Rarely do the actions of insignificant politicians get Hornets' gander up. However, the council meeting held last week was scandalous if not downright disgraceful.
When the Conservatives last had their hands on the tiller of power, none of their MPs, and almost all their councillors would admit to being gay, they voted against lowering the age of consent for gay sex, and invented a law which made it illegal for schools to mention homosexuality. It became known as Section 28.
At the time the succession of looney-left wing councils declaring all out war on the right-wing Thatcher administration, whipping up a media frenzy over how school kids were being indoctrinated into homosexuality, Jenny lives with Eric and Martin, and how councils were promoting these unnatural lifestyles. All this set against a backdrop of the explosion of HIV/AIDS publicity caused nothing short of a firestorm.
It was all a load of rightwing claptrap buoyed by left wing antagonism.
Section 28 certainly succeeded in making schools like Sharia Islamic states when it comes to homosexuality, in as much as it doesnt exist. Despite the fact it is a facet of human society then as it is now. But problematically, any kid who was bullied and called a "poofter" or something equally as offensive the teaching staff could do nothing about it.
Now Hornet herself is not LGBT, but she has many friends and associates who would fall into one or more of these labels. As far as Hornet is concerned, it doesnt matter as long as they are decent people to be around.
What a difference a decade or so makes....
Boris Johnson addresses London Pride, and the Home Office chartered a float in the parade.
David Cameron, in 2009 apologised for Section 28, describing it as "offensive" and that the Conservatives in the past "may have made mistakes".
Only wind the clock back just a week and we get Palmer spouting off his praise for Section 28 and blundering around some wild notion how schools distributed books about masturbation.
Now Hornet doesnt know whether she should feel sorry for the people of St Charles in electing this overbearing dinosaur who still thinks its 1980 something, or for the handful of gay Tory councillors who sat there in silence allowing his mouth to run off in support of this bigoted offensive piece of legislation that was rightly repealed.
Stand up and be counted, and shut him up.
The book in question is called "The kids Playbook about Sex" it was on the Inner London Education Authorities (Labour controlled) reading list in the 1980's.
ReplyDeleteI used to lecture across the country about this book and why it was inappropriate, particularly because the recommended reading age was 8.
Instead of sounding like a Nazi storm trooper with phrases like "Stand up and be counted, and shut him up"
I will happily have a full public debate with you at a location and time of your choosing whether or not you think it right that such books should be bought and distributed by local authorities.
Cllr Palmer
Cllr Palmer teaching of sex education in schools is a subject that different parents have different views on. What is right for one may not necessarily be right for the other.
ReplyDeleteIn anycase that is a totally different issue to your praise of Section 28, something you clearly seem to be unable to distinguish.
Why would I, or anyone else for that matter which to debate this with you when anyone remotely with any influence in your party is of the belief S28 was a mistake?
It seems everything that was wrong about the Tory party in the 1980/90s is alive and well in RBKC
It is good to see the Hornet stinging the pompous Cllr Palmer with such venon. Such a shame that the Hornet's stinger is not longer enough to puncture this balloon of pomposity for all time.
ReplyDelete"Buffy" Buckmaster
So no debate then,
ReplyDeleteI did not praise Section 28 I only explained why it came into existence.
I wonder how many of your other readers think it is acceptable for a local authority to purchase and distribute such a book that teaches 8 year old children how to masturbate - I say a loud NO.
Cllr Palmer
You may well find Palmer's views offensive, and quite rightly so. What you may not know is that when it comes to bigotry, Cllr Palmer's views know no bounds. Give him a few seconds and he can be offensive on just about any subject you could name.
ReplyDeleteRemember, Lord Sugar called him: 'the most obnoxious man I have ever met'.
Cllr Palmer, you are again clouding your support for S28 by again bringing up this book.
ReplyDeleteThe book and ILEA reading list are not remotely connected to the blog post.
Why do you support S28 when the leadership of your national party have gone on record saying it was a mistake?
Why is the likes of Johnson and Cameron, the Mayor of London and PM respectively wrong, but you right?
Anon.0848
- you are clearly NOT cllr buckmaster so please dont post in future under someone elses name.
Anon.10:27
- Lord Sugar is right about somethings.
