The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News13 mins ago
Was This Church Of England School Right To Ban Rastafarian Dreadlocks?
248 Answers
https:/
Once more it seems that we have been forced to back down from our rules in English dress code, so as to fit in with other cultures.
Once more it seems that we have been forced to back down from our rules in English dress code, so as to fit in with other cultures.
Answers
Problems with multicultura
10:13 Thu 13th Sep 2018
//What we have here is a nice enough lad being used by his attention seeking mum and assisted by our own ignorant right on brigade. ///
Don't talk about your own assumptions as if they are facts, geezer.
You keep banging on about Ras Tafari if you like.
But this post is about the dreadlocks this boy has and whether the school were correct in telling him to shave them off.
The court case was won so clearly they were not.
Don't talk about your own assumptions as if they are facts, geezer.
You keep banging on about Ras Tafari if you like.
But this post is about the dreadlocks this boy has and whether the school were correct in telling him to shave them off.
The court case was won so clearly they were not.
TTT
You further wrote:
//What we have here is a nice enough lad being used by his attention seeking mum and assisted by our own ignorant right on brigade.//
Step back and think about the logic here.
This ‘attention-seeking’ mum starts her son growing dreadlocks at say five or six years old (probably younger looking at the length) in the hope that a few years hence, she can make a court case out of it?
You further wrote:
//What we have here is a nice enough lad being used by his attention seeking mum and assisted by our own ignorant right on brigade.//
Step back and think about the logic here.
This ‘attention-seeking’ mum starts her son growing dreadlocks at say five or six years old (probably younger looking at the length) in the hope that a few years hence, she can make a court case out of it?
Further to my point on locks being a recognised symbol of the Rastafarian faith, the Fulham Boys’ School’s own website states:
Applications are welcome from all in the community – from all faiths and no faith.
To all those who describe this as a CofE school, note - only 50% of admission are to Christians, the other 50% are not.
Not sure where the Catholic thing came from...
Applications are welcome from all in the community – from all faiths and no faith.
To all those who describe this as a CofE school, note - only 50% of admission are to Christians, the other 50% are not.
Not sure where the Catholic thing came from...
TTT
My point centres on whether this was a school rule or not when the child was accepted. If it wasn’t (and looking at the school’s acceptance criteria, it still isn’t), then they don’t have a leg to stand on.
It would be like accepting a brand new school year, then a few months later changing the school rules, banning all blondes.
The maths...
My point centres on whether this was a school rule or not when the child was accepted. If it wasn’t (and looking at the school’s acceptance criteria, it still isn’t), then they don’t have a leg to stand on.
It would be like accepting a brand new school year, then a few months later changing the school rules, banning all blondes.
The maths...
I have just arrived in this debate, so I am going to sidestep the intricacies of the validity of dreadlocks aspect, and dive straight into the OP -
Yes the school was wrong, because it has broken the law, been proven to do so, and made to retract the rule that broke the law.
I am absolutely in favour of school uniform, and the enforcing of basic uniform standards, which includes 'unusual' haircuts for either gender.
However, as the court ruled, this is not a 'fashion' haircut, it is an intrinsic part of this boy's expression of his faith, and, in the same way that other religious clothing and hair observances are permitted - this should be, and indeed now is.
The notion that this either 'attention seeking' or 'looking to undermine British culture' and similar points are utterly spurious.
Rastafarians can and do live amongst us, and it would be draconian and utterly backward-looking to start insisting that they wear their hair in a style that 'fits in' with British culture, since it is already clearly a part of British culture, and does no harm to anyone at all.
I have encountered a large number of musicians with dreadlocks, and to a man, they have been clean and healthy, as has been their hair.
If people think dreadlocks 'look dirty', that is their own subconcious racism kicking in - a fear of somethng that looks different to what they are used to, and because it is 'foreign', it must be bad.
The most salient point I have read thus far, is the one advising that this child had his locks when he joined the school, so why was no issue made then? Since the essence of dreadlocks is that they cannot be combed or cut, it is obvious that they are only going to grow longer!
Hopefully another 'uniform outrage' puffed up by the media and iminstepreted by vast swathes of the public, will die down, and we can get on with arguing about something that really matters.
Yes the school was wrong, because it has broken the law, been proven to do so, and made to retract the rule that broke the law.
I am absolutely in favour of school uniform, and the enforcing of basic uniform standards, which includes 'unusual' haircuts for either gender.
However, as the court ruled, this is not a 'fashion' haircut, it is an intrinsic part of this boy's expression of his faith, and, in the same way that other religious clothing and hair observances are permitted - this should be, and indeed now is.
The notion that this either 'attention seeking' or 'looking to undermine British culture' and similar points are utterly spurious.
Rastafarians can and do live amongst us, and it would be draconian and utterly backward-looking to start insisting that they wear their hair in a style that 'fits in' with British culture, since it is already clearly a part of British culture, and does no harm to anyone at all.
I have encountered a large number of musicians with dreadlocks, and to a man, they have been clean and healthy, as has been their hair.
If people think dreadlocks 'look dirty', that is their own subconcious racism kicking in - a fear of somethng that looks different to what they are used to, and because it is 'foreign', it must be bad.
The most salient point I have read thus far, is the one advising that this child had his locks when he joined the school, so why was no issue made then? Since the essence of dreadlocks is that they cannot be combed or cut, it is obvious that they are only going to grow longer!
Hopefully another 'uniform outrage' puffed up by the media and iminstepreted by vast swathes of the public, will die down, and we can get on with arguing about something that really matters.
Excuse me Andy, I take offence at you accusing me of covert racism because I think dreadlocks are 'dirty'. Go read how you 'lock' your hair. It involves back combing and soaking your hair in grease (wax) rolling them and waiting for them to 'cure'. How anyone can think you can soak these wax sausages in shampoo and clean them clearly does not realise wax is water resistant. There are many white people who choose to have their hair in Dreadlocks and I have the same opinion on them as I would with a black person. Apart from my (non racial) view on dreadlocks I think if a school has rules they should be adhered to . This school lost its case because a pushy mother with an agenda chose to play the racist card.
I find it a tad ironic that two of the guardians of the blue pencil on this site who regularly fall over each other to reach the censure button first and then cite rules having rammed them down our throat at every opportunity ( Befhel ist Befhel) agree that rules account for diddly squat when they wish to display their virtue signalling by allowing those of a certain ethnicity to flaunt rules of a UK Christian school and champion their cause.Hypocrisy or what?
"I have encountered a large number of musicians with dreadlocks, and to a man, they have been clean and healthy, as has been their hair."
Lol. A large number I would suggest are Rap ,so called artists, who are allowed to break the rules with impunity.Any one on this site dare use the N word or any other white person in the music business for that matter? Bob Dylan was fighting a cause about a murderer in the "Hurricane" so I suppose that was allowed because of the ethnicity of the alleged perpitrator
Lol. A large number I would suggest are Rap ,so called artists, who are allowed to break the rules with impunity.Any one on this site dare use the N word or any other white person in the music business for that matter? Bob Dylan was fighting a cause about a murderer in the "Hurricane" so I suppose that was allowed because of the ethnicity of the alleged perpitrator
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
ChatterBank147 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV179 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.