coldel

The first place is to go to the stonewall site and click the research pages - they commission YouGov to do their research, an independent research agency. Yes you could argue it might be biased if they are commissioning it but they do outline the methodology, large sample sizes, and its run by an independent agency which gives it's recommendations. The 2014 Teachers Report would be a good starter for ten, a stack of stats in there that show teachers concerns, the situations they are in, the lack of support. It's very prevalent and has been proven with evidence for some years. We haven't seen the actual implementation of this yet, but I would be surprised if its like what people who are against it are thinking, we need to give teachers more credit than the basic idea that it will be 'LGBT lesson today everyone, boys dress in pink girls in blue!'- read the research recommendations, it might be an eye opener.

Just because one person who is gay acts like a idiot why is that an issue? What of the other hundreds of gay people you have probably encountered in your lifetime who haven't been idiots? What of all the non-gay people that have been idiots? Unfortunately the world is full of idiots, you just have to be the bigger guy and walk away, but that shouldn't be a behaviour altering incident, unless you want it to be?

I certainly have anecdotal evidence as previously said my sons best friend, since he started school at 4, has two mummy's. I would certainly imagine any other child with similar circumstances will be asking the same questions all over the country - why does my best friend not have a daddy, that's a question I personally was asked. As far as I read it what will happen at primary school level is that instead of children being completely unaware that these relationships exist as a family, it will be more inclusive in how families are taught in class i.e. visuals etc. when doing family teaching will be representative i.e. it wont just be mummy+daddy+2.2 children, in the same way that all the visuals are not just of white people, as to properly represent what the reality is.

Clearly you cannot teach children everything, it has to be selective and relevant. What makes you think teachers will need to teach depression and suicide? I am sure if you cut the population by say economic region depression and suicide increases, I don't see depression and suicide having to be taught in economic regions where it's most prevalent. Its probably the same for race, cut that a certain way and certain groups have higher levels, so whats the issue here? All groups of every cut of society do good and bad things. Anyway that is a distraction and a side issue that isn't part of the debate, what is being taught to primary school children is to understand relationships i.e. how families are constructed and that all are equal. I have no problem with those conversations instead of being the old fashioned route of 'heres mummy and daddy' to being more understanding that not every kid in the class has a mummy and daddy, it's fundamentally unfair to ignore children in that way just because they are in the minority. There are materials being prepared such as visuals which show more than your traditional combo of happy daddy, mummy, and 2.2 children. Previously there was nothing, teachers were struggling to consistently address the questions coming from pupils, often doing more harm than good, the government has decided to put in place a consistent set of guidelines that are fair on everyone. I don't see this as a bad thing, this is not a conspiracy to brainwash children.

TT350. Not defensive at all, but posting up further right or left wing propaganda is hardly a point of debate here - maybe it would be on something like a free for all PistonHeads thread but having met so many people from here I would think we are a bit better than that. I understand you have a point of view, and have read it, and thats fine, but propaganda videos serve very little purpose - if someone posted up a video stand alone of some 'leftie' going on I am sure you would have enjoyed pulling it apart. The way I see it is there is a small number of lefties that are what you might call offended at everything, but that's their right, what is wrong are people shouting 'snowflake' and making comments that they are 'having their feelings hurt' as much as someone right wing would not want to be called a racist or a bully. In the case of the LGBT for example this has been pushed out to 'left wing silliness' when in fact its a very relevant subject children face into day to day, teachers and ex-pupils have expressed concern about how they tackle the subject. The government have taken on board feedback from loads of sources and put out a consistent text and guideline to schools. Face into it and explain in simple terms to children this is part of families when they teach about families, its real and its relevant. I get how religious groups have rallied against it though. People are talking more than ever, I can have a rational chat about politics, sorry if it comes across as aggressive but its to the point and not personal.

They are teaching children about relationships that exist for each child's immediate family - this is hugely relevant and the fundamentals of education at a young age is 'draw a picture of your family'. They aren't confused they are more than capable at the age of 7 understanding that some children have mummy's and no daddy's and vice versa, my son had his friends mummy and mummy scenario filled in for him, took a few minutes, he gets it now, its a non issue for him, he isn't confused at all and now understands that is how some relationships work - or maybe he is some sort of super genius. You are launching yourself off down the road about hate as adults, and yes I hinted at that on one post, but that is not the issue here you are making that the focus. Children at 7 are being taught about difference in relationships (not sexual differences relationship differences) because it is there everyday in front of them. If anything if they are not told why some of their friends have no daddy and two mummy's they will be even more confused - if that is purely your rationale?

Hugely right wing interviewer interviews right wing psychologist, which proves what exactly? He isn't challenged on any of the issues he raises, she says 'yes yes yes' as he is speaking, nothing more than a biased propaganda video - not sure what we are meant to draw from this? But am going to call it out, the whole teaching of LGBT in schools is a religious back-lash as its against what their books tell them to do. Nothing else, it's not about morals, or influence or anything else - otherwise why teach religion to children? Surely let 'kids be kids' do not burden them with having to adopt a religion at such a young age. It will be interesting to see what happens as there has been a backlash today from pro LGBT groups that the government hasn't reacted quick enough to educate protesters about what exactly is being taught to each age group and why it is being taught.

Remember I need two parking spaces so I can actually get out my car

We have to move away from the idea that 'sexual orientation is being forced on children' its not and never has been and isn't now. My 7 year old sons friend at school has two mummy's who take turns picking him up, now either that 7 year old kid has to explain it to a classroom of other 7 year olds who at the worst of times can be cruel and bullying or a teacher, which children look to for education, explains how sometimes its ok for someone to have a mummy and a mummy, a daddy and a daddy as well as a mummy and a daddy. They are not taught about sex at the younger age, it's about relationships. All this has been carefully constructed into guidelines that are available for all teachers to use in class. If we are concerned about any influence, then we need to remove everything. Teaching kids about killing and warplanes that over the course of history killed millions of people both military and civilian/innocent. Art is as subjective as you can get, we should remove that too as we wouldn't want to influence children at such an early age. Religion again is completely subjective, no proof exists, yet is taught to children heavily influencing them. The reason its all taught is to educate them of difference, difference exists, its not scary and its not going to harm children by informing them of it.

I agree by that rationale nothing about the world around you should be taught until you are old enough to be deemed capable of making your own decisions. Basically let kids play in the playground until they are 18 then go for it...makes complete sense.

So far not educating children effectively about this has resulted in high suicide rates, hatred, violence towards and rejection of anyone that has a gender feeling that doesn't align with the old fashioned view of a binary system. Not teaching has not worked. Time for change...that said, I get that from a religious point of view being played out in muslim communities that because this is against values written in their book by default they have to protest, they have no choice not to.

It was actually the other way around, teachers and ex-students in numerous consultations were saying that this sort of teaching was missing, that when it was attempted it was badly done due to lack of resource. There was a lot of pressure from the teaching community and various groups on the government to introduce this for years, it actually took something like 20 years of pressure to get them to fold.

Personally I would have no problem with my 7 year old son being taught that some people are different to others. Which then when it comes to actual sex education when he is much older that all types that do exist, are real, and are out there, are included. Its there, it's how the world is. The world is not 100% populated by heterosexual couples. Even if it is 'only' 10% or a minority it is fundamentally wrong to ignore that in education, are we not meant to educate? Where do you stop? Should we on the same grounds cease teaching about war? Its horrendous, its about murder and killing, yet is glamourised as 'we are the goodies they are the baddies' when it is taught. Religious studies why are we teaching this at school? Why is this forced onto children before they can form their own opinion? Science, is changing regularly, what we understood yesterday could be superseded tomorrow, is it really the truth? 100 years ago in a classroom should we have taught the idea that this car engine thing will work is hilarious, its slower than a horse... In terms of suicide in LGBT community, it is true it is higher, but its been shown in many studies by experts that 'i have made a mistake' is not part of it. Suicide is often linked to loneliness, segregation from society, a feeling of hoplessness - simply sealing young adults off from this understanding will only make it worse, not better. Ultimately kids aged 12-13 and above have phones, have access to the internet, they are going to see this, I would rather they had at least some balanced view of this part of our community from a qualified teacher than reading crap put out by unverified groups on the internet.

