Controversial sex education film Living and Growing angers parents at Devonshire Primary School

A controversial sex education film is to be shown in a primary school prompting concern among some parents.

Devonshire Primary School is to show seven- to 11-year-olds a film called Living and Growing, that which was withdrawn from sale last year after former schools minister Nick Gibb described it as "shocking".

The school sent letters to pupil's parents inviting them to a screening of the film, which shows cartoons of a couple chasing each other around a bed with a feather before having sex, but a parent has claimed only nine showed up.

Iqbal Rajah, whose son attends the school, handed out 300 leaflets ahead of a meeting on Friday (July 5), which 16 attended, and invited a guest speaker, Antonia Tully from organisation the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

He said: "The school do not need to teach nine-year-old boys how to pleasure themselves, which is what this film does. This film is sexually explicit and I do not want my son to see it at his age."

Antonia Tully, who spoke at the meeting at the Sports Village, in Rose Hill, said: "This is material which a lot of parents say is pornographic.

"It is setting teenagers up for premature sexual activity. I would never tell my child that sex is for fun."

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show teenage pregnancies in England and Wales are at the lowest level since 1969.

According to research by the Personal Social Health and Economic Education Association, the majority of parents want their children to receive comprehensive sex and relationship teaching at schools, and Living and Growing is "a resource that has been tried, tested and well received since the early 1990s in many schools with the full support of parents".

Martin Kearsey, Devonshire Primary School Headteacher, said: "We wrote to parents inviting them to come and watch the film before it is shown to the children.

"After the screening for the parents, it was decided to make a couple of small edits before the film is used in the classroom.

"Parents will be given the option of withdrawing their child from the class while it is being screened."

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:51pm Thu 11 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

Ha ha, and there was me thinking only the daily nationals printed a load of made up trash, James Pepper.
I am a Devonshire parent of a child in year 5, yes i was invited to see a screening of the film, maybe I fell asleep because 1) there was no animated couple running around making out sex was fun, an 2) there were around 20 people who came to view (some did not come as they would have seen it before with their older children)an not 6 as you stated in your article. Also this was to be screened at mostly 10 year olds although some would still be 9 years old, an not 7-11 as you state.
We were all given the option the either to allow or not to allow our children to view, and as I'm aware a few opted for their children not to view.
Mr Rajah has taken this too many steps forward by having it edited so his son would not be isolated from the others, although as I said he wasn't the only one who' parent wasn't allowing their kids to view.
I find it hard to understand the "pleasing yourself" offensive as on speaking to other parents a lot of children do this from an early age, also I feel that by giving out 300 leaflets and only having 16 people turn up also show that Mr Rajah is in a minority of people who find it offensive.
Can I please add, it did not anger "parents" but 1 "parent who objected, now no child is able to see the whole version.
I do appreciate that it will offend some people manly because of their belief and this goes accross the board for many religions, but the option not to see was there.
Victoria Gillack took a stand many year ago which resulted in teenage pregnancies (feel free to look her up on google) .
Educating our children about sex and what is right an wrong will differ from culture to culture, some like Antonia Tully opting to tell her children that sex is not fun!!! live a little Antonia.
I want all my children to understand that sex is indeed fun, but also that it is an act to which has 1. an age limit an 2. that is is with someone whom they have been in a relationship with for a reasonable amount of time .
But this film was not about sex but about how our bodies change during puberty, an what sort of feelings our bodies may feel hence the " if you touch yourself it may feel nice.
Ha ha, and there was me thinking only the daily nationals printed a load of made up trash, James Pepper. I am a Devonshire parent of a child in year 5, yes i was invited to see a screening of the film, maybe I fell asleep because 1) there was no animated couple running around making out sex was fun, an 2) there were around 20 people who came to view (some did not come as they would have seen it before with their older children)an not 6 as you stated in your article. Also this was to be screened at mostly 10 year olds although some would still be 9 years old, an not 7-11 as you state. We were all given the option the either to allow or not to allow our children to view, and as I'm aware a few opted for their children not to view. Mr Rajah has taken this too many steps forward by having it edited so his son would not be isolated from the others, although as I said he wasn't the only one who' parent wasn't allowing their kids to view. I find it hard to understand the "pleasing yourself" offensive as on speaking to other parents a lot of children do this from an early age, also I feel that by giving out 300 leaflets and only having 16 people turn up also show that Mr Rajah is in a minority of people who find it offensive. Can I please add, it did not anger "parents" but 1 "parent who objected, now no child is able to see the whole version. I do appreciate that it will offend some people manly because of their belief and this goes accross the board for many religions, but the option not to see was there. Victoria Gillack took a stand many year ago which resulted in teenage pregnancies (feel free to look her up on google) . Educating our children about sex and what is right an wrong will differ from culture to culture, some like Antonia Tully opting to tell her children that sex is not fun!!! live a little Antonia. I want all my children to understand that sex is indeed fun, but also that it is an act to which has 1. an age limit an 2. that is is with someone whom they have been in a relationship with for a reasonable amount of time . But this film was not about sex but about how our bodies change during puberty, an what sort of feelings our bodies may feel hence the " if you touch yourself it may feel nice. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

