Parental common sense is banging heads with the increasingly aggressive LGBT grooming lobby in education. Many British parents are concerned about the use of inappropriate sex education material, an important poll has revealed.

In the UK’s largest annual survey of parental attitudes, Parentkind sought the views of parents on a whole range of issues, including Relationships and Sex Education and gender-confused children in school.

On behalf of the national charity, YouGov conducted fieldwork amongst 5,866 parents in the UK who have at least one child aged 4 to 18 in school.

According to the poll, seven out of ten parents (71 per cent) believe it is “important that schools consult with parents in advance about the content of RSE lessons”.

However, 33 per cent say they “have not always been informed in advance about the content of RSE lessons” and nearly a quarter of parents (23 per cent) “say their child has been exposed to inappropriate content”.

Parentkind reported: “A majority (56%) of parents support the right to withdraw their child from some or all RSE lessons.”

The charity’s Chief Executive, Jason Elsom, said: “Our parent survey shows there is a long way to go on consulting with parents and we need to stop situations where so many parents are shocked and upset when they learn what their children are being told in the classroom.

The survey also found that nine in ten parents “think schools should inform them if their child has changed gender at school as long as there are no safety concerns”.

More parents believe that schools “should teach there are two biological sexes only” (48 per cent) than hold to the view that children should learn “that people have different perceptions of sex and gender” (45 per cent).

A majority of parents (55 per cent) say that boys who identify as girls “should not be allowed to use the girls’ toilets in schools”, only 23 per cent of parents were in favour of such a policy.

Record-breaking numbers of pro-lifers gathered in central London for the 11th annual March for Life, as over ten thousand pro-lifers marched, dwarfing a pro-abortion counter-demonstration.

Held on 6 September, pro-lifers of all ages marched in opposition to the UK’s abortion laws, which generally permit abortion up until 24 weeks gestation.

The March, which was described as “a peaceful and joy-filled demonstration of support for the unborn and their parents”, dwarfed a counter-protest from a pro-abortion group, which the organisers reported as being “a stark contrast noted by many onlookers”.  

Co-director of the event, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who is currently being investigated for silently praying outside an abortion clinic for a third time, added “[T]he pro-life crowd exemplified the peace and joy of those who are confident that their cause is just, and their hope is rooted in something greater than politics”.

As of April this year, it has been estimated that almost eleven million unborn babies have lost their lives to abortion in the UK since 1968, when the Abortion Act 1967 came into effect. The theme of this year’s March for Life was “Human rights for all humans”. 

Starting in the Emmanuel Centre in central London at 10am, as well as pro-life stalls – including a Right To Life UK stall – and activities, the March hosted a ‘Pro-life Human Rights Summit’.

The rally heard from a number of speakers, including Sara Spencer, a student midwife who was suspended for her pro-life views, and Carla Lockhart MP, Chair of the Pro-Life All-Party Parliamentary Group. Lockhart said “If human rights mean anything, they must be consistent, they must apply to all. If we are to see change, we must each play our part”.

“We are called to speak truth in love, to support mothers in crisis, to defend the defenceless, to stand even when it is unpopular and to be unashamed in saying: 

God moves in mysterious ways indeed! After years of being viewed with suspicion over introducing a generation of children to 'magick' and all sorts of darkness, JK Rowling has become a notable and powerful critic of trans gender madness.

And now she has changed her mind about assisted suicide - which she now opposes. Furthermore, she seems to be on the road back to faith and God.

In a fascinating response to a question on X, author J.K. Rowling revealed that she is now opposed to assisted suicide — and that she feels a “God-sized vacuum” in her life.

During a debate over her views on transgender ideology, one X user demanded to know if she’d ever actually changed her mind on anything. Rather than responding with a pithy one-liner, Rowling gave a long, detailed, and surprisingly vulnerable response.

“I used to believe nurture was everything and that nature wasn’t important,” she replied. “My belief changed because of my own life experience and from reading studies about genetic inheritance. In my early twenties I believed the difference between the sexes was entirely due to socialisation. I no longer believe that (for the same reasons as above.)”

“I used to believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. I no longer do,” she continued. “I used to believe cannabis was essentially harmless. I no longer do because I’ve witnessed it wreaking havoc on someone I care about’s mental health. I used to believe in assisted dying. I no longer do, largely because I’m married to a doctor who opened my eyes to the possibilities of coercion of sick or vulnerable people.”

But Rowling goes even further, cutting to the heart of the matter. “I’ve struggled with religious faith since my mid-teens,” the famously liberal author wrote. “I appear to have a God-shaped vacuum inside me but I never seem quite able to make up my mind what to do about it.” She continued:

I could probably list at least twenty more things I’ve changed my mind about. I don’t currently have a single belief that couldn’t be altered by clear, concrete evidence and in all but one case, I know what that evidence would have to be. The exception is the God conundrum, because I don’t know what I’d have to see to make me come down firmly on either side. I suppose that’s the meaning of faith, believing without seeing proof, and that’s why I’ll probably go to my grave with that particular personal matter unresolved.

The bid to force state-sponsored murder on Britain looks set to suffer a massive setback.

Peers have declared that the House of Lords is now on course to reject the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill at Third Reading, after a strong majority of Peers spoke against the Bill at day one of Second Reading of the Bill today.