You mean like they have in the US

I think given that Boris 'the bend over backwards to look after everyone elses interests except Britains' Johnson is pretty much a sho-in yes it has

That famous photo location in front of the rusty barn where I see all of Humpys cars!

The funny thing is, if you put the data into Excel and click 'chart' it comes out automatically with the same scale used by the journalist above. So clearly someone there has just charted it and copy pasted it, without any thought as to what they are trying to display. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph

Again, that shows how the public in general don't understand data. My chart shows that in terms of significant differences the first 3 tyres are much of a muchness in terms of everyday use. In fact if you re-ran the test a 1000 times due to the lack of significant difference you would get them in different orders. Thats why sig testing is hugely important in using test data, its the reliance on likelihood that repeat tests would be different. In terms of F1, you prove my point with your statement, the differences are required to be tiny percentage differences because you are measuring order and magnitude which bar charts are completely inappropriate for. The visualisation is wrong, it does not show order and magnitude correctly as the magnitude of difference is exacerbated by the incorrect scaling. Those charts would indicate that if the test were repeated say 100 times the difference is so large that Michelin would never beat Continental, but look at my chart, clearly the order can change. The journalistic world defaults to bar charts, and even worse pie charts, without understanding that the visualisation has a huge subconscious impact on interpretation. I am actually going to end it here as I am derailing the thread, I thought it might be useful for people to always take a second look at charts they see and conclusions lazy journo's come to - it's always a good thing to try understand the data yourself.

Nobody is denying the budget tyre is last, chart style or not we can see that. I don't buy budget tyres and would never recommend them. The issue is that the relativates i.e. how different one tyre is to the next is grossly misrepresented and can lead people to make spurious claims because the data has been mishandled and visualised incorrectly. Here is the Dry Handling data which the chart shows the apparently massive differences between last to first for example when charted in its correct visualisation if using the bar chart approach: If we are talking marginals i.e. F1 levels of required performance improvement, then yes you need the detail, this isn't that sort of test by a long shot though. As much as AttakZ likes to look at grammar I like to look at stats, as they inform us every day on multiple issues, people believe them, yet those delivering them are not qualified. Just sayin.

If you want to show improvement difference the visualisation has to be different. This stuff is all explained in year one stats degrees. It is astonishing how the journalistic world continues to show data poorly, even worse, interpret it poorly and mislead people who rely on them to present the data to them. Fundamentally, you do not use charts to create an impact, you use charts to visualise data but it should lead to the same conclusions as looking at data tables. Those charts should start at zero for the purposes of the video, what they have shown is wrong. Anyway, rant over, I get some people wont understand my point of view. But it is a bug bear how lazy people are around understanding and interpreting data.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer the better tyres, but the graphics are fundamentally wrong. And given how much our brains work subconsciously vs consciously plenty would have looked at those charts and taken the relative size differences and committed that to memory than the numbers to the side. There is a two and a half metre difference in dry braking between first and sixth place, that is a small amount in reality given the distances of 35m and 37.7m but the chart makes those 'distances' look four times further. In dry braking, given peoples reaction times in real driving scenarios, any of those top 6 or 7 tyres are fine for instance.

Is it massive a difference? As a side point the charts are appalling and symptomatic of journos who don't understand how to present data. The handling dry test for example, the worst vs the best, the difference is 5% The chart would attempt to fool you into thinking one is around x3 worse than the other when its not, in fact no where near that. Charts have one goal, to visualise data, in that respect all the above fail miserably to present the true view and can just as easily mislead to false conclusions.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/drone-set-to-be-used-by-police-to-catch-dangerous-and-speeding-drivers-in-capital-a4184531.html Shame they cannot use them to catch hoodies with knives stabbing people - but suspect it is because there's no financial incentive for such a thing.

I am sure in 50 years it will be the norm, but right now it feels like too much of a commercial push to get this tech on the road and I don't think its ready. At the moment we accept as road users that humans make mistakes, if a machine gets it wrong and kills someone it's a whole different ball game, look at Boeing right now. I like the tech and the idea, but the commercials that force this tech through too early is not good. Everyone had a good laugh at Robocar which I am sure performed faultlessly on other days up the hill but the day it was dark and wet look what happened...

I also had my 7 year old boy in tow, he was fed up of the lack of track action and being soaked through that we left early...