Michaela School - court case
Discussion
JagLover said:
Randy Winkman said:
Does take me by surprise to hear that it's sung though. I thought we'd left that sort of stuff behind in the 1970s?
I think this is an old fashioned school in many respects. Strict discipline and signing of national anthem included. From what I understand they have many disadvantaged pupils and seem to be doing well, so whatever works for them basically. Parents will have a choice of other schools if they want a different environment for their children.
Pitre said:
You asked if I would accept Sharia law if I went to a school where that law was enforced and I said I would if I had gone there voluntarily and the country accepted Sharia law. But I think you might just be being a little obtuse as the two situations aren't really comparable, are they.
I think they are.As I say, this case established whether this kind of rule is legally acceptable. It is important people bring these challenges.
In this case I agree with the school and this the judgement is correct.
MrJuice said:
Did anyone ask the kids if they want to sing the national anthem FFS? The kids are the future. Surely they should be able to choose if they want to sing it or not? Why force that down their throat?
The same can be said for double maths first thing in the morning, surely? They get what they're given.fly by wire said:
Countdown said:
fly by wire said:
There is one principle here, the only one.
Either fit in or f
k off.
If the rules here in this country aren't to your liking then go and live somewhere that is to your liking.
Quite simple really.
It's always surprising how hypocritical people can be. Either fit in or f
k off.If the rules here in this country aren't to your liking then go and live somewhere that is to your liking.
Quite simple really.
"Others" should FI or FO but they personally should be free to ignore any rules or laws they don't like.
Would you apply that to anybody who, for example, thought it was OK to ignore speeding limits? I'm using that as an example because this is a motoring site but there are plenty of other examples where people behave in a selfish manner and don't GAF about the rules. As i said, it's hypocrisy.
Moaning about this school's rules/policy is like joining Liverpool then moaning that they play in red. Or joining the freemasons then moaning that you have to use a dodgy handshake.
The school stated that it was secular but these people chose to go there anyway, knowing full well what they were getting into.
The school stated that it was secular but these people chose to go there anyway, knowing full well what they were getting into.
gregs656 said:
loafer123 said:
If you don’t agree with the school’s rules, send your kids to another school.
Not how society works.Not choosing a school then going to court to change the bits you don't like.
This was a great result.
Countdown said:
fly by wire said:
Countdown said:
fly by wire said:
There is one principle here, the only one.
Either fit in or fk off.
If the rules here in this country aren't to your liking then go and live somewhere that is to your liking.
Quite simple really.
It's always surprising how hypocritical people can be. Either fit in or f
k off.If the rules here in this country aren't to your liking then go and live somewhere that is to your liking.
Quite simple really.
"Others" should FI or FO but they personally should be free to ignore any rules or laws they don't like.
Would you apply that to anybody who, for example, thought it was OK to ignore speeding limits? I'm using that as an example because this is a motoring site but there are plenty of other examples where people behave in a selfish manner and don't GAF about the rules. As i said, it's hypocrisy.
irc said:
It is exactly how society works. It is why parents don't have to send kids to the nearest school. Choice.
Not choosing a school then going to court to change the bits you don't like.
This was a great result.
Schools still have to operate within the law, and should be challenged if they stray outside it. In this case the court (rightly) sided with the school.Not choosing a school then going to court to change the bits you don't like.
This was a great result.
My first post in this thread I said I think we need to move to formally separate church and state, then these types of cases would be far less likely to get off the ground in the first place.
MrJuice said:
Interesting that the school is veggie. Presumably as a sacrifice to make the veggies feel comfortable. Tolerance and all that.
It was to allow all pupils to participate in the 'family lunches' (where pupils sit in tables of 6, each doing a specific role) as for religious reasons some pupils couldn't eat pork or beef etc, so it was decided no meat to be served so no issues. It was discussed in the interview that was linked.MrJuice said:
Were kids leaving class to pray?
I've always prayed in my own time (lunch, break etc).
Interesting that the school is veggie. Presumably as a sacrifice to make the veggies feel comfortable. Tolerance and all that. But high achieving school kids cannot pray at school
But they can say a prayer for the king each day. I understand the national anthem is sung there daily.
Barbalsingh must be getting tips from Braverman who used to be a governor at the school
The kids were getting together at break to pray. The problem is that kids are not allowed to congregate in groups of more than four at any time during the day, apparently. Which seems a bit odd to a normal person, but that's what was said on the radio this morning, if I heard it correctly.I've always prayed in my own time (lunch, break etc).
Interesting that the school is veggie. Presumably as a sacrifice to make the veggies feel comfortable. Tolerance and all that. But high achieving school kids cannot pray at school
But they can say a prayer for the king each day. I understand the national anthem is sung there daily.
Barbalsingh must be getting tips from Braverman who used to be a governor at the school
So you have the happy convergence of a school that has good academic results, is a f
king asylum run by a mad woman and may well have some litigious pupils who are a pain in the arse. So mainly a plague on all their houses, +/- the pupil's house.I would expect a school to be able to set and enforce its own rules so long as they are transparent, not harmful and vaguely reasonable. Allowing different schools to try different strategies is fine. I'd expect governors and ultimately regulators to be the guard against bats
t crazy, with parents' primary weapon being to "vote with their feet".In extreme cases it is fine for rules to be tested in court, and it isn't immediately obvious that this isn't one of those cases, so I'm not going to get exercised about a relatively small amount of cash being splashed on it from legal aid.
I predict that this school's practices will change and they will slowly get shot of the lunacy as the founding nutcases gradually get replaced. Let's hope they maintain good academic standards. It's pretty obvious that you don't need to finish letters with "God save the King!" to achieve that.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th April 18:32
g3org3y said:
It was to allow all pupils to participate in the 'family lunches' (where pupils sit in tables of 6, each doing a specific role) as for religious reasons some pupils couldn't eat pork or beef etc, so it was decided no meat to be served so no issues. It was discussed in the interview that was linked.
Excellent Proves my point about bigotry nicely
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff