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.

I don't care what religion someone is. It is their own private business, but oftentimes, regardless of the religion, someone wants to impose their ideals on some one, or everyone else, ignoring how this may impact others who dont have the same views/beliefs. So, in this instance telling others how they should practice their religion should absolutely not be condoned or permitted. Given that their religion allows them to pray at another time then there is no issue. All companies, schools, public bodies introduce new rules and regulations all the time in order to maintain good practice and order. Bullying others to practice their religion is not on, as is bullying someone to not practice their religion, but in this instance they could practice their religion in their own time.

In that paragraph I meant 'the populace'.

So do you want to get rid of courts altogether? How do you suggest we deal with criminal charges and resolve civil and family legal disputes without them?

I agree that the parents should have chosen a different school.
None of it makes much sense to me to be honest.

Yes that is reflected in our history - you can look it up, but the school did not make regular prayer time for ANY religion CoE or otherwise.

This school makes a massive thing of how wonderful its discipline is. I've never seen and explanation of why they couldn't deal with this via their normal discipline methods - if indeed it happened.

Don’t be ridiculous

@KTheGrey ... And teaching Macbeth with witches which upsets the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Arf! Not all bad then. This (from the BBC article) is telling:

Dismissing the student's case, Mr Justice Linden said: "She knew that the school is secular and her own evidence is that her mother wished her to go there because it was known to be strict.
"She herself says that, long before the prayer ritual policy was introduced, she and her friends believed that prayer was not permitted at school and she therefore made up for missed prayers when she got home."

So it wasn't until after the policy was introduced that they started praying in the playground? Before that they had simply obeyed what they believed to be the rules? Hmm.

I've equally worked in private companies (law firms) where presumably if you wished to do so, you could leave work early on Fridays if you were Jewish to follow Sabbath rules (my boss took the day off) or you didn't do this. And if you were Muslim and wished to go to Friday prayers, this happened during Friday lunchtimes.

They certainly didn't set up a separate prayer room for Muslim staff.

I am very disappointed that the courts took this decision.
I think the girl had good arguments especially around how the rule is discrimitary as others, such as Christians can still pray at school, because Christian Prayer can be done in the head with no outward signs, whereas Muslim prayer can't.
Also as had been said this ban is not preparing children for the adult world and goes against the British value of tolerance (as do many rules at that school) what will OFSTED say?

Also when you send you child to a school, you agree to the rules, but when the rules change during your 7/5 years of attendance what are you supposed to do? Pull them out every time?

Having said this there is no way I would ever send a child to this school or allow any child of mine to be anywhere near its head.

I don’t think there is any doubt of the intimidation and I am sure it was swiftly dealt with.

You can leave any school if it makes changes you don’t agree with.

@EarringsandLipstick why is it an ‘appalling’ post? 😂 congratulations on being offended. The truth hurts I guess?

The other child might not be as religious.
And how would 'punishing' her make any sense. She's not her parents 'sins'.

Yes. Soap box stuff isn’t it. Annoying.

@calligraphee The problem is, in this case, they are the mob.

School policy changed after they joined. They brought a very reasonable legal challenge to that. Why on earth would that make you a racist? Unless you think reasonable legal challenges should be limited to those who are white and Christian, in which case I suspect you were already a racist…

This is my view too. It's a sensible ruling aimed at stopping further division.

The UK doesn't have a secular system, including in education, unlike France.

Regardless of what this specific school states its religious ethos to be (secular or any religion) the question asked was a legitimate one - did this rule change breach pupils' rights.

That question was answered by the courts. If there is an appeal, it will be re-answered.

I think the probability of the other child also being religious is quite high, don't you?

And if the mother bullies and intimidates other pupils and teachers at the school, god knows how she behaves as a mother towards her other child, I can well guess.

By punishing the other child, do you mean not allowing her to attend the school or to obey the rules, which are no praying in public spaces there? Of course the other child is not the sin of it's parents, but it can be influenced by their belief system around religion and culture.

I think you misunderstood my point - it is irrelevant whether 'the majority of taxpayers' support a case. The majority could be right or wrong. That is why it goes to court.

I think there is a fear from some families that are observant if an erosion of their religion by secular liberal values but het this is the UK and in general we have liberal secular values in general.

There may be Muslims that wish to become less devour as many Christians have become over the decades and maybe showing that prayer doesn't need to be enforced and doesn't lead to personal ostracism is a good thing ?

I don’t think you did make a mistake.

I think you are referring to everyone that doesn’t follow your religious views. It’s an offensive term for ‘everyone else’ The mob - interesting term. Well The Mob on this occasion decided we are not going to allow our schools to turn into hot beds of coercion and intimidation for any religion. It was a good and well supported decision.

It's an absolute disgrace that taxpayer funded legal aid was used to push this claim. What a waste of money!

It didn't. The rule that a prayer room won't be available was always in place. This girl and her chums decided to take it into their own hands. They disobeyed the rules, started a whole bullying tactic, took over the playground (this school has no playground is a car park) picking on other Muslim kids who wouldn't join them in their prayers on the playground, making them look like lesser Muslims. Spread dangerous misinformation in the community. Put tons of people at risk. The school banned what they were doing. They didn't need to before because kids obeyed the general rule that there's no prayer room. This girl had no issue with this before and didn't just quietly go and pray. She literally caused chaos. If anything, should've been asked to leave but wasn't. But anyway cause this lot didn't, the school had to introduce an additional policy specifically banning what they were doing as the general policy of no prayer room clearly wasn't working anymore. That's like case law when statute law isn't enough.