11:39am Sat 13 Jul 13

Crease2000 says...

Excellent clarification, atheist1964.
Excellent clarification, atheist1964. Crease2000
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Sat 13 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Well done Mr Rajah for getting the School to fix up!

I have a child in year 3 at Devonshire and certainly wouldn't want my child watching that DVD.

I firmly believe along with several other parents that the proposed Living and Growing video is too explicit for any Primary School Child. If the DVD is fine, then why was it withdrawn from sale nationwide by the schools Minister, Nick Gibb? Why does Devonshire Primary still use this DVD when there are alternative resources available?
Why does Living and Growing have nothing but bad press - it was in the news three weeks ago when parents were outraged in Scotland, two weeks ago in Croydon and East London? The BBC couldn't show clips of it before the watershed as it was too sexually explicit and you think this is good?!

Personally I would get this DVD out of the school for good. Sex Ed in Primary School children should be left to parents. It's not good enough just giving parents the option to withdraw their children from screening such inappropriate material. There should be an 'Opt-In' system whereby the default should be all parents should give their primary school age children sex ed as they see fit but if they are not capable of doing so then they should ask the school to provide it to their children only. Atheist1964 should realise that Mr Rajah is not alone and has the support of many parents in Devonshire Primary and several other schools too.

Mr Rajah did actually ask the Headteacher to edit the explicit parts of the DVD but the Headteacher refused. That is when Mr Rajah quite rightly took it further to the Chair of Governing body and it's at that stage that Mr Rajah's request was fulfilled.

In actual fact Devonshire Primary have not given due regard to the Governments Guidelines in constructing their SRE Policy because NO parents were consulted when the school devised their SRE policy and selected the controversial DVD as their chosen resource.

This type of sex ed is wrong because it is not age appropriate and is priming children from the age of five to become sexually active.
Well done Mr Rajah for getting the School to fix up! I have a child in year 3 at Devonshire and certainly wouldn't want my child watching that DVD. I firmly believe along with several other parents that the proposed Living and Growing video is too explicit for any Primary School Child. If the DVD is fine, then why was it withdrawn from sale nationwide by the schools Minister, Nick Gibb? Why does Devonshire Primary still use this DVD when there are alternative resources available? Why does Living and Growing have nothing but bad press - it was in the news three weeks ago when parents were outraged in Scotland, two weeks ago in Croydon and East London? The BBC couldn't show clips of it before the watershed as it was too sexually explicit and you think this is good?! Personally I would get this DVD out of the school for good. Sex Ed in Primary School children should be left to parents. It's not good enough just giving parents the option to withdraw their children from screening such inappropriate material. There should be an 'Opt-In' system whereby the default should be all parents should give their primary school age children sex ed as they see fit but if they are not capable of doing so then they should ask the school to provide it to their children only. Atheist1964 should realise that Mr Rajah is not alone and has the support of many parents in Devonshire Primary and several other schools too. Mr Rajah did actually ask the Headteacher to edit the explicit parts of the DVD but the Headteacher refused. That is when Mr Rajah quite rightly took it further to the Chair of Governing body and it's at that stage that Mr Rajah's request was fulfilled. In actual fact Devonshire Primary have not given due regard to the Governments Guidelines in constructing their SRE Policy because NO parents were consulted when the school devised their SRE policy and selected the controversial DVD as their chosen resource. This type of sex ed is wrong because it is not age appropriate and is priming children from the age of five to become sexually active. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

11:19am Sun 14 Jul 13

GreenBrown says...

