News reports located on this page = 2.

Is Department for Education Guidance to Schools dangerous?

THIS week the UK Government has continued to push on with its very own extreme political stance, on what it sees as extremist views, with Brexit and other activities, if you consider the wording in the new educational guidance, entitled:- 'Plan your relationships, sex and health curriculum.'

On Thursday, 24 September 2020, Department for Education (DfE) has issued guidance categorising 'anti-capitalism' as an:- "extreme political stance" within the information published, that's aimed at helping:- "School leaders plan, develop and implement the new statutory curriculum."

The guidance says:- "Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters. This is the case even if the material itself is not extreme, as the use of it could imply endorsement or support of the organisation. Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to:-

► A publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections.

► Opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience.

► The use or endorsement of racist, including:- anti-Semitic, language or communications.

► The encouragement or endorsement of illegal activity.

► Failure to condemn illegal activities done in their name or in support of their cause, particularly violent actions against people or property."

In itself, most of this wording for Schools in England looks reasonable, but take a closer look.

The UK Government has, for example, admitted the new Brexit bill would break international law, albeit in a 'minor' way, so discussion of this matter could be deemed as prohibited. Is this an "endorsement of illegal activity" even if you disapprove? By banning the teaching of topics, we also ban the freedom of speech, also the ability to have a balanced debate that allows students to see and understand issues for themselves. Surely the way to combat extremism is for the majority to see for themselves the inherent dangers and to learn to refute them. Banning a topic could even make it more appealing to disgruntled minds. Where does safeguarding the young from extremism propaganda merge into curtailing free speech and open debate, which has been treasured for many years within most Western democracies? Genuine criticism of any aspect of otherwise 'approved' institutions such as churches may be unwittingly be disallowed. Such curbing of the right to explore other views has been followed by more extreme regimes in the past with disastrous consequences. Remember the saying:- "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" variously attributed to many, which sums up the previous generations' stance, but even this famous saying is open to question.

Now schools in England have been told not to use 'anti capitalist' material. This could potentially opens the doors up to targeting movements such as:- Black Lives Matter, the rise of trade unions, also the Suffragette, as well as ruling out any other views other than capitalism as a valid political opinion. Even the Former Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has been quoted in the national press as saying the guidance will effectively outlawed reference within Schools to many key events within British history.

However well meant, this potentially sets a very dangerous precedent. The desire to protect impressionable minds is admirable, but is this the best way to go about it? Is this yet another example of the Governments 1 size fits all philosophies?

The DfE guidance says UK Government political stance might be moral and politically bankrupt, what do you think about the wording of the Department for Education (DfE) guidance? Please do email us to:- News24@SouthportReporter.Com and let us know.

**MP calls for public test and trace system to end "failure" of outsourcing**

SEFTON Central MP Bill Esterson has called on the Government to:- "get a grip" of Coronavirus test and trace by introducing a public system to identify, monitor and control the spread of the virus. Mr Esterson said outsourcing the system to the private sector had been a "disaster" leading to thousands of people being unable to get a Coronavirus test and a high proportion of samples being voided. He also said the Government was rewarding failure with its repeated outsourcing of contracts, at a time when people were crying out for competent Coronavirus testing. It was revealed this week that the outsourcing giant Serco, already under fire due to failures in the test and trace system, had been handed a further ₤45m to provide Covid test centres, and had subcontracted some of their test and trace deal to the controversial service provider Concentrix. Bill Esterson MP said:- "The Government should be terminating these contracts and investing in public services instead, not handing over even more money to these unaccountable private sector giants. Serco has already failed in its efforts to deliver an effective test and trace system, and now they have been handed even more money without a procurement process taking place. They have brought in another failed outsourcing company to help deliver test and trace and, guess what, they have failed."

In August 2019, staff at a Concentrix operated Action Fraud Call Centre were suspended after misleading the public and referring to fraud victims as "morons." In 2018, the company was stripped of a contract with HMRC after more than 100,000 Tax Credit claimants had their awards amended or even terminated wrongly. It was reported that the company had been handed ₤108m of Serco's ₤432m contact tracing contract to run test and trace. Mr Esterson added:- "Instead of money being funnelled through tier after tier of these private companies, with profits being creamed off the top, the Government should be investing the money in local services publicly run, and NHS testing labs, which know what they are doing. It is beyond belief that despite the extraordinary past failures of privatised companies delivering failed public services, that the private companies are handed even more money. Public testing and using NHS labs has been shown to be highly effective and the Government should have been investing in those. They need to get a grip of test and trace and deliver a system that works. The testing system is on the brink of collapse when we need it most, when we need an effective system to track, trace and isolate this killer virus. The Government must reveal why this subcontractor, with its track record of consistently failing to deliver Government services, was given responsibility for part of one of the most important systems for our country at this time."

Despite huge sums being awarded to some private companies, others have been left:- "ignored" by the Government when they could have assisted with testing, said the MP. "Companies like Curative and Tried and Tested have offered to help with testing but have been ignored by the Government. Why? It cannot be because they had enough testing capacity already, because the last few weeks has shown that this is well wide of the mark."

Curative offers a simple saliva test that can be analysed and a result delivered in 24 hours. The company says it can process tens of thousands of tests every day. Mr Esterson said:- "It is the biggest provider in the US and has everything ready to go in the UK. It is British founded and owned and it beggars belief that its services are good enough for the US, including for all of Florida's care homes, but not us. This is significant on its own as there are more care homes in Florida than in the UK. We should be expanding our testing capacity using as many companies who can help, and the tracing and lab work should be done in the NHS and through local public health relationships in communities up and down the country. The private labs have been voiding thousands of tests and have lost a lot of their lab space and staff due to universities reopening. Only a public system can ensure the provision we need."