An analysis of the speeches today, completed by Right To Life UK’s Policy Team, shows that of the 86 peers who took a position on the Bill in their speeches, 58 (67%) spoke in opposition to the Bill and 28 (33%) spoke in favour. This represents more than double the number of Peers speaking in opposition to the Bill compared to those who supported it. A further three Peers did not take a position.

This is the opposite of Second Reading in the House of Commons, where a majority of MPs who spoke did so in favour of the Bill (25 spoke in favour, 21 spoke in opposition).

This indicates that the House of Lords is likely to be significantly more opposed than supportive of the Bill, and given that the House of Lords can reject the Bill, the Bill is increasingly looking like it will never become law.

Since the Bill is not a Government Bill and was not part of a manifesto promise, the Lords are constitutionally entitled to block or heavily amend the Bill.

In a piece for The Spectator, Former No.10 Director of Legislative Affairs, Nikki da Costa, explained that the House of Lords is under no duty to pass a Private Members’ Bill such as the assisted suicide Bill, particularly as it was not part of the Government’s manifesto.

Constitutional scholar Professor Mark Elliott also explained that for bills of this kind, the Lords can lawfully withhold consent or use the “ping-pong” process to prevent agreement between the Houses, meaning the Bill would fail. 

Further commentary in The Spectator stresses that blocking a controversial Private Members’ Bill is well within the Lords’ remit, given their constitutional role as a revising chamber. 

Sky Deputy Political Editor Sam Coates noted that even a senior Government figure who supports the Bill admitted that “the chances of it passing are worse than 50/50.”

A Canadian “death doula” is aiming to raise money to fund her personalised euthanasia and assisted suicide service in Ontario.

Founder and Executive Director of Journey Home for Empowered Living and Dying, Renee Moor, a so-called “death doula”, said her organisation is looking to raise $500,000 to move to a new place that can accommodate a “sanctuary”, where people can die by euthanasia or assisted suicide in “private, home-like rooms”.  A death doula is a person who acts in “a non-medical role and as a supporter/guide/advocate in end-of-life care”.

Moor explained that the sanctuary is “a place where death is not a medical event”, adding that hospitals are “a bit more institutionali[s]ed” and “not everyone wants [an assisted suicide or euthanasia] experience in their home”.

Moor wants to open her sanctuary in Ontario, a place that made headlines last year after members of a key assisted suicide and euthanasia review committee found that vulnerable people were facing “undue influence” and “potential coercion”. Some members of the committee said that discussing assisted suicide and euthanasia with socially vulnerable people may “confirm an impression that their life is not worth living”.

Earlier this year, Ontario GP Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of the committee, said Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme was “out of control”, adding “I wouldn’t even call it a slippery slope. Canada has fallen off a cliff”.

The bigotry of the woke left has been exposed again. A disabled boy has been rejected from an activity camp in Scotland after his mum objected to using ‘preferred pronouns’ on the booking form.

Over the Wall Camp (OTW), a Derby-based charity, rejected the boy’s application shortly after a phone call in which the mother insisted “biology cannot be changed” and refused to register her eight-year-old son’s ‘gender identity’.

In 2021, a judge ruled that believing someone cannot change sex is a protected belief under the Equality Act.

The charity claims that the child was rejected due to his mother being “aggressive” in expressing her views on the phone, not because of her beliefs about biological reality.

However, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed an internal report which explained: “Based on the conversation, it is clear that [the mother’s] views on gender and inclusivity do not align with the values we uphold at Over The Wall Camp.

“We will be making the family unsuccessful for this year’s camp due to the lack of alignment with our inclusive environment.”

We expect the boy's mother to challenge this outrage through the courts - and win!

Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme has created “a system of structural abandonment” where loved ones are dying because of “unmet medical or social needs”, according to two members of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Review Committee (MDRC).

Dr Ramona Coelho, a family medicine practitioner and adjunct research professor, and David Shannon, a Canadian lawyer and disability and human rights activist, published an expansive article criticising Canada’s euthanasia and assisted suicide programme based on their extensive experience as part of Ontario’s MDRC.

The two insiders said that “Canada’s experience with MAiD has become a cautionary tale of how legali[s]ed euthanasia and assisted suicide can erode into a system of structural abandonment”, to the extent that it has become the “default response to unresolved suffering driven by poverty, disability, mental illness, and social isolation”.

Euthanasia was first legalised in Canada in 2016 for those who may have had a reasonably foreseeable natural death as a result of a medical condition. This legislation was expanded in 2021 so that an individual’s death did not have to be reasonably foreseeable to access MAiD, known as Track 2.

Criticising the expansion of the eligibility criteria, Coelho and Shannon said “[N]early half of Track 2 MAiD deaths involved suffering from loneliness or isolation, while almost half indicated that they felt like they were a burden”.

“Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC) found most Track 2 recipients were low-income and 61 per cent were women, a group statistically more likely to attempt suicide yet recover with care. Less than half received mental health or disability supports and less than 10 per cent received housing or income assistance”.

They added “MAiD providers have described ending lives where suffering due to poverty, loneliness, or obesity was driving the request for MAiD”.

Coelho and Shannon are calling for the abolition of Track 2, to “[r]emove the pathway for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, including those with physical disabilities and mental illness”.