"a resource that has been tried, tested and well received since the early 1990s in many schools with the full support of parents".

Yeah, it was around this time things started to change. Up until then children could be just that, children. Largely innocent to such things, at least until senior school. Since the early 90s children have been exposed to more sex and violence on tv, pre watershed and clothes shops, especially supermarkets, started trying to market and get parents to buy totally unsuitable clothes for young girls. Can't imagine any right minded parent wanting to expose their primary school children to anything remotely sexual. Trouble is, there aren't many right minded people left in this country. There minds have been infected with political correctness in all its manifestations.
"a resource that has been tried, tested and well received since the early 1990s in many schools with the full support of parents". Yeah, it was around this time things started to change. Up until then children could be just that, children. Largely innocent to such things, at least until senior school. Since the early 90s children have been exposed to more sex and violence on tv, pre watershed and clothes shops, especially supermarkets, started trying to market and get parents to buy totally unsuitable clothes for young girls. Can't imagine any right minded parent wanting to expose their primary school children to anything remotely sexual. Trouble is, there aren't many right minded people left in this country. There minds have been infected with political correctness in all its manifestations. GreenBrown
  • Score: 0

11:11pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Well said, GreenBrown, so true!

Lynette Burrows is an author on children’s rights, family campaigner and mother of six children. Here is an extract from her speech when she spoke at SPUC's Safe at School "Sex education as sexual sabotage" meeting in Westminster in December 2011 after which a 47,000 strong petition against explicit sex DVDs in primary schools was presented to Michael Gove and the Department for Education by parents joined by Jonathan Evans, MP for Cardiff North, and Andrea Leadsom, MP for South Northamptonshire:

"To force sex-ed on to children before they are ready is therefore to enact mental violence on them for some theoretical reason that is far closer to paedophilia than anything else. We see the beginning of the theory, I think, in the 1970 booklet, recommended by the FPA, Boy, Girl, Man, Woman in which paedophiles were described as ‘enticers’. Here is the quote: ‘Enticers are kindly people who treat children tenderly and affectionately’. The writer went on to suggest the ‘the child’s natural sexual curiosity may find an outlet in the company of paedophiles’.

So here we have the theory laid out for public approval. Since sexual curiosity is natural to a child therefore it is alright to allow adults, who have another agenda entirely, to have sexual access to educate them in it. They say, and they are experts, that children need a ‘sexual outlet’ and they are the people to facilitate satisfying this ‘natural’ need. Most people recoil in horror from such a suggestion – and they are right. But the fact is that the material produced now for the innocent eyes of young children is doing just that.

Of course all parents know the fascination that the body holds for little children. The fact that not only rude noises, but pee and poo is produced from within themselves and without their direct control, is very fascinating to them and the source of much innocent humour. But this is a healthy interest in their bodily functions which is not coprophilia, or any other perversion, and any attempt to emphasize and educate a child in it, would rightly be considered child-abuse.

So, I stand by my original opinion that the increase in talking graphically about sex to young children is essentially paedophilic in nature. It is increasing the number of people who are allowed to ‘talk dirty’ to children, and so to breach the protective armour of their innocence. Thus it is widening the scope for paedophiles to target children. Warning children with slimy, disclaimers about ‘inappropriate touching’, is simply token and meaningless to a child. How can they recognize the danger signals from those who wish to exploit them if such a large number of adults are implicated in the same ‘dirty talk’’?

