion Watch: Kindergartners Taught Sex-Ed And Parents Can't Stop It
Primary schools and academies in England will be forced to teach sex education, with no right of withdrawal for parents, if a new proposal becomes law.(this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
New Clause 5 (NC5), would create a national curriculum subject of "Relationships Education," opening the door for lobby groups to push explicit material on kids as young as five. (this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
It has been put forward by MPs David Burrowes and Maria Miller as part of the Children and Social Work Bill. It would apply to all state-funded schools. (above the age of 11)
No Withdrawal
Marketed as "Relationships Education," the new clause is so broad that it includes many aspects of sex education for which parents currently have a right of withdrawal.
However, because it creates a compulsory subject, this right of withdrawal would no longer apply. It could also be used to compel church schools to endorse same-sex marriage.
'Amoral'
Director of The Christian Institute, Colin Hart, slammed the proposals, calling them "poorly drafted, dangerous and amoral". (proposals not shown)
"This is an amendment which will alarm every parent whose child attends a state-funded school," he said. "The current sex education framework has safeguards to protect children which have been carefully formulated over decades. NC5 sidesteps those provisions in a blatant attempt to introduce sex education to primary schools by the back door." (this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
Pornography lessons
Mr. Hart continued: "The proposals deal with many things that we share concerns over, like online safety and pornography, but this is the wrong way to go about it.(proposals not shown)
"Foisting responsibility for these issues onto schools while riding roughshod over the concerns of parents, will not safeguard children.
"It has been well-reported that even now lessons on pornography are teaching children to grade pornographic material as 'good' or 'bad'.(no sources are cited)
Parents powerless
"The approach taken by advocates of sex education fails to properly acknowledge that pornography is dangerous and addictive.(no sources are cited)
"Some even teach about sexting, saying that it's OK as long as it's 'consensual'! That doesn't help children. NC5 is going to make child sexualization much worse.(no sources are cited)
"Sex education has a right of withdrawal with good reason but no such right applies here.(no sources are cited)
"It gives a green light to teaching explicit sexual topics under the banner of 'relationships,' and parents will be powerless to protect their children.(no sources are cited)
Indoctrination
"From the age of 5, children would be indoctrinated to respect 'all types of healthy relationships.'(this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
"But some would say polygamy is healthy, or revolving-door relationships are healthy. It confuses respect for people with respect for the relationships in which they are engaged.(no sources are cited this is just an unsupported opinion)
"The age of consent is 16 years old. This proposal blows that apart.( does it ? Nothing is cited to back up this claim.)
"NC5 sends out the message that as long as there is consent, any configuration of adults is somehow okay." (Nothing is cited to back up this claim.)
'Poorly drafted'
Mr. Hart concluded: "The thinking behind it is very muddled and the amendment itself is poorly drafted, dangerous and amoral." (Mr Hart is quoted on his opinion but the actual amendment is not shown. Why not ? Because it will contradict his stance.)
If passed, the clause would make the new subject the only national curriculum requirement for academies and free schools. Control over sex education would be passed from head teachers, governors and parents to the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening.
According to The Daily Telegraph, a source close to the Education Secretary said she wanted to ensure that any changes to sex education lasted the test of time.
So in summary:
The article headline is a lie because the amendment does not cover primary schools.
Only one side is quoted leading to an obvious in-balance. Perhaps we , the readers, are too stupid to deal with 2 opinions.
The interviewee is not required to back up any of his claims which allows him to lie to the readers.
The amendments themselves are not listed. In fact there is no primary source material in this article.
Sex and relationship classes set to be taught in secondary schools after 23 Tory MPs back law change
This is a different article on the same subject.
It gives a different slant on the amendments. It states:
Pupils will be taught “how to recognise and handle bullying and peer pressure, such as sexting, the meaning of consent, signs of an exploitative relationship, including physical, mental and sexual harassment, conflict management and safety online, such as exposure to pornography”.
New Government guidance to local authority and academies will also ensure pupils “learn the importance of respect, tolerance and commitment in all types of healthy relationships”.
I have chosen this article in order to remain non partisan and focus on the "fake news " aspect rather than policy. This is a tory law with cross party support.
Its a good piece of legislation that will help kids. The article that forms this posting is just "fake news".
There is a difference between an opinion piece and something that purports to be factual. The former is is neither here nor there but the latter is expected to have some semblance of balance.
Here is an article that I pinched from a different thread posted today.
