To think that the mother/daughter duo who took Michaela to court should face some natural consequences?

@Emotionalsupportviper

Exactly.

We are tolerant but we can't tolerate intolerance .

Islam by its nature is a religion that subjugates women and no amount of hiding behind religious freedom can remove this fact

Women and girls potentially prevented from participating in sports, acting, dancing, singing and performing. Women dress in voluminous clothing as it is their responsibility to reduce men's lust. Homosexuality is condemned in no uncertain terms

These are not the values of Britain in 2024. These are the puritan values from centuries past.

The problem I think is that ultimately it is difficult for two communities to co exist well when they have distinctly different ways of life. We have in our town and Islamic community where there is little integration and I believe at some level many in this community hold liberal British values with disdain.

I think this leads to real tensions in school for example where Muslim boys are exposed to a culture which they are taught at home is deplorable, women dressing as they like, dating, women in leadership positions etc.

A way forward is to have more truly integrated communities where we respect each others faith but can criticise the malign influences of any religion. Maybe we will as a country leave religious dogma behind with many viewing their faith as more heritage than something active with observances and culture which is not aligned to views of equality

The only reference to a "knife" in the judgment is that the court noted that the school were not alleging that the Claimant had a knife. Further, the court noted that the schoolgirl had not intended to stab anyone still less would actually do so! And that the school had acted unfairly with the 5 day suspension in this regard and that such suspension was unlawful

Was that the suspension the court ruled unlawful? (Can't read anything of the article you've linked as behind a paywall)

It was threatening to stab a pupil so I stand corrected. She threatened a pupil with knife ( still common assault) rather than being found in possession of a knife.

I didn't see any mention of a knife in the judgement...she was definitely intimidating others into praying, but I don't think there is any mention of the girl having a weapon. (Bricks through windows and intimidation of teachers too, but not with knives (that I read) but happy to stand corrected if there is other evidence.

She would've been permanently excluded for that. I don't believe that for a second. There were threats etc but it was difficult to prove as she was essentially guilt tripping other Muslim kids into following her idea of what a good Muslim is.

Can someone link up the story about her having a knife at school please. I can find stories about her threatening another kid but not about her being armed at school.

Possessing a knife? Huh?

Taking knives into school doe snot sound very Islamic! She might be better of concentrating on her behaviour issues rather than trying to make the entire school bend to her will.

The judgment sets a useful precedent for other schools. I hope the government effectively make it statue so there not more claims like this.

As for the girl she plainly makes no good contribution to the school and KB is v tolerant to let her in! Possession of a knife, let alone threatening someone, is a criminal offence. This family cannot set standards for themselves. Who are they to demand in it others?

This!!

We have a different system in the UK. I think it works by and large.

And frankly, it is the generosity and tolerance of the UK which has made it a country of choice for so many people of different races, colours and creeds. It's because the UK is very accepting and welcoming compared to most other countries that people want to live here.

But now, it seems, people want to come here in order to change the ethos to something that suits them.

The national anthem will remain the national anthem. I don't think anyone would consider changing the wording to accommodate religious minorities. Similarly the Union Flag does include crosses, another feature of our religious heritage. No one is going to change that.

It is important that everyone considers themselves a UK citizen independent of faith or lack thereof. A joint support of state despite differences in my opinion is extremely important.

Finding think you can complain about the national anthem and then list a set of requirements needed by religious minorities. The importance of identifying as British, including the rule of law, understanding of liberty and democracy is fundamental.

States in the middle East will never remove two-hour references from their flags of anthems and if I were to move there I would be obliged to respect the state I love in. I would also have to accept the cultural norms in those countries (often undemocratic) including the severe curtailing of women s rights,LGB rights and the right to my practice religion other than Islam.

We have a different system in the UK. I think it works by and large.

God save the Monarch, is quite religious. I vow to thee was written as a pledge to the country of birth and God. Unusual choice for an institution that isn't religious.

I disagree.

Rules provide structure and safety for children.

They may not like them, any more than your child at home likes you insisting that you want to know where they are going and who with, and that they have to be home by 9.00. Children rebel against these things, but they are there for their safety. And if all the children have to abide by these rules, with no exceptions, then they accept the fairness of it.

For many children who have chaotic home lives, school is often the only place that they do feel safe, and where they can rely on order and routine. They need it.

Why should every other child in the school be disadvantaged by one?

I don't think the child's faith comes into it. Had the girl been Christian, Hindu, atheist, whatever - her behaviour, and that of her mother, is such that if I were the head I would want to be able to wash my hands of them as soon as I could. These aren't the only children the school has a responsibility to - the education of every child in the school is disrupted by families which unnecessarily cause trouble. Frankly, when I have read of some of that particular pupil's behaviour, I'm surprised that she wasn't expelled long ago. It's a measure of how much the head cares about her pupils that she has been prepared to put in the time to try to help the girl to be more engaged with her own education.

As for the vegetarian meals - this has nothing to do with parents requests, and everything to do with the headteacher being determined that all of the children could sit together for meals, without (say) all of the Jewish and Muslim children availing a table where someone was eating port, and all of the Hindus feeling unable to sit at a table where there was beef. etc (plus, many more people are vegetarian nowadays anyway - not so long ago it was still considered a bit unusual).

There is no hypocrisy here.

Edit for spelling

Why would anybody choose to send your child to a school you have such strong objections to that you sued it for its rules?

Because she maybe thought it was worth fighting for what she believed in but still liked the school? Because it might be the nearest one? Because other siblings may go there?

The more pertinent question is why you are advocating that the younger shouldn’t be allowed to go to the school out of revenge?

She had 5 minutes during lunch to do it, so they accommodated her. She then started bullying other Muslim children who didn't want to praying and outsiders started harassing the school and phoning in bomb threats. They accommodated her and then she took it too far. Why is it acceptable to allow a child to bully other children and abuse staff because if her religious belief?

@YankSplaining

how about other pupils? How do you accomodate prayer requests from everyone else? When should they be held? What is someone demands that a prayer has to be done at a certain point of day?

Rules are there for a reason and I think this is eminently sensible.

No one was harmed.

It says she didn’t want to go out of class to pray. She wanted five minutes during lunch to do it.

Everyone legally is entitled to education.

We are not entitled legally to demand an education which suits everyone of our religious needs

If a Christian kept asking the teacher to go out of class to pray it would be unacceptable due to disruption so this rule applies to other religions. I don't see the objection to it

I think a lot of perceived need is the fear from parents that if a prayer is missed that the child realises there isn't a lightening bolt from the sky and their life is unimpeded.