Clare Page : No Secret Lessons

A parent-led legal campaign for transparency in UK schools. PLEASE LIKE, SHARE and DONATE! With thanks for all support.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

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.🙏

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@EvaRight363343 The summer of 2020. The school embarked on a whole season of BLM promotion and CRT training.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

In the wake of the tragic Nowak case and the ensuing political row over whether there is 'two tier' policing or not, let me share again a lesson my daughter was taught in her south London secondary school, in which she was in the 17% white minority.

It states:
'Her whiteness will always protect and insulate her from racism.'

The phrase was lifted from an article in TIME magazine, that promoted American, black feminist activism. https://t.co/7JnGHhBWei…

When I made a complaint about this and other 'two tier' concepts, the deputy head replied that:

'On a technical level, “white” is not a protected characteristic and so in a legal sense, there is not racism against white people.’

Which certainly did not hold water when my daughter was addressed unkindly as 'oi white girl' by some of her peers, and some of her black friends were described as 'Oreos' (i.e. black on the outside, white on the inside), merely for spending time with her. This was in a school that not infrequently had playground lockdowns when several children started fighting, for fear this might be spill over from gang knife crime. And yet they merrily identified the white children as not only privileged but in some ways responsible for the disadvantage of all the non white kids.

If teaching unions, teacher training courses and EDI consultants are training children to think like this, despite the very obvious harms and risks it causes by pretending white people cannot be injured by racism, we shouldn't be surprised that they are training the police to think like this too.

'Intersectionality' is a Neo-Marxist concept that nastily (and prejudicially) employs race as a signifier of lower class status, and thereafter invokes the Marxist objective of redistributing power between classes (via race). This is not just a 'two tier' system, it is a stealthy Marxist revolution intended to completely invert our existing order of 'equality before the law' and 'innocence until proven guilty'. It is SO dangerous that it needs to be proscribed in our unions and public services outright, but sadly Westminster is so completely out of touch it has no idea how far advanced this disastrous cultural mistake is.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@Pixil8 @HeadWarriorTWM Yes, the HRA too. They work in tandem.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

You will find the same testimony given by teachers (and no doubt NHS workers as well as the corporate sector), anywhere where union or human resources culture has been heavily influenced by EDI in response to the rotten Equality Act.

The EA2010 is an excuse for bullying.

[Steve Perkins @Perky_43]

Around 4 or 5 years ago the Met came up with a scheme whereby new recruits (who were of a black or minority ethnic background) would be afforded guidance and on-tap assistance throughout their 2 year probation.

There would be a tutor assigned throughout that period to guide them through challenges, issues or concerns. Issues that many or all probationers come access throughout their probation at some stage.

Sadly, if you were white you were on your own and wasn't afforded that extra assistance or guidance.

I was working at Edmonton police station in North London and I challenged this on an internal platform.

Within a few hours I received a personal email from a Chief Inspector and Superintendent, both of whom suggested I refrain from any negative views on this project.

The Superintendent (who still serves today but now in another force) made veiled threats that if I didn't remove the communication or change my view that matters 'could go further'.

Many people today wonder why things aren't challenged in the job, particularly around race related issues.

The problem remains that if you dare to challenge these things, you are either bullied into submission or punished.

Thankfully, I was in my final few months of the job & really didn't care anymore. If I was staying, I would have had to toe the party line and remain silent.

Many officers hate these schemes, but are too afraid to speak out & instead just accept that things are the way they are.

Race plans aren't only external projects within the job, they very much control things internally too.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@Kindun526 Apparently class difference is still discernible between those with Anglo Saxon and Norman surnames!

Still, if it’s a given then I’m particularly interested if we can make ourselves resistant to ideological exploitation of it.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@Kindun526 Yes, quite agree with this. The question then is, can a multiethnic society ever escape class division along ethnic lines, and the subsequent exploitation of those divisions by Marxist ideology?

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

I think there is another issue with this reform…

It isn’t just that ‘equal respect’ implies the need to take into account differing historical grievance and differences (leading to differentiated treatment to make up for past discrimnation etc) - it is that ‘respect’ is insisted upon when it might not be due.

Respect is earned, not automatically due. Whereas fairness and toleration are the essential base requirement. Criminal or antisocial behaviour and those enacting it do not merit respect, and the police, whilst needing to be courteous and fair, must still be able to respond to criminality with appropriate action, without fear of being critiqued for a lack of respect - ie upsetting a perpetrator.