To me, the shamelessness of showing children graphic sex should act as a warning signal to us to beware of the adults who provide it. They are either a danger to children themselves or, more likely, are too stupid to see the danger inherent in demolishing the taboo that protects children from predators".
Well said, GreenBrown, so true! Lynette Burrows is an author on children’s rights, family campaigner and mother of six children. Here is an extract from her speech when she spoke at SPUC's Safe at School "Sex education as sexual sabotage" meeting in Westminster in December 2011 after which a 47,000 strong petition against explicit sex DVDs in primary schools was presented to Michael Gove and the Department for Education by parents joined by Jonathan Evans, MP for Cardiff North, and Andrea Leadsom, MP for South Northamptonshire: "To force sex-ed on to children before they are ready is therefore to enact mental violence on them for some theoretical reason that is far closer to paedophilia than anything else. We see the beginning of the theory, I think, in the 1970 booklet, recommended by the FPA, Boy, Girl, Man, Woman in which paedophiles were described as ‘enticers’. Here is the quote: ‘Enticers are kindly people who treat children tenderly and affectionately’. The writer went on to suggest the ‘the child’s natural sexual curiosity may find an outlet in the company of paedophiles’. So here we have the theory laid out for public approval. Since sexual curiosity is natural to a child therefore it is alright to allow adults, who have another agenda entirely, to have sexual access to educate them in it. They say, and they are experts, that children need a ‘sexual outlet’ and they are the people to facilitate satisfying this ‘natural’ need. Most people recoil in horror from such a suggestion – and they are right. But the fact is that the material produced now for the innocent eyes of young children is doing just that. Of course all parents know the fascination that the body holds for little children. The fact that not only rude noises, but pee and poo is produced from within themselves and without their direct control, is very fascinating to them and the source of much innocent humour. But this is a healthy interest in their bodily functions which is not coprophilia, or any other perversion, and any attempt to emphasize and educate a child in it, would rightly be considered child-abuse. So, I stand by my original opinion that the increase in talking graphically about sex to young children is essentially paedophilic in nature. It is increasing the number of people who are allowed to ‘talk dirty’ to children, and so to breach the protective armour of their innocence. Thus it is widening the scope for paedophiles to target children. Warning children with slimy, disclaimers about ‘inappropriate touching’, is simply token and meaningless to a child. How can they recognize the danger signals from those who wish to exploit them if such a large number of adults are implicated in the same ‘dirty talk’’? To me, the shamelessness of showing children graphic sex should act as a warning signal to us to beware of the adults who provide it. They are either a danger to children themselves or, more likely, are too stupid to see the danger inherent in demolishing the taboo that protects children from predators". Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Mon 15 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

Poppy196432

You have to understand that the video that is mentioned is not the one Mr Rajah's son was to view. And im aware that he shoved 300 leaflets into peoples faces, at various schools, and only 16 people turned up!!! pretty much a poor show, plus subjected his sons classmates to receiving the mentioned leaflets by putting them into plain envelopes with the said children's christian names on, my daughter, an class mates and the teacher were led to believe that they were party invite . ONCE AGAIN THIS VIEDO IS NOT THE ONE THAT IS BEING SHOWN TO YEAR 5'S.
Poppy196432 You have to understand that the video that is mentioned is not the one Mr Rajah's son was to view. And im aware that he shoved 300 leaflets into peoples faces, at various schools, and only 16 people turned up!!! pretty much a poor show, plus subjected his sons classmates to receiving the mentioned leaflets by putting them into plain envelopes with the said children's christian names on, my daughter, an class mates and the teacher were led to believe that they were party invite . ONCE AGAIN THIS VIEDO IS NOT THE ONE THAT IS BEING SHOWN TO YEAR 5'S. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Mon 15 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Atheist1964

I'm actually fully aware that the precise video in question was entitled 'Changes' and apparently Mr Rajah only objected to the parts in that video which clarified and encouraged masturbation in 9 and 10 year old boys and girls. Did you know that when Mr Rajah asked the Headteacher to edit those parts, the Headteacher refused point blank stating that he fully endorsed the entire DVD.

Be aware that Mr Rajah did not shove 300 leaflets into anyone's face - he handed them all out personally..and don't worry yourself too much over why only 16 people turned up because let's face it, that is actually a great turnout considering he did it all within a week.

The bottom line is Mr Rajah has raised awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and got the School to edit that filth out of the DVD so now all the children can watch an acceptable sex education program.

If you still feel sad that your child will miss out by not seeing the "whole version" then just go and ask the Headteacher for the original DVD as I'm sure he'll lend it to you so you can show it to your child in your own home because it doesn't belong in the school.

The Government guidelines clearly state that schools are not allowed to use inappropriate materials or to teach SRE in a way that differs from "the culture of the community the school serves". In order to understand what 'inappropriate' means to parents the school must consult the parents and Devonshire Primary have never consulted parents in formulating their SRE policy.

