Have you any evidence yourself? Please give examples to support your position. If not,how can you make the assertion in #265?

Regarding #260 I do not take ‘evidence’ in Newspapers at face value without supporting information. They can so often get things wrong. Whichever paper it is in. Have you seen the Mail’s reporting of the Omaka airshow?
In this particular case, the the NUT conference, the reporting appeared consistant in a number of different sources, although the emphasis and ‘moral outrage’ that developed from the reports differed considerably in them.

I have seen no empirical evidence of social engineering or political indictrination from any source left or right or anything inbetween in any of the schools I have been in or heard about.
I believe this is another of the conspiracy theories mentioned in the other ‘simple question’ thread.

If you want a laugh to end this lovely Bank holiday Monday, cast your eyes over this stunning piece of journalism. Pay particular attention to the photograph captions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027367/Spectacular-images-classic-airshow-New-Zealand-vintage-planes-taken-limits-one-blown-bits-brakes-failed.html

And yet another nail in the coffin of parental responsibility. This and many other elements of social education should not be within the remit of the school at all.

Is it any wonder the modern parent has such a low perception of his responsibilites when they are taken on by schools?

In my experience some parents expect the schools to do their parenting for them. It is a chicken/egg scenario

Having read reports in a variety of papers, some more balanced than others, I agree that the wording of the motion was very unfortunate.

The delegates supported the notion ‘there is little doubt that despite recent gains, many schools still remain hostile places for lesbian and gay teachers and pupils, while same-sex marriage remained an uncomfortable subject in spite of its improved legal status’ That is the issue, that current legistlation is not being acknowledged in some schools.

If they had instead passed a motion that demanded that all schools, including private schools, academies and free schools, had a properly formed PSE curriculum that would encourage teachers to tackle what Christine Blower called ‘equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all students and staff regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation’ it would have beenmore difficult to object to (as this is effectively what anti-discrimination laws support)

unfortunately, the Government’s insistance in the wake of the problems in some Birmingham schools that all institutions should be ” Teaching about the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance and respect for others as part of our promotion of British values, and is at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children” ( quote from a Conservative spokesman) does not sit well with some religious schools. Hence the flack the NUT motion has received. It would indeed put some teachers in those schools in a very difficult position under current governance systems.

Ofsted have already been exploring schools attitudes to homophobia and how schools were preparing pupils for life in modern Britain. Indeed, it was partly for this reason that Durham Free School was closed. That and the pupil behavior, the bullying and the apparent financial mismanagement.

As regards the tackling of difficult issues in schools, the same (unnamed) Conservative spokesman today said
“Our guidance makes it clear that no teacher or school leader should feel unable to talk about difficult or sensitive issues – indeed teaching about fundamental British values actively encourages such discussions – but no-one should be using a school to promote views, opinions or beliefs that discriminate against other people on the basis of their background.”

most folks would wish to opt out.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

I would be very interested in any hard evidence to back this assertion up. All the information I have found which is supported by polling etc. indicates a very close outcome, with pro EU sentiment increasing, possibly as a backlash against UKIP.

Two years ago there were more anti than pro.

Whilst from wikipedia, with all the caveats that entails, the tables of polls showing support for exit vs staying at the bottom of the page show this trend and appear genuine as it shows the sources of the data.

It also shows that if there were some renegotiation of terms, although these are unspecified, those who expressed a preference for staying in are significantly greater, close to 60%

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union

The last poll suggested that it was very close to 50/50 between who wish to leave/stay in the EU, so the result is not by any means a foregone conclusion.

I would vote to stay in.

Edit: another poll suggests that pro EU support is rising
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/24/eu-referendum-record-lead/

Let’s just say I don’t agree with most, but not all, of the above points and leave it at that.