• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sex education to be compulsory in England's schools

It is, within the quote, it links to the BBC... The article is titled: Sex education to be compulsory in England's schools

So it is the reader who does not understand the language, not the article.
All children from the age of four will be taught about safe and healthy relationships, Education Secretary Justine Greening said.
Children will also be taught, at an appropriate age, about sex. But parents will still have the right to withdraw their children from these classes.

It is only sex education that is voluntary. The new addition of teaching about safe and healthy relationships is what will be compulsory.
 
So it is the reader who does not understand the language, not the article.


It is only sex education that is voluntary. The new addition of teaching about safe and healthy relationships is what will be compulsory.

That would fulfill the definition of compulsory, even if parents can give exemptions.
 
And all this just gets us to the point where we can discard the stupidity so far being talked on this thread. Not that i am pointing to any particular post cough<#4.>cough.

This is about the fact that texting and the internet means children can and do access porn. It needs to be talked about.
 
That would fulfill the definition of compulsory, even if parents can give exemptions.

No, it is an oxymoron to say compulsory voluntary.

It only works because they are talking on two different subjects. Children as young as 4 will be taught about relationships while children of older age will be able to learn about sex itself.
 
No problem with the reading it is comprehension that is lacking.
I didn't quite want to phrase it that harshly, but since you admit to it yourself.............................:2razz:
 
So it is the reader who does not understand the language, not the article.


It is only sex education that is voluntary. The new addition of teaching about safe and healthy relationships is what will be compulsory.
Ohferchrissake, teaching any of the above will be compulsory.

To schools.!!!!!!

Read the article before spouting off to others on reading comprehension.
 
I didn't quite want to phrase it that harshly, but since you admit to it yourself.............................:2razz:

I am the one who pointed out the discrepancy. Which you seem not to comprehend :)
 
Ohferchrissake, teaching any of the above will be compulsory.

To schools.!!!!!!

Read the article before spouting off to others on reading comprehension.

How difficult is this. They have two separate issues here. One will be taught on a compulsory level while the other is voluntary. the article clearly states that sex education is only compulsory in state schools where as the new education on relationships will be compulsory through all schools.

Until now, sex education has been compulsory only in council-run schools.
Since academies and free schools are not under local authority control, they do not have to follow the national curriculum and have not been obliged to teach sex and relationships education (SRE).

Did you not even bother to read the article?
 
~.......................Did you not even bother to read the article?
I'm wondering whether YOU did.

Because the excerpt you have quoted confirms exactly what I said.

What exactly is it about the compulsion being placed on schools to teach that you don't get? And what is it about this measure (as such) not dwelling primarily on the compulsion or voluntariness of pupils to attend that you don't get?
 
I'm wondering whether YOU did.

Because the excerpt you have quoted confirms exactly what I said.

What exactly is it about the compulsion being placed on schools to teach that you don't get? And what is it about this measure (as such) not dwelling primarily on the compulsion or voluntariness of pupils to attend that you don't get?

Firstly the link states:
But parents will still have the right to withdraw their children from these classes.
So obviously not compulsory.
Secondly it clearly states from my link that
Since academies and free schools are not under local authority control, they do not have to follow the national curriculum and have not been obliged to teach sex and relationships education

The only way this works is that there are two separate things here. The teaching of sex itself which is not compulsory and the new teaching they will instigate that is.
The compulsory part is only the new bit not the old sex education that is already in place.
 
I´m a little bit surprised that that´s a big deal in the UK - we had that already when I went to primary school 1978. It was part of the biology lessons for everybody.
 
I´m a little bit surprised that that´s a big deal in the UK - we had that already when I went to primary school 1978. It was part of the biology lessons for everybody.

You lot have a one track mind when anyone mentions the word sex.

It is not the biology they are teaching to 4 year olds that would be inappropriate. They are teaching about,

he statement said: "The statutory guidance for Sex and Relationships Education was introduced in 2000 and is becoming increasingly outdated.

"It fails to address risks to children that have grown in prevalence over the last 17 years, including cyber bullying, 'sexting' and staying safe online."
 
And all the boys are asked about their feelings about homosexuality and say they feel that homosexuals should be isolated from society would be punished.

The homosexuals will have a field day with this

I think we've been infiltrated by Daesh.
 
You lot have a one track mind when anyone mentions the word sex.

It is not the biology they are teaching to 4 year olds that would be inappropriate. They are teaching about,

It´s not that scientific as you think. It´s appropriate for children. The name of the school subject is "Sachkunde" and deals with a lot of topics. I said biology because I could not find an english word for that.
btw: my daughter went online when she grew 12 or so - before that the Kids where playing in the woods - I think teaching 4 year old children "staying save online" is a bit inappropriate. ;)
 
Just what I said

Naturally gays will want to make their pitch to all the little boys

This is a completely ignorant statement and demonstrates, AGAIN, that you know nothing about sexual orientation.
 
And all the boys are asked about their feelings about homosexuality and say they feel that homosexuals should be isolated from society would be punished.

Because that would denote either bigotry, ignorance, or both.
 
This is a completely ignorant statement and demonstrates, AGAIN, that you know nothing about sexual orientation.

True

I know only enough about homosexuals to avoid them
 
True

I know only enough about homosexuals to avoid them

No, you are completely ignorant on sexual orientation. This is really not in dispute considering the content of your posts.
 
I've dated some English girls. Their sex education seems to be fine already.
 
I'd heard that the UK was more puritanical than the rest of west/central europe. Now i see why. It cowers before the "religious freedom" nonsense the same as here. What's the point of having a requirement but then allowing anyone to opt out based on beliefs no one can verify?

Keeping kids ignorant is just another form of child abuse, and the "abstinence only" states always seem to have the highest teen pregnancy rate. Should be a crime to hide pertinent info from kids that can help them prevent unwanted pregnancies
 
Last edited:
The homosexuals will have a field day with this

Only with your reaction. Speaking of which, yes it's true, we want to make giving blowjobs and taking it up the ass a graduation requirement.....of middle school

True

I know only enough about homosexuals to avoid them

Better not ever leave the house then. I make sure to wink and do a little finger wave at guys like you just to let you know we're everywhere
 
Back
Top Bottom