Inappropriate SRE must continue to be challenged in all Primary Schools in this country.
Atheist1964 I'm actually fully aware that the precise video in question was entitled 'Changes' and apparently Mr Rajah only objected to the parts in that video which clarified and encouraged masturbation in 9 and 10 year old boys and girls. Did you know that when Mr Rajah asked the Headteacher to edit those parts, the Headteacher refused point blank stating that he fully endorsed the entire DVD. Be aware that Mr Rajah did not shove 300 leaflets into anyone's face - he handed them all out personally..and don't worry yourself too much over why only 16 people turned up because let's face it, that is actually a great turnout considering he did it all within a week. The bottom line is Mr Rajah has raised awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and got the School to edit that filth out of the DVD so now all the children can watch an acceptable sex education program. If you still feel sad that your child will miss out by not seeing the "whole version" then just go and ask the Headteacher for the original DVD as I'm sure he'll lend it to you so you can show it to your child in your own home because it doesn't belong in the school. The Government guidelines clearly state that schools are not allowed to use inappropriate materials or to teach SRE in a way that differs from "the culture of the community the school serves". In order to understand what 'inappropriate' means to parents the school must consult the parents and Devonshire Primary have never consulted parents in formulating their SRE policy. Inappropriate SRE must continue to be challenged in all Primary Schools in this country. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 16 Jul 13

Suttonparent007 says...

One of the individuals invited to the meeting 'organised' by Iqbal Rajah was Yusuf Patel who is connected with SREIslamic. This organisation seeks to completely remove SRE education in schools and provide Muslims with an Islamic programme. Undoubtedly this is the real agenda of Iqbal Rajah. Community schools educate children from many faiths and appropriate education about sex and relationships (as at Devonshire) is vital for all those children for their own personal development and to ensure they behave in the right way towards others.
One of the individuals invited to the meeting 'organised' by Iqbal Rajah was Yusuf Patel who is connected with SREIslamic. This organisation seeks to completely remove SRE education in schools and provide Muslims with an Islamic programme. Undoubtedly this is the real agenda of Iqbal Rajah. Community schools educate children from many faiths and appropriate education about sex and relationships (as at Devonshire) is vital for all those children for their own personal development and to ensure they behave in the right way towards others. Suttonparent007
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 16 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

What a typical Islamophobic response from Suttonparent007! Before you start making allegations against Mr Rajah you ought to get your facts right.

Yes Mr Rajah invited Mr Yusuf Patel from SREIslamic to the meeting but the chief speaker was Antonia Tulley who isn't a Muslim but who happens to be a Christian Catholic. Me, I'm agnostic. It makes no difference at all because we all believe in good morals, family values and age appropriate sex education.

SREIslamic is a voluntary organisation established to support Muslim parents to challenge inappropriate SRE teaching in Primary schools.

For your information, regardless of religions this meeting did not have any religious agenda as it was presented by speakers of mixed faiths and the audience were both religious and non religious. The meeting achieved what it set to do - raise awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and discuss the paedophilic connotations around those adults who endorse it.
What a typical Islamophobic response from Suttonparent007! Before you start making allegations against Mr Rajah you ought to get your facts right. Yes Mr Rajah invited Mr Yusuf Patel from SREIslamic to the meeting but the chief speaker was Antonia Tulley who isn't a Muslim but who happens to be a Christian Catholic. Me, I'm agnostic. It makes no difference at all because we all believe in good morals, family values and age appropriate sex education. SREIslamic is a voluntary organisation established to support Muslim parents to challenge inappropriate SRE teaching in Primary schools. For your information, regardless of religions this meeting did not have any religious agenda as it was presented by speakers of mixed faiths and the audience were both religious and non religious. The meeting achieved what it set to do - raise awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and discuss the paedophilic connotations around those adults who endorse it. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Wed 17 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

Poppy196432 wrote:
What a typical Islamophobic response from Suttonparent007! Before you start making allegations against Mr Rajah you ought to get your facts right.

Yes Mr Rajah invited Mr Yusuf Patel from SREIslamic to the meeting but the chief speaker was Antonia Tulley who isn't a Muslim but who happens to be a Christian Catholic. Me, I'm agnostic. It makes no difference at all because we all believe in good morals, family values and age appropriate sex education.

SREIslamic is a voluntary organisation established to support Muslim parents to challenge inappropriate SRE teaching in Primary schools.