I will explain why it is "fake news". My comments are in bold.
Perversion Watch: Kindergartners Taught Sex-Ed And Parents Can't Stop It
Perversion Watch: Kindergartners Taught Sex-Ed And Parents Can't Stop It
Primary schools and academies in England will be forced to teach sex education, with no right of withdrawal for parents, if a new proposal becomes law.(this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
New Clause 5 (NC5), would create a national curriculum subject of "Relationships Education," opening the door for lobby groups to push explicit material on kids as young as five. (this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
It has been put forward by MPs David Burrowes and Maria Miller as part of the Children and Social Work Bill. It would apply to all state-funded schools. (above the age of 11)
No Withdrawal
Marketed as "Relationships Education," the new clause is so broad that it includes many aspects of sex education for which parents currently have a right of withdrawal.
However, because it creates a compulsory subject, this right of withdrawal would no longer apply. It could also be used to compel church schools to endorse same-sex marriage.
'Amoral'
Director of The Christian Institute, Colin Hart, slammed the proposals, calling them "poorly drafted, dangerous and amoral". (proposals not shown)
"This is an amendment which will alarm every parent whose child attends a state-funded school," he said. "The current sex education framework has safeguards to protect children which have been carefully formulated over decades. NC5 sidesteps those provisions in a blatant attempt to introduce sex education to primary schools by the back door." (this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
Pornography lessons
Mr. Hart continued: "The proposals deal with many things that we share concerns over, like online safety and pornography, but this is the wrong way to go about it.(proposals not shown)
"Foisting responsibility for these issues onto schools while riding roughshod over the concerns of parents, will not safeguard children.
"It has been well-reported that even now lessons on pornography are teaching children to grade pornographic material as 'good' or 'bad'.(no sources are cited)
Parents powerless
"The approach taken by advocates of sex education fails to properly acknowledge that pornography is dangerous and addictive.(no sources are cited)
"Some even teach about sexting, saying that it's OK as long as it's 'consensual'! That doesn't help children. NC5 is going to make child sexualization much worse.(no sources are cited)
"Sex education has a right of withdrawal with good reason but no such right applies here.(no sources are cited)
"It gives a green light to teaching explicit sexual topics under the banner of 'relationships,' and parents will be powerless to protect their children.(no sources are cited)
Indoctrination
"From the age of 5, children would be indoctrinated to respect 'all types of healthy relationships.'(this is a lie.The proposals only apply to secondary schools where the kids are at least 11)
"But some would say polygamy is healthy, or revolving-door relationships are healthy. It confuses respect for people with respect for the relationships in which they are engaged.(no sources are cited this is just an unsupported opinion)
"The age of consent is 16 years old. This proposal blows that apart.( does it ? Nothing is cited to back up this claim.)
"NC5 sends out the message that as long as there is consent, any configuration of adults is somehow okay." (Nothing is cited to back up this claim.)
'Poorly drafted'
Mr. Hart concluded: "The thinking behind it is very muddled and the amendment itself is poorly drafted, dangerous and amoral." (Mr Hart is quoted on his opinion but the actual amendment is not shown. Why not ? Because it will contradict his stance.)
If passed, the clause would make the new subject the only national curriculum requirement for academies and free schools. Control over sex education would be passed from head teachers, governors and parents to the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening.
According to The Daily Telegraph, a source close to the Education Secretary said she wanted to ensure that any changes to sex education lasted the test of time.
So in summary:
The article headline is a lie because the amendment does not cover primary schools.
Only one side is quoted leading to an obvious in-balance. Perhaps we , the readers, are too stupid to deal with 2 opinions.
The interviewee is not required to back up any of his claims which allows him to lie to the readers.
The amendments themselves are not listed. In fact there is no primary source material in this article.
Sex and relationship classes set to be taught in secondary schools after 23 Tory MPs back law change
This is a different article on the same subject.
It gives a different slant on the amendments. It states:
Pupils will be taught “how to recognise and handle bullying and peer pressure, such as sexting, the meaning of consent, signs of an exploitative relationship, including physical, mental and sexual harassment, conflict management and safety online, such as exposure to pornography”.
New Government guidance to local authority and academies will also ensure pupils “learn the importance of respect, tolerance and commitment in all types of healthy relationships”.
I have chosen this article in order to remain non partisan and focus on the "fake news " aspect rather than policy. This is a tory law with cross party support.
Its a good piece of legislation that will help kids. The article that forms this posting is just "fake news".
