A parent-led legal campaign for transparency in UK schools. PLEASE LIKE, SHARE and DONATE! With thanks for all support.
UK
Joined October 2022
- Tweets17.4K
- Following3.1K
- Followers5.7K
- Likes21.7K
Pinned Tweet
In Sept the Information Commissioner's Office delivered a Decision Notice that supported a London secondary school in keeping a Relationships and Sex Education lesson hidden from parents. I am Appealing against that decision in a First Tier Tribunal. Please support my case.🙏
As we approach the checkmate move by Stonewall of criminalising dissent from affirmation - even by parents - we should reflect how we got here. Namely, by chronic mistakes made by liberal, GC feminists and LGBA activists who took it upon themselves to shape and dominate the narrative so unwisely.
This was an injustice. And a grave mistake by @SexMattersOrg
I was blocked by various GCs for voicing disagreement with their promotion of Hayton as the positive face of GC transsexualism.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
You have been a significant contributor, if not in charge, of the leading campaign group on this topic.
And whilst no one said you were in charge of legislating, you are in charge of which kind of lawfare you undertake.
You are, presumably, also in charge of your own political opinion.
Consequently, I am pointing out that firstly, Sex Matters did not manage to raise this issue when it was timely to do so, its rather too late to be ‘wondering’ about it know (sardonically or otherwise).
Secondly, the lawfare you are pondering is an extremely bad idea. If you lose, you strengthen trans rights, but if you win, you create a mere ‘carve out’ for teaching, leaving it even more established that the care taker or administrator on school sites can be a raging AGP.
Which leads me to ask, why are you not giving your political opinion that we should be repealing all gender laws and preferably enacting a prohibition on formal cross sex impersonation in safeguarding situations?
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
I took a couple of risks to get the story about Oxford lecturer Matt Rattley into the national press.
First, I did the reporting on spec. There was every chance I’d never be paid a penny for it.
Then I published some of what I’d found on my own site, [Un]Captured. I’d seen three complaints made to St Hilda’s College about Rattley wearing large prosthetic breasts at work. From what I could establish, no action appeared to have been taken.
On Friday morning, the Mail on Sunday finally said yes. About ten minutes later, the Telegraph asked me to write the story for them. I had to say no. I’d already given it to the Mail on Sunday.
Then the Telegraph’s piece came out before mine. Which, if I’m honest, was gutting. But at least the story was out there. Which is clearly in the public interest.
I still have SO many questions.
Why did it take so long for this to get national coverage? What did St Hilda’s do with those complaints? Did anyone investigate the safeguarding concerns they raised?
And what is it about the culture at St Hilda’s that makes it so hard for current staff and students to speak openly about what’s been happening?
My inbox is open. You can reach me at janet@janetmurray.co.uk. I’ll treat all messages in confidence. Please share this with anyone who might be able to help.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
Hayton admitted he is AGP. Libel? They all defended his right to cross dress in front of his students. They really have to start thinking of an excuse why they sided with AGP men and not children.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
"This means there is absolutely zero excuse for the GC Feminist and LGB Human Rights lobbyists to have argued that the Equality Act PC of GR and the GRA cannot be touched"
Children have been abandoned by many, incl @SexMattersOrg - the charity whch COULD call for #RepealTheGRA
What I find so upsetting reading this is that, whilst I am not a fan of using human rights law and the UNCRC to solve things (because both frameworks are anti democratic, corrupted, interpretable and used by radicals and predators) - what @AlessandraAster was showing was that there are ways even within these frameworks to try ending the abuse and chaos of gender laws, without discarding the whole framework, if that is your concern.
This means there is absolutely zero excuse for the GC Feminist and LGB Human Rights lobbyists to have argued that the Equality Act PC of GR and the GRA cannot be touched, and that we had to prioritise preserving the HRA by moving very slowly, balancing trans rights with everyone else, by making do only with a few, insufficient carve outs for women’s GC ‘belief’ and their need for single sex spaces or sports.
When you think of all the children indoctrinated between then and now, all those who have been medicated… the young adults with brittle bones or their breasts removed… the boys groomed online into porn-induced cross dressing… the children now enrolled on the puberty blocker trials and the parents who are quite literally thinking they might have to leave the country if the conversion practices ban comes into law… I wonder if the GC lawyers and campaigners realise what they have done?
What I find so upsetting reading this is that, whilst I am not a fan of using human rights law and the UNCRC to solve things (because both frameworks are anti democratic, corrupted, interpretable and used by radicals and predators) - what @AlessandraAster was showing was that there are ways even within these frameworks to try ending the abuse and chaos of gender laws, without discarding the whole framework, if that is your concern.