For your information, regardless of religions this meeting did not have any religious agenda as it was presented by speakers of mixed faiths and the audience were both religious and non religious. The meeting achieved what it set to do - raise awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and discuss the paedophilic connotations around those adults who endorse it.
I could go on forever, but once again the it boils down to personal choice, then you get racist this, phobic that etc, It has nothing to do with either. we all have a right to believe what we believe, what right for some is wrong for others, that why there was a watch or don't watch, to call Suttonparent007 Islamaphoic!!! I know Catholic an Muslims disapprove of homosexuals so that then make them Homophobic, same difference, we all have different views.

I would just like to add.

WELL DONE MR KEARSEY AND STAFF FOR NOT AGREEING TO CHANGE THE VIDEO, UNLUCKY THAT THE GOVERNORS DIDN'T SEE IT THE SAME WAY.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy196432[/bold] wrote: What a typical Islamophobic response from Suttonparent007! Before you start making allegations against Mr Rajah you ought to get your facts right. Yes Mr Rajah invited Mr Yusuf Patel from SREIslamic to the meeting but the chief speaker was Antonia Tulley who isn't a Muslim but who happens to be a Christian Catholic. Me, I'm agnostic. It makes no difference at all because we all believe in good morals, family values and age appropriate sex education. SREIslamic is a voluntary organisation established to support Muslim parents to challenge inappropriate SRE teaching in Primary schools. For your information, regardless of religions this meeting did not have any religious agenda as it was presented by speakers of mixed faiths and the audience were both religious and non religious. The meeting achieved what it set to do - raise awareness about inappropriate SRE in Primary Schools and discuss the paedophilic connotations around those adults who endorse it.[/p][/quote]I could go on forever, but once again the it boils down to personal choice, then you get racist this, phobic that etc, It has nothing to do with either. we all have a right to believe what we believe, what right for some is wrong for others, that why there was a watch or don't watch, to call Suttonparent007 Islamaphoic!!! I know Catholic an Muslims disapprove of homosexuals so that then make them Homophobic, same difference, we all have different views. I would just like to add. WELL DONE MR KEARSEY AND STAFF FOR NOT AGREEING TO CHANGE THE VIDEO, UNLUCKY THAT THE GOVERNORS DIDN'T SEE IT THE SAME WAY. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Mr Kearsey doesn't deserve congratulating but ought to be ashamed of himself for approving the teaching of exploration of the sex organs in boys and girls of Primary School age effectively encouraging masturbation and grooming young children to be sexually active from as young as possible. Absolutely outrageous!

You are correct Atheist1964 that the Governors didn't 'see it the same way' because actually Mr Rajah's valid concerns made them realise that they have not acted in accordance with the Government SRE Guidance which by law are expected to do so by giving "due regard" which they didn't.
Mr Kearsey doesn't deserve congratulating but ought to be ashamed of himself for approving the teaching of exploration of the sex organs in boys and girls of Primary School age effectively encouraging masturbation and grooming young children to be sexually active from as young as possible. Absolutely outrageous! You are correct Atheist1964 that the Governors didn't 'see it the same way' because actually Mr Rajah's valid concerns made them realise that they have not acted in accordance with the Government SRE Guidance which by law are expected to do so by giving "due regard" which they didn't. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Wed 17 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

poppy196432,
I take it that masturbation is against your belief, and once again you are trying to force it on everyone, if children where educated that it ok to masturbate, an that its not ok for other to touch them then perhaps we could eradicate paedophiles taking advantage, teaching children that it's wrong to do so will llead to teenage/adult frustration, which then in turn leads to abuse/rape.
I take it by slating people as Islamicphobia, but agree with Mr Yusuf Patel you in turn are agreeing with his views that we should be taught the islamic way, well that is racist in itself.

I HAVE A RIGHT TOO OR IS THAT NOT ALLOWED.
poppy196432, I take it that masturbation is against your belief, and once again you are trying to force it on everyone, if children where educated that it ok to masturbate, an that its not ok for other to touch them then perhaps we could eradicate paedophiles taking advantage, teaching children that it's wrong to do so will llead to teenage/adult frustration, which then in turn leads to abuse/rape. I take it by slating people as Islamicphobia, but agree with Mr Yusuf Patel you in turn are agreeing with his views that we should be taught the islamic way, well that is racist in itself. I HAVE A RIGHT TOO OR IS THAT NOT ALLOWED. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Wed 17 Jul 13

GreenBrown says...

When I was at primary school i'm pretty sure neither me or my friends partook in masturbation or even really knew what it was. If children are now aware of such things at that age then that is a shame, but I think to teach them about it before senior school would be wrong. Once you get to senior school then pretty much every conversation will be about it, boys that is. Keep children innocent for as long as possible, what good can early corruption do them.
When I was at primary school i'm pretty sure neither me or my friends partook in masturbation or even really knew what it was. If children are now aware of such things at that age then that is a shame, but I think to teach them about it before senior school would be wrong. Once you get to senior school then pretty much every conversation will be about it, boys that is. Keep children innocent for as long as possible, what good can early corruption do them. GreenBrown
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Wed 17 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

No they are not teaching them to masturbate, just saying that its ok, you would be surprised how many children do all in different ways, as young as the age of 2, it's not something that has been taught to them, it is something that comes naturally, the fact that the video say its ok is just reassuring these children that what they are doing in natural, ask your GP if he is aware that this happens. go back to the times of the cave man, they had nothing to teach them but natures way, some what how an dog cat etc know how to react during birth and caring for their young, they are not taught its just natures way. we where also like that.
If you dont like the way Mr Kearsey runs devonshire poppy, take your child to another school.
I will not be bullied into to accepting that i have to fall into line just because someone find something offennsive, if i had found it offensive I would have requested that my child not be present when the film was shown.
GreenBrown, i dont know how old you are, but when i was at school children would not develope until 12 being the earliest up to mid/late teens, this is not the case now girls especially are starting puberty as early as 9, and that why they feel the need to educate them earlier. Once they get to high school you do not have a choice sex education is part of the curriculum.
No they are not teaching them to masturbate, just saying that its ok, you would be surprised how many children do all in different ways, as young as the age of 2, it's not something that has been taught to them, it is something that comes naturally, the fact that the video say its ok is just reassuring these children that what they are doing in natural, ask your GP if he is aware that this happens. go back to the times of the cave man, they had nothing to teach them but natures way, some what how an dog cat etc know how to react during birth and caring for their young, they are not taught its just natures way. we where also like that. If you dont like the way Mr Kearsey runs devonshire poppy, take your child to another school. I will not be bullied into to accepting that i have to fall into line just because someone find something offennsive, if i had found it offensive I would have requested that my child not be present when the film was shown. GreenBrown, i dont know how old you are, but when i was at school children would not develope until 12 being the earliest up to mid/late teens, this is not the case now girls especially are starting puberty as early as 9, and that why they feel the need to educate them earlier. Once they get to high school you do not have a choice sex education is part of the curriculum. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Atheist1964 seems to be missing the point. It really is quite easy to comprehend. No I'm not against masturbation but I am against teaching it to 7 to 11 year old children which is what the DVD in question does.

Oh yes I do agree with Mr Yusuf Patel and yes if you actually bothered to study it rationally any sensible human being would agree that the Islamic way is actually the right way when we're talking about SRE delivery which happens to be in common with the Catholic way and the Jewish way and lots of other religious ways and I'm agnostic don't forget but you just don't get it do you? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with AGE APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION.. As GreenBrown says perfectly..Leave it all to Senior School.

Yes you are entitled to have your own opinion but I'm afraid on this topic your opinion is that of a minority because it is Mr Rajah's 'opinion' that has been put into practice and not yours for very obvious reasons.
Atheist1964 seems to be missing the point. It really is quite easy to comprehend. No I'm not against masturbation but I am against teaching it to 7 to 11 year old children which is what the DVD in question does. Oh yes I do agree with Mr Yusuf Patel and yes if you actually bothered to study it rationally any sensible human being would agree that the Islamic way is actually the right way when we're talking about SRE delivery which happens to be in common with the Catholic way and the Jewish way and lots of other religious ways and I'm agnostic don't forget but you just don't get it do you? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with AGE APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION.. As GreenBrown says perfectly..Leave it all to Senior School. Yes you are entitled to have your own opinion but I'm afraid on this topic your opinion is that of a minority because it is Mr Rajah's 'opinion' that has been put into practice and not yours for very obvious reasons. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 17 Jul 13

atheist1964 says...