Where did I say I supported S28, All I did was to explain why it came about. In this day and age it is right it is repealed (like many other pieces of legislation).
ReplyDeleteThe Book has everything to do with this blog because you mentioned the book in your article. (I note, you still have not distanced yourself from the Labour parties support for such a book)
Why are so scared about having a public debate. What is it you are hiding / Running away from.
Cllr Palmer
I'm quite happy to have a public debate with Cllr Palmer about the merits of Section 28. Name the time and the place and I will be there. When we debate, I will be sure to tell Cllr Palmer about issues such as homophobic bullying in schools and high suicide rates for LGBT teenagers. Section 28 had a chilling effect on fighting homophobic bullying in schools. I despair at thinking how many young people had to suffer in silence due to that misguided, offensive, bigoted piece of legislation.
ReplyDelete--Cllr Todd Foreman
What were Palmer's opening words at Council? 'I am no fan of political correctness'.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that like saying, 'I don't feel like obeying the law, so I won't?'.
Why is this permitted, from a so-called public figure?
Dear Cllr Foreman,
ReplyDeleteWe already do public debates, and as I said to you after our last one on Wednesday at the Town hall, You got the praise of various Cllrs for being the best of the entire opposition ranks. It is a shame you could not vote for the motion I supported which read...
"This Council praises the Equality Act 2010, save for Section 1 of that Act, and welcomes the progress that both the previous Government and the current Government have made with respect to the law concerning age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation."
Cllr Palmer
So I guess Cllr Palmer doesn't want to have the debate on Section 28.
ReplyDeleteI am the one who moved the motion on the Equality Act in the first place. The Tories and the Lib-Dems voted to amend the motion to criticise section 1 of the Equality Act (the duty of councils to consider socio-economic inequality in making strategic decisions). The effect of the amendment was to say the exact opposite of what the original motion said with respect to socio-economic equality. I voted against the Tory amendment to the motion, and quite rightly abstained on the vote on the motion after it was amended.
I agree, it's a shame I couldn't support the motion (because the Tories and Lib-Dems amended it to say the opposite of what it originally said with respect to socio-economic equality).
--Cllr Todd Foreman
Dear Cllr Foreman,
ReplyDeleteThe motion that was past is there for everyone to see. It looks quite reasonable and for someone who is championing this issue you should be happy that you got half of your motion in and voted for it. If you were so annoyed that it had been reveresed (as you say) why not vote against it?
I have never ducked out of a debate and if you want to fine. I will.
Seperately I repeat my question to Hornet
"I will happily have a full public debate with you at a location and time of your choosing whether or not you think it right that such books should be bought and distributed by local authorities."
Cllr Palmer
You can repeat it as many times as you like Roundell but it's never going to happen. Although the next time u knock on my door asking to borrow my vote I may quiz you then.
ReplyDeleteSo you will not have a public debate, and you hide behind a pseudo name. Ok I understand that. Therfore why do you think I should engage with you?
ReplyDeleteI am openly public on this web site as to who I am. I do not participate in personal abuse against you or other contributors (who also do not reveal their identity, and write abusive, Ill-informed remarks about me).
Are you saying that you live in my Ward? I do not think you do, as you got the facts about my newsletter so very wrong
Cllr Palmer, you are elected and I am not it is never something I would find remotely interesting. Couple having neither the time nor the inclination.
ReplyDeleteI have a copy of your in touch amongst a few others and I have not said I live in your ward.
As an elector I do not have to justify myself to you, as a councillor you have the obligation to do just that. You would do well to realise that.
I have just read this exchange and find myself very surprised at the tone adopted by a Cllr of the borough. Is this really him or an impostor? If it is he needs to stop this right now before he brings the Council into disrepute.
ReplyDeleteI mean Palmer of course.
Dear Hornet,
ReplyDeleteYou say you are an elector but I have no proof of this. So my point still stands.
Why do you think I should engage with you?
Cllr Palmer
You choose to engage with me. I don't force you to do anything.
ReplyDeleteI think as a matter of importance elected people should engage with the people they represent.
ReplyDeleteYou have few times asked the members of the ruling group to answer your questions. I see it as part of my democratic job to help you with that but before I do, I think we should know if you live in the borough.
Cllr Palmer