This means there is absolutely zero excuse for the GC Feminist and LGB Human Rights lobbyists to have argued that the Equality Act PC of GR and the GRA cannot be touched, and that we had to prioritise preserving the HRA by moving very slowly, balancing trans rights with everyone else, by making do only with a few, insufficient carve outs for women’s GC ‘belief’ and their need for single sex spaces or sports.
When you think of all the children indoctrinated between then and now, all those who have been medicated… the young adults with brittle bones or their breasts removed… the boys groomed online into porn-induced cross dressing… the children now enrolled on the puberty blocker trials and the parents who are quite literally thinking they might have to leave the country if the conversion practices ban comes into law… I wonder if the GC lawyers and campaigners realise what they have done?
For anyone to insist that anyone else has to engage in the pretence that a male person is female - at the risk of being accused of discrimination or conversion practice - is an abuse of power… specifically power bestowed on them by bad laws.
It’s nice that @LoudBonnet has finally understood that ‘Safeguarding Matters’ but we don’t want any more small carve outs as were arranged for ‘belief’ or single sex spaces or sports.
This is a pan societal issue. Children, women and vulnerable people exist throughout society. No one should feel obliged to employ or work with people who are impersonating the opposite sex.
We need ‘repeal’.
Still not heard you call for that @LoudBonnet.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
archive.ph/2026.11.09-174600…
I would have been prosecuted for the “crime” of telling my gay son he is perfect as he is. This is madness
Forgive @AlessandraAster her droll humour here… but how else can one respond to the cold, technical inhumanity of this lawyer’s statement?
See how legalism - ie putting a faith in the law above all else - suspends rationality, morality and plain common sense.
‘wondering’
‘can we justify’
‘in child facing roles’
What???
The question that should be on every sensible person’s mind is, how did anyone ever manage to persuade law makers to arrange a society where men displaying cross dressing fetishes or women with severe delusions about their sex, are protected by law to be employed anywhere near children, women or the vulnerable.
Every role in a school is ‘child facing’ in the sense that it provides access to children and therefore ought to occasion ‘safer recruitment’ considerations - which obviously should rule out the kind of identity fraud and potential sexual perversion that cross sex impersonation encompasses.
Showing up in drag at a school ought to be thought an insurmountable safeguarding red flag, not a reason to hold a rainbow bake sale and threaten anyone who dissents with a discrimination case, or even an accusation of criminal conversion practice.
But that’s just a no-brainer. The bigger question is why should anyone, (man, woman or child), have to put up with the deeply antisocial practice of cross sex impersonation and identity fraud in their work place?
There is no special category of human being who is ‘trans’. There are simply those with compulsive behaviours, addictive fetishes, delusions, confusions, personality disorders, traumas, mental ill health, sexual perversions or who have been groomed to perform the unusual behaviour of pretending to be the opposite sex - including being driven to extreme self harming medication or cosmetic surgery that society unwisely provides them with.
Such disorders do not warrant ‘rights’ and ‘protections’ - with the possible exception of needing mental health care - they require boundaries.
But the law has been prepared so wrongly that it is the rational who are restricted from asserting those boundaries, whilst the deluded are granted licence. This is where idealistic human rights and equality law has taken us, into unhinged, abstract musings, unmoored to the reality needed for safeguarding.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
While I and others wait to hear whether we will be called to give evidence to the Conversion Practices Bill Select Committee, I’ve seen that tomorrow they will hear from Dr Igi Moon.
Dr Moon is a “non binary” psychologist who compared the belief in two sexes to “colonialism”.
1/2 The @spectator continues to advance the libertarian ‘free speech’ cult, unwisely promoted by the well meaning @toadmeister of the @SpeechUnion and propagated by former RCP communists, who now bill themselves as libertarians.
This time they are drawing in a young feminist writer to carry the narrative, who is no doubt keen to take part in the national dialogue.
Like boiled frogs, unable to sense the point past which the water is too hot to handle, the libertarians are sticking to their project of managing to perform free speech, and preserve it for everyone else - no matter how dodgy they are - as if that is the greatest good. Even in conditions that no one should have to endure in their workplace; conditions that are clearly now matters for disciplinary procedures or police intervention in a civilised and law abiding society.
Their unwise commitment to ‘keep calm and carry on’, by tolerating those who will clearly not tolerate them, is foolish and sets a bad precedent for students, academics and British society in general.
