Hugely agree, those would all be fantastic additions.

Yeah, there’s definitely a difference between curricula, what’s focussed on in classrooms, and exam assessment criteria, but they’re supposed to be cohesive.

I remember one of my big pieces of coursework was “writing from the perspective of an advertiser,” and we had loads of lessons on identifying bias. I was taught in school that “red top magazines” are “less honest and more emotive” than “broadsheet newspapers.”

Presumably not everyone had the same experience though: I mentioned this offhand and my friend told me “surely that’s illegal to teach in a classroom?!”

This is actually a very minimal change to the already existing curriculum - the (compulsory) English Language GCSE is 50% “Critical reading and comprehension”

Gov UK states all specifications must include:

“identifying bias and misuse of evidence, including distinguishing between statements that are supported by evidence and those that are not; reflecting critically and evaluatively on text”

Most people presumably… “forgot”? but this has been in the curriculum for decades

I don’t have a telegraph account - someone summarise?

If you’re anxious about existing in violent situations, SUTR (and similar local organisations) will likely host more friendly community solidarity events near you, in addition to the counter protests.

If you’re still anxious about those, reaching out to your community’s vulnerable organisations / mosques and offering support. On a smaller scale, reach out to local shops and friends.

Edit to say also: Talk to the people running and attending the anti-racist protests! Get to know them - there’s safety in numbers but there’s even more safety in community

My first thought was that 40% was low… but I suppose I’ve never been a first time buyer, so they probably have higher salaries than I do

It’s frustrating how slow the scientific review process can be, especially when you know that evidence can often be twisted or “misinterpreted” by policymakers, and even more frustratingly so when people’s lives are at stake.

Here’s hoping this review is kind, competent, quick, clear, and ethical.

When I saw Stonehenge as a kid, we just drove past it really slowly, with my dad saying “don’t worry, everyone else wants to slow down to look too!”

Now I make that drive every few weeks 🫠

I’ve heard people say both “young people are more politically conscious than ever” and also “young people are more disengaged/disillusioned from democracy than ever”

Whilst those things can both be true, I think it’s v important now to try and get young people actively engaged with politics.

But also - we should keep trying to get older generations to be kinder, too.

I’ve been told “your generation will make the world right again!” by the generations above mine, since I was in primary school. 20 years later, we’re still waiting for conservatives to die off. If climate change has proven anything, it’s that we should all be doing more than just waiting it out

hormone blockers are already used safely and legally all the time by cis children who experience puberty too early. it gives them longer to be a child and not stress about the impacts of puberty

trans kids just want almost the same thing - to be able to exist with bodily autonomy. if it’s fine for cis kids, it should be fine for trans kids too

the guardian has messed up their headline a bit here. The paper they’re citing attributes a 9.7% decrease in children’s total sugar consumption to the sugar tax.

The “sugar consumption halved!” is more accurately: “free sugar from soft drinks only” dropped from 22g per day (pre-tax) to 12g per day (post-tax).

Considering “Children aged 7 to 10 should have no more than 24g of free sugars a day” is the recommended amount - a reduction from 22g to 12g from changes to soft drinks alone is still a big win

How do we get them to spend more time infighting and splintering into smaller and smaller factions, instead of merging back into one big mega far-right group?

I reckon there’s more nuance here. The quote I’ve seen from him on a BBC article seems pretty reasonable:

“So what I’m arguing for is a pause while the other options are considered, because of course we need the infrastructure; it’s a matter of doing it in the right way that has a long-term benefit.”

He seems happy about the offshore wind farm plans, he supposedly proposed several alternatives to the pylon positioning “including the idea of an offshore grid.”

I think considering they’re an 184km stretch of pylons, he’s not wholly unreasonable to ask for more consideration and conversation about it being done in a way that minimises harm to the environment and the communities affected.

Edit: Had a longer look through other comments and now realise that environmental consultation was already thoroughly completed. Which means Ramsey’s request for consultation has already been met, so he shouldn’t be able to prevent anything because (fingers crossed) it’ll all be environmentally sound anyways?

It’s upsetting that people vote for people they don’t know anything about. I read up on all the options and met 2 of the people who stood as MPs in my area. The reform candidate in my area just wrote their favourite biscuit in the personal statement section and basically nothing else.

I love that, by his own analogy, he has implied that Tory voters are either rats or children. Hating the image of Nigel playing a flute (or a pipe, I guess?) either way

There must be a joke somewhere about them identifying as “politically homeless” whilst encouraging transphobic ideals so far that they’ll vote Reform. Completely bizarre

Freedom of speech is protection from legal restrictions, not protection from criticism from David Tennant

No need to apologise, I agree :)

I’m also in a labour safe seat, and grateful I can vote my conscience, I’m just sad other people aren’t so fortunate. Labour are saying some tiring stuff now to win over the Conservative voter base: it’s the one time where I hope that politicians lie. Let’s hope that Labour uses their win for good things, as they’ve promised in previous years.

May we all get to vote for more positive things within the next decade 💚

Some of Labour’s recent policies (and stances on Palestine, trans people, etc) are scary and harmful. It’s emotionally hard having to vote for a party that has spoken about removing your rights.

Pragmatically though: I know voting Labour will still shift things towards being better, even if that “better” is way worse than I wanted, and I would never begrudge anyone for voting for them. There’s always more we can do in-between elections anyway

Surprised it’s only 16%!