The bedrock of a liberal society is not ‘respect’ it is fairness and toleration becsuse we must be able to make moral decisions about other people being right or wrong. That provides a dispassionate position that allows discerning decisions to be made - including when the police sometimes have to arrest, restrain or take physically intrusive actions.

‘Respect’ is actually the basis of honour culture, which is more characteristic of uncivilised tribalism, corruption and negotiated interactions, so demanding that police show respect potentially wrongly empowers criminals to complain and receive more lenient treatment than they might be due.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Well ha, yes, maybe… but with well written law it should be possible to keep it clear of ideological weaponisation. We should also be starving the universities, civil service and public services of all funding for EDI and clamping down hard with better charity law so that the legitimate voices (ie real stake holders and charities, not political activists) are the only voices that get to lobby and fight legal battles.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Oh importantly, a separate antidiscrimination law for disability - perhaps the one bit of law guaranteeing fairness and inclusion (as far as is affordable by society) that we should spend the most time on, but is frequently last in the queue after all the me, me, me LGBT feminist CRT neo marxist theories have made a mess. (See the casual coopting of disabled toilets for 'gender' needs.)

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Peel's Founding Philosophy Has Guided British Policing For Two Centuries. We Have Spent Fifty Years Dismantling It.

In 1829 Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police on a founding philosophy that has guided British policing for nearly two centuries. That philosophy was later codified into nine principles known as the Peelian Principles and is still taught to every new recruit today. Those principles contain everything British policing needs to know about what went wrong on a Southampton street on December 4th 2025.

Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

Principle five. The police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Absolute impartial service to the law. Not racial equity. Not colour awareness. Not white privilege training. Not disproportionality monitoring. Not community sensitivity. Absolute impartial service to the law. Every person. Every community. Every accusation. The same standard. Without exception.

Principle seven. The police are the public and the public are the police. Not the police are the ethnic minority communities and the ethnic minority communities are the police. The public. All of them. Equally.

Principle nine. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. Not the reduction of disproportionality in stop and search. Not the diversity of the workforce. Not the number of officers completing unconscious bias training. The absence of crime and disorder. That is the test.

Now place those principles alongside the documents governing Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary on the night Henry Nowak died.

The Hampshire Race Action Plan commits to pursuing offenders who cause harm to ethnic minority communities specifically. Not all communities. Ethnic minority communities specifically. The NPCC guidance tells officers that a commitment to racial equity does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind. The Metropolitan Police race action plan informs officers that neutrality is a myth and that their whiteness prevents impartiality. The Hampshire Inclusion Matters diversity course made nearly twenty percent of officers afraid they would be rejected for saying the wrong thing. The University of Reading noted that officers who did not respond well to the training may benefit from further intervention, monitoring or coaching.

Peel said absolute impartial service to the law. The Metropolitan Police said neutrality is a myth. Peel said the police are the public. The NPCC said the police cannot be colour blind. Peel said the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder. The College of Policing said the test is reducing disproportionality in the use of police powers against ethnic minorities.

These are not compatible frameworks. They are opposing philosophies. One treats every citizen as equal before the law. The other treats citizens differently according to their ethnicity and the accusations they make. One produced two centuries of policing by consent. The other produced the officers who handcuffed Henry Nowak.

Alexis Boon, the chief constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, described the national outcry as a furore that had been whipped up. He does not accept the term two tier policing.

Principle two. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

The public approval is gone. The respect has been lost. The chief constable who cannot see why has not read the principles he was taught on his first day.

The answer has been there since 1829. What changed was the decision to abandon it.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@MrMennoTweets @Janet4369587977 @vfxx555 @ISBI3 @AlessandraAster @forevershallon @ThePosieParker Whereas, if we were to be conducting proper safeguarding and observing Education law, any teacher who tried to tell children they might be - or indeed personally have been - born in the wrong body, ought to be sacked on the spot with no recourse.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Oh give me strength… 🤦‍♀️

Apparently we now have to sue our way back to free speech through small claims, like we’ve been mis-sold car finance.

I just don’t even know where to start.

[Sex Matters @SexMattersOrg]

Refused service in a pub, barred from a gym or forced to leave an event because of your gender-critical views?

We have published a guide on how to take a “small claim” for belief discrimination against a service provider.

Watch @MForstater and @HJoyceGender discuss the process in our latest podcast ⤵️

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Great, so let's just call for repeal of these laws then, in the first place by making an exception from international law in order to do it immediately, if we can OR
lets repeal the wider international legal architecture too, which is corrupted with this ideology and overrides our democracy in all sorts of unhelpful ways anyway.