No you just don't get it, I have a choice as well as you my right is the same as your, you never address my comment fully because you have no argument!!!!, well there are 60 children in year 5 and 16 parents from at that meeting, also bearing in mind they were given to other schools also, somehow the maths dont add up to make me a minority!!, or maybe as Devonshire has a vast range of religious pupils then that only makes it boil down to religious views, which should not be forced onto people who don't believe. Please take time to read an understand my posts, as obviously you have not read them properly.
No you just don't get it, I have a choice as well as you my right is the same as your, you never address my comment fully because you have no argument!!!!, well there are 60 children in year 5 and 16 parents from at that meeting, also bearing in mind they were given to other schools also, somehow the maths dont add up to make me a minority!!, or maybe as Devonshire has a vast range of religious pupils then that only makes it boil down to religious views, which should not be forced onto people who don't believe. Please take time to read an understand my posts, as obviously you have not read them properly. atheist1964
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

Atheist, kindly pay attention to your spelling and grammar.

Mr Kearsey runs Devonshire Primary very well actually but it's just his view on SRE which was challenged and overruled. Please note that my child will remain in Devonshire until she reaches end of Year 6 and I, together with current Reception, Infant and Junior parents will fully support and challenge all present and future action against Devonshire Primary's disregard to Government Guidelines.
Atheist, kindly pay attention to your spelling and grammar. Mr Kearsey runs Devonshire Primary very well actually but it's just his view on SRE which was challenged and overruled. Please note that my child will remain in Devonshire until she reaches end of Year 6 and I, together with current Reception, Infant and Junior parents will fully support and challenge all present and future action against Devonshire Primary's disregard to Government Guidelines. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Thu 18 Jul 13

revilo1966 says...

To Poppy196432

I have been following all comments re this subject, but have not felt the need to comment until now.

I am a parent of a child in year 5. I am aware of Mr Rajah's opinions about the dvd "Changes" - as proposed to show to Year 5 children - and his opposition to certain parts of this dvd. I understand that he went above the Headmaster to the school Governors - and the "offending" parts were taken away - therefore showing an edited version of the original dvd.

All year 5 parents were invited to see a pre-screening of the Year 5 sex education dvd, with the option of allowing your child to view it or not. What a poor show turned up. Either parents have seen dvd before - or they just don't care.

After seeing the dvd, I was ok about my child seeing it. However, as said before- the dvd was duly edited, and I was fine with that too.

I can't believe how high you've got on your hypothetical horse about this. I have read the comments from you and "atheist1964". Obviously, you both have valid comments, although I can empathise with her more - as she actually has a child in Year 5, and therefore has first-hand experience in what is actually going on. What is your problem? Wait until Year 5 and THEN make a comment.

Ps: To comment on someone's spelling and grammar is totally irrelevant.
To Poppy196432 I have been following all comments re this subject, but have not felt the need to comment until now. I am a parent of a child in year 5. I am aware of Mr Rajah's opinions about the dvd "Changes" - as proposed to show to Year 5 children - and his opposition to certain parts of this dvd. I understand that he went above the Headmaster to the school Governors - and the "offending" parts were taken away - therefore showing an edited version of the original dvd. All year 5 parents were invited to see a pre-screening of the Year 5 sex education dvd, with the option of allowing your child to view it or not. What a poor show turned up. Either parents have seen dvd before - or they just don't care. After seeing the dvd, I was ok about my child seeing it. However, as said before- the dvd was duly edited, and I was fine with that too. I can't believe how high you've got on your hypothetical horse about this. I have read the comments from you and "atheist1964". Obviously, you both have valid comments, although I can empathise with her more - as she actually has a child in Year 5, and therefore has first-hand experience in what is actually going on. What is your problem? Wait until Year 5 and THEN make a comment. Ps: To comment on someone's spelling and grammar is totally irrelevant. revilo1966
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 19 Jul 13

Poppy196432 says...

To revilo1966

For the record, I too do have first-hand experience of what is actually going on in Year 5 because (a) I have 3 children now in their 20's who also went to Devonshire Primary and (b) have the benefit of speaking with several Y5 and Y6 parents.

So, my comments are based on facts and not hypothesis.
To revilo1966 For the record, I too do have first-hand experience of what is actually going on in Year 5 because (a) I have 3 children now in their 20's who also went to Devonshire Primary and (b) have the benefit of speaking with several Y5 and Y6 parents. So, my comments are based on facts and not hypothesis. Poppy196432
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree