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

[KTheGrey]

Apparently the mother involved wants to send her younger child to the school she finds so unsatisfactory in September. I don't think this is reasonable. I understand the logic of leaving a child at a school where they are established, but she should be expected to find a school she likes better for a younger sibling, surely.

She also intends to bring another suit, presumably tax payer funded again. I think that she should be expected to pay in full for any further suit she brings against the school. She could apply for costs if she wins.

By law, there has to be a section of Christian worship in schools. Many schools don't comply, but that's neither here nor there. The school rules are the school rules. Dont like it, go to another school.

If you don’t want this woman’s child at your school, go to another school.

@pensione
I think it's important schools set rules and it's not up to parents to dictate to schools. This undermines the whole school system.

Secular schooling is important and the majority of the UK support it. I think it actually acts as a release from overbearing religious influence.

I don't think people object to an individual but to the fact they have tried at great expense to change rules to incorporate archaic religious practice contrary to the general positive secularisation of our education.

The 50% of Muslim children in the school seemed happy. They were the ones being bullied by this woman's child. She is the one who didn't like the school rules. If my child is following the school rules and I've agreed to the ethos of the school, why should a child who is abiding by the rules be made to leave to accommodate a child from a disruptive family who it is possible the local imams are using to cause disruption because Muslims want to go to the school and are hspoy to have a secular efucation ? Let's just accommodate and pander to bullies shall we?

@DramaLlamaBangBang

We can't forget about the rule of law in this country. Parliament and it's laws are sovereign.

Totally tangential but sounds like a horrific school for pupils... Sounds more like a very controlling prison re their rules about association etc.

School rules are set within the law. If the school had broken the law, the courts would not have been able to find for the school. They have not broken the law. They have treated all religions equally.

@DramaLlamaBangBang

It may be that the majority of Muslims at the school came from less conservative families and were happy with the ethos hence selecting the school.

Religions can thrive from oppression and brining the less religious into line and I think the girl and her family had this view. The parents did not like their daughter being in an environment where Muslims were allowed to disregard prayer.

Once prayer rules are sidelined then the whole edifice of a religion creaks a bit. If prayers aren't necessary at certain times of the day then you question hijab, question abstinence, question restrictions on gender roles etc.

Well people do object, that’s the whole premise of the OP’s post - that the younger Muslim child shouldn’t be allowed an education as revenge.

You lot would have been the same people shouting against the need for halal food to be served in schools.

Minorities have to fight for the changes they need.

@DramaLlamaBangBang

Exactly and that is why this ruling is to be applauded but there has to be caution about the ramifications of appeal (which optimistically I hope unsuccessful(

@pensione

But it's not a need. If it is a need do we need to accommodate the needs of every child and how does that work?

There is an educational need to not compromise the valuable school day and schools have the ability to do this.

Um ... the national anthem isn't a hymn. And neither, for my money, is I vow to thee my country. I mean, the first half is allegiance to your country, and that second half is pretty vague - could apply to anything really. Sounds a bit communist to me 😆

Allowed an education? This is the UK and education is both free and compulsory. Not allowed to go to a school your parents object to is not the same as not allowed an education or nobody would have an education. Every child's parents choose for them. Why would anybody choose to send your child to a school you have such strong objections to that you sued it for its rules?

I don't know @DramaLlamaBangBang but I suspect she may well have finished going to school.

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.

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

@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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

This!!