Thereafter we reinstate some rational antidiscimination laws as befits a country that is good to women, minorities and the vulnerable. (Details tbc but without any gender laws.)
Do you agree with this?

And this will of course only be possible by a future right wing govt, so we need to start the message of repeal now so that the liberal left don't have hysterical fit and block them at every turn when they try to get on with it, because the liberal feminist voices have already made the argument for repeal well themselves and won the mainstream women's vote?

Agree?

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@AlbaAyrshire @AlessandraAster Don’t expect to find coherence in the liberal left!

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@AlbaAyrshire @AlessandraAster Yes, agree, the whole structure is horrendously crude and that’s because it’s largely based on US race wars between African Americans and White European American as they try to digest their troubled past of slavery.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@MrMennoTweets @vfxx555 @ISBI3 @AlessandraAster @forevershallon @ThePosieParker Better to ask Anya.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@AnneBonnysKat It does indeed seem as if this is the incredibly difficult future our traitorous leaders have left us with.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Sorry no, you consistently slip in accuracies and reframing. That is not what I described as circuitous.
I was addressing your continued claim that unless you know the detailed political path to repeal, with politicians who will consider repeal, then we can't just get started by calling for repeal.

And no, Maya was not using tools she had to hand in difficult circumstances, her case was operated by AP to make NEW legal concepts that are unhelpful and a dead end.

Basic plan:
Great repeal Bill of GRA, PC of GR, HRA, exit EHRC, close EHRC and GEO. The parties involved in the Good Friday Agreement will have to cope.
Leave UN and its corrupt agencies.
(There's a whole load of other constitutional and quango rubbish to deal with too... eg Scrap Supreme Court and revert to HoL and Lord Chancellor, deal with Charity Commission and charity law overhaul to cut political activism out of the third sector...)
Simultaneously reinstate some politically neutral, universalist antidiscrimination law based on prohibiting a clear definition of the 'wrong' of discrimination (ie bullying, exclusion, unfair treatment, denial of essential service etc based solely on immutable, factual characteristics), not defining who such a 'wrong' might apply to.
Make some special antidiscrimination law for women - we are not a minority and have certain special roles and vulnerabilities to refer to (child birth etc).
Reaffirm British liberty as an a priori position.
Embark on substantial retraining project across public sector, proscribing the promotion of gender ideology (and all the rest of the neo marxist rubbish such as CRT and intersectionality) in public sector.
New criminal laws for the sexualisation of children and ban gender meds and surgery - we do not starve anorexics nor chop off healthy body parts for those with BDD. The butchery has to stop, including for adults.

This kind of reform is already all in motion amongst think tanks on the right, so it is only a matter of time before something like it is being enacted. The one part that I would say is lagging behind the constitutional reforms is a really rock solid approach to child safeguarding and women's rights - because guess what, the liberal GCs have been advising everyone to 'go slow' until we 'have a plan'. Well at this rate, we'll miss the boat.

(And btw, my legal case is seeking access to materials as the existing law suggests should be the case but has been denied to me. There is no 'law fare' aspect to what I am doing - I will not create new law or interpretation of law, I am merely making sure the exponents of the state observe the law, when they are currently flouting it.)

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

Just seen this. No need to reply to the other thread then.

But what you’ve written above here is convoluted, misleading of my points and rather evasive! So yes, probably better to end here then.

I don’t agree with your equivocal, can’t be sure approach, nor with suggesting we work with the imperfect EA2010 as it stands, which means tolerating lies in law.

I do not think one more woman should have to go through the arduous, stressful job to avoid damages by of some kind of legal case to establish that what is undeniable fact is EITHER her belief OR her non belief. It should not be an innocent persons job to establish why they can speak fact in a free country.

The glaring problem is that there is currently effective protection for not just GI belief (as expressed in the PC of GR) but that it is a disprovable belief - ie a lie. We must have no lies in law, and we must say so immediately and implacably until they are gone.

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

I think you are right to suspect MM holds room for some compromise… and I also think he is perhaps withholding his declaration of that - (maybe because it is very unfathomable in the current context and conversation?!) But I think it’s fair and useful to give that a hearing, even if there is no possible way you’d agree…

So @MrMennoTweets are you going to tell us if there are contexts where people who call themselves ‘trans’ or some other identity should have ‘rights’ specific to that declaration - or perhaps where you personally like to extend voluntary courtesies etc? And if so (and I’m not trying to preempt your views) why that would differ from a scorched earth, zero tolerance approach?

[Clare Page : No Secret Lessons @NoSecretLessons]

@FuriousBanshee According to socio economic background.