I probably should have posted this in AIBU (especially since schools have just started)...but I know you will all understand!
Saw this, and I'm irritated.
This has nothing at all to do with women's rights, but says a lot about the Government's willingness to be clear, direct, concise, and to make quick, unequivocal statements, when the law is very clear about something that (I would hazard a guess) male activists couldn't care less about!
Sky News link
(at 10.02)
Government warns schools against exploiting loopholes in new uniform rules
The government has asked schools to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the law - amid reports some schools have said jumpers are optional, so not included in the rules, even though a jumper isn't practically optional in the colder months.
Education Secretary Lucy Powell said: "No family should be priced out by a school's choice of uniform supplier or an insistence on branded items.
"We've been clear with schools - three items for primary, four for secondary, no exceptions and no excuses. If schools try to work around that, we will step in." [my bold]
(Is it just me who's irritated here? Or is the law about school uniforms actually more important than women and girls' safety and dignity?)
…………………………
[just for info]
Cost of school uniforms - GOV.UK
Compulsory branded items
From September 2026, schools must limit the number of compulsory branded items of school uniform and PE kit they require pupils to have.
This is a legal requirement under the _Education Act 1996