They are avoiding calling for the hard boundaries, police intervention, student expulsions and potential prosecutions and even proscriptions that are very clearly needed.
I presume, in the case of the conservative libertarians this is for fear of being perceived as fascists - or perhaps setting precedent for the truly authoritarian, ‘liberal’ socialist left, which is banning speech they don’t like. Wrt to the murky motivations behind the old RCP libertarians, we shall have to guess - but controlling how hard the right becomes, seems likely.
But this self flagellatory appeasement and desperate attempt at narrative control is not going to work - extremist tantrumming will only build to a calamity, if given the space to do so. See the bombing sprees of the Maoist student movements in 1970’s US. Besides, the libertarians are very likely going to invoke the very hard right fascism they fear by letting communists run riot like this, until the wider citizenry take matters into their own hands or fall in behind a truly authoritarian leader.
Let me demonstrate their mistake:
The young, female student writer they have platformed (and thus unwisely pressed into the middle of this nastiness at just 20 years old) says firstly:
“Unfortunately, many students are supportive of the protesters, with some students even being heard commenting that they would like to see Orr physically attacked.”
Then she says:
“While it is the right of these protesters to speak out, civilly, for their beliefs, I hope that Cambridge University will recognise the right of Orr to his own politics, by refusing to bow to their incoherent crusade.”
Actually, no! It is not “the right of these protesters to speak out…” - even “civilly” in manner - about their “belief” that they would “like to see Orr physically attacked”.
It is a crime to incite violence with speech. That’s why there can be no absolute right to free speech. And at the very least, Cambridge should feel more than comfortable to chuck out the students speaking this way.
Not calling for that expulsion or police presence, whilst standing there supportively in white gowns (as the author reports the proctors chose to do) seems far more like negligence than principled bravery, to me. Tbh, I’m not really sure why they let the event go ahead at all on safety grounds, until it could be arranged that those threatening it were removed. This is not stunning and brave conservative resolve, it is a classic, liberal university fudge!
What is unfolding in Cambridge appears to be a reaction against the Jason Arday scandal, whose death the protesters are seeking to avenge. But Orr was not responsible for Arday's death.
After Orr's first year lecture was interrupted by students filming him while accusing him of complicity in the death of Arday and complicity in genocide last week, the Divinity faculty has taken steps to protect his teaching from further political intimidation.
In a faculty email on the 5 November, students and staff were made aware of special arrangements being made for Friday, when Orr's lectures take place, due to concerns for the welfare of him and his students.
These included the presence of University proctors in his two Friday lectures, the recording of lectures for the benefit of students who have told staff that they are too frightened to attend, and the checking by security of the student IDs of all who entered the building.
✍️ Elizabeth Spring
Article | spectator.com/article/cambri…
2/2 I note the author also says:
“The Cambridge University Society of Women, whose members have faced a relentless campaign of abuse for their gender critical beliefs, continue to advertise the locations of their events only on the day itself, in an attempt to avoid confrontation from other students.”
This is not normal or acceptable in a civilised society and, again, hard boundaries are needed to stop this.
The young women of the @CUSocOfWomen and @cufreespeechsoc are being misled by their elders if they think they cannot expect those who threaten them into clandestine meetings to be dealt with by the law or university rules, or that they are under any kind of obligation to run around avoiding this terrorising, or that it would be a failure of ‘free speech’ to expect authoritative intervention to stop it.
@toadmeister, @jtworr you need to stop these reckless idealistic ‘free speech’ games and for God’s sake stop drawing young female students into the mess. What the hell are you thinking, actually?
I fear you and the young undergraduates have been misled about the foe you have against you, thanks to the foolish ‘human rights balancing’ theorising of the GC feminists - who make a good career running around taking risks playing with gender laws. This is to miss what is really going on here - namely the radicalisation of seriously deranged young men, so that they are not safe members of society. This is not the libertarian issue you think it is.
As a mother of a 20 year old student, and as a campaigner who has received the kind of threats that you must surely know about only too well - I’d be bloody livid if it was my daughter the @spectator was setting up to report on this nasty direct action, instead of using your privileged positions to campaign to get this lawless behaviour switched off properly.
Do we have to wait until these radicals actually use violence to take enforcement action? Is it not enough that one female Oxbridge alumni, Anne Widdecombe has been killed - specifically brutally beaten to death with a hammer in cold blood - in what is suspected to be a political killing?
Please stop putting the kids out front and, instead, use your privileged positions to campaign for calling time on the unfettered activism of these vandals, including setting boundaries for their ‘speech’ if necessary. It takes more than a ‘free speech’ and ‘human rights’ cult to preserve true liberty and justice.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
I have no respect whatsoever for Hilary Cass and would never be congratulating her for anything.
Cass has colluded in perpetuating the myth of the Trans Child and with the most grotesque state-sponsored medical harm of children this country has seen during my lifetime. Shame on her.
There is no such thing as a “Trans Child”.
Actually, well said @BayswaterSG and well said @SuellaBraverman - whereas Cass should not be congratulated at all until she retracts and apologises for recommending and presiding over grotesque Puberty Blocker child experiments, admits she was foolish to describe ‘Erica’ Anderson as “an unbelievably brave transwoman” and that her use of female pronouns to affirm the ‘transition’ of a long-abused boy in the House of Lords was shameful.
See how the GC LGB activist lawyers’ political bias is driving their position? And leaving them short of true safeguarding?
These people will always put operation ‘clean up Labour’ before the truth and safeguarding.
And as a consequence, they are backing the person who is arranging state-controlled puberty blockers instead of Wild West private market puberty blockers, as if that’s some kind of win.
Why are they so blind?
Credit to @SuellaBraverman for her strong statement.
Actually, well said @BayswaterSG and well said @SuellaBraverman - whereas Cass should not be congratulated at all until she retracts and apologises for recommending and presiding over grotesque Puberty Blocker child experiments, admits she was foolish to describe ‘Erica’ Anderson as “an unbelievably brave transwoman” and that her use of female pronouns to affirm the ‘transition’ of a long-abused boy in the House of Lords was shameful.
See how the GC LGB activist lawyers’ political bias is driving their position? And leaving them short of true safeguarding?
These people will always put operation ‘clean up Labour’ before the truth and safeguarding.
And as a consequence, they are backing the person who is arranging state-controlled puberty blockers instead of Wild West private market puberty blockers, as if that’s some kind of win.
Why are they so blind?
Credit to @SuellaBraverman for her strong statement.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
Oh FFS the entirety of gender laws do, as I have been saying for years.
Trans bill violates rule of law, says former chief prosecutor telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/11…
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
For me the nadir of the pandemic response, the moment when the full extremity of the British state revealed itself and the point at which I accepted we had departed from all previously accepted boundaries of medical ethics and child safeguarding, was when Nadhim Zahawi suggested that Ministers might go over the heads of parents to convince kids as young as twelve - not yet even teenagers - to get jabbed.
It should have been unthinkable.
dailymail.com/news/article-1…
"Ministers are considering writing to every 12 to 15-year-old in the country to urge them to get their Covid vaccine.
The letter would be signed by Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi in a bid to improve the slow jab rollout in schools."
Zahawi has serious questions to answer about his role during lockdown - our policy announcement today confronts that. He was Britain's Vaccine Minister. He is now in Reform, regularly speaking on behalf of the party.
The way Zahawi treated those men and women who felt uneasy about taking the vaccine was absolutely abhorrent, and I will never forgive him for it.
Vaccine passports, widespread coercion/blackmail, care homes - he even argued 12 year olds could override their parents to take the vaccine.
It is evil.
Under a Restore Britain government, he will face full independent scrutiny.
If investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing, he must face the same legal process as anybody else.
That means uncovering what did he know? What did he tell the British people? What didn’t he tell us? What was the process behind his decision-making? Full public scrutiny on classified documentation. Unredact it. All of it.
Essentially - who knew what, when.
It is time for the politicians who imposed and defended lockdown and mass vaccination on a healthy population to answer for their own decisions.
That is what Restore Britain's policy paper argues today, and Zahawi will be the first held accountable for his vaccine decisions.
Clare Page : No Secret Lessons retweeted
But she did not survive the lack of boundaries she advocated, because (it is alleged) that her political enemy would not extend to her the toleration she extended to him. Will this be an allegory for Britain?
I retain my position - speech should be as free as possible up to the point of harm, where the boundaries of harm should be decided by us in self government. That is how to retain liberty.
And I’ll give you a perfect example of a wise restriction on speech - in the 80’s Roger Scruton made the case not to indoctrinate children in schools (ie to restrict teachers’ speech) and the Tories then put s.406/407 Education Act into law - a prohibition on Political Indoctrination.
It has since not been enforced, leading to radicalisation of whole national cohorts of children - just as Mao and Hitler indulged in. Perhaps if it had been enforced, Anne Widdecombe would not have encountered a radicalised killer?