RSE – Reprehensible Sexual Exploitation

From 50 cases in 2010, to 2,519 in 2018 – referrals for gender reassignment therapy amongst children has skyrocketed by a massive 4,000%.  But clinical psychologists working for the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), based at the Tavistock Clinic, London, say that experimental and potentially dangerous treatment is being offered too soon and without proper assessment. In the past three years, five of them have resigned on conscientious grounds (

VfJUK warned, in January last year, about this horror that was devastating the lives of young children.   We posted a petition calling for a ban on invasive medical treatment below the age of 18 (

At the time, and totally without precedent, within days the Department of Health issued a public response on their website, telling us we were wrong. They said, ‘The NHS has strict guidelines regarding the prescription of puberty-blocking and cross-sex hormones for young people. These drugs may only be prescribed with the agreement of a specialist multidisciplinary team and after a careful assessment of the individual, and generally once the patient is around 15 years old for hormone blockers and 16 years old for cross-sex hormones.’ (read full response here:

Guess what? We were right.   As now clearly demonstrated by the call for stricter oversight and regulation, ideological pressure from transgender activists has resulted in abuse and exploitation of the nation’s young.  Because of the Government response, we never followed up on, or delivered the petition – which means we also didn’t close it.  So you can still sign the petition here:

The further point to be made, however, is that we are also right about similar damage being posed to children by the new RSE Regulations.

These Regulations are driven by ideology and the expressed desire to normalise and promote LGBT relations. They have nothing to do with child safety or protection.  How many children have to have their lives destroyed before we stand up and say, Enough is enough?


 Now the battle to legalise these abusive Regulations is in its final stage.  The Regulations were recently approved in the House of Commons by an overwhelming 583 votes to 21.

For interest – and because many of you have asked us – the names of MPs who bravely voted against these malign regulations are:  Bob Blackman, Gregory Campbell, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Nigel Dodds, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Charlie Elphicke, Marcus Fysh, Paul Girvan, James Gray, Philip Hollobone, Ranil Jayawardena, Sir Edward Leigh, Dr Julian Lewis, Dr Matthew Offord, Fiona Onasanya, Gavin Robinson, Jim Shannon, John Spellar, Martin Vickers, and Sammy Wilson.  They deserve our thanks.

But now the Regulations, before passing into law, have to be approved by the House of Lords.  If rejected, they will fall completely.  The date fixed for the debate is 3 pm, Wednesday, 24thApril.

There is still all to play for.

Please, as a matter of urgency, write to a member of the House of Lords, including the Lords Spiritual, expressing your concern and asking them to reject the Regulations as framed.   You can email up to six Peers, or write to them at the House of Lords.  Names and full contact details can be found on the Parliamentary website at

To help us reach as wide a spread as possible, why not write to or email a Peer whose name begins with the same letter as yours, and five with names beginning with the following five letters of the alphabet? 

Please join with us in making our voice heard.  For too long the metro elite in Parliament has imposed its own agenda in opposition to the will of the people.

Suggested points to be made to Peers include:

  1. The Parental opt-out is abolished.  The new Regulations explicitly state that the current parental right of withdrawal will be downgradedto aright of request, subject to approval by the head teacher, who therefore has the final say.  From age 15 children will then be given the right to decide for themselves.  This is in direct contravention of UK and international law, giving parents the right to have children educated in line with their religious and moral beliefs. (see point 5 below).

    2.         Reports on the Government Consultation are misleading.  A report on the findings of the online consultation survey was produced by Ipsos MORI.  The key findings show the vast majority of responses were very firmly againstGovernment proposals:

    The largest category of respondents was parents (31% of all responses).

    58% disagreed (including 40% ‘strongly’) that the content of Relationships Education for primary schools was ‘age appropriate’, and 60% disagreed (42% ‘strongly’) that the subject will help pupils ‘have positive relationships’.

    64% disagreed (50% ‘strongly’) that the content of Relationships & Sex Education for secondary schools was ‘age appropriate’, and 66% disagreed (50% ‘strongly’) that the subject would help pupils ‘have positive relationships’.

    58% disagreed (41% strongly) that taking the right of withdrawal for sex education away from the parent, and giving the decision to the head teacher, was ‘an appropriate and workable option’, with 54% disagreeing (37% strongly) that the Guidance provides enough clarity about how such a decision should be arrived at.

    It was acknowledged that ‘a large proportion of responses’ criticised the Guidance for ‘not placing enough emphasison the value of marriage, often specifically heterosexual marriage’.

    It was further acknowledged, relating to Relationships Education, that teaching LGBT issues was highly contentious, with ‘polarised views’ expressed. According to the figures provided, over twice as many respondents were against the teaching of LGBT issues as were in favour.

    3.         The Regulations will NOT have due regard to the religious background of pupils and teaching is not age-appropriate.   On the evidence of the current situation at Parkfield Primary School and others, the assurance appears meaningless.  The DfE has stressed that all teaching must be LGBT inclusive, and Amanda Spielman is on record as saying that ‘muscular liberalism’ requires that all children should learn about families that have two mummies or two daddies (

    Government reassurances of age appropriate teaching respecting the religious background of pupils are therefore very far from being reassuring.  Not only has the Government ignored the responses to the Consultation, but statements by both the DfE and Ofsted appear to support the view that LGBT ideology is being deliberately normalised and promoted, irrespective of the religious background and/or age of students, or of their parents wishes.

  2. The draft Regulations are legally unsafe:
  1. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Article 26(3)).
  2. The European Convention on Human Rights 1953 states that “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Article 2, Protocol 1).
  3. The Education Act 1996 underlines this principle, specifically stating that “Pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents” (Section 9).
  4. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires that “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Schedule I, Part II, Article 2).
  5. The Equality Act 2010 includes as protected characteristics: age; disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. There is no hierarchy of protection.  In other words, religious belief must be equally respected alongside all other protected characteristics, so that there should be no prioritisation of LGBT so-called rights and behaviours over belief.
  1. The draft Regulations will require all children aged 4 to 7 to be taught they can choose their gender.   This is the age range during which a child naturally develops his or her “gender stability”, the identity of being male or female, consistent with their biological sex.

To interfere proactively with such natural developmental processes risks causing serious mental, emotional and psychological harm to a child.  This condition has become known as gender confusion, also referred to as “gender dysphoria”.  Over the last decade, there has already been an increase of some 4,000% in children presenting to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service seeking gender reassignment  (see,;;

This is highly dangerous.  On 10thMarch, 2019, a high-profile formerly-transgender ‘sexual rights’ activist, responsible for legitimising the notion of ‘non-binary’ as a gender in the United States, issued a statement entitled “I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.” (

The Government could not have been aware of these extraordinary revelations, nor of the deep concerns of staff working at the Tavistock Clinic, at the time the draft Regulations were laid before Parliament, but the possible repercussions for children prematurely being allowed to transition are deeply alarming.

Please help us defeat these pernicious Regulations.

Make your voice heard.  Write to member of the House of Lords today. 

Tell the Government, NOT IN OUR NAME!


Categories :

Blog Archives


Voice for Justice UK

7 Windward House

Plantation Wharf

London SW11 3TU

+44 7542 468981


© 2014 – 2024 Voice for Justice UK