She's lost her high court fight. Who is paying for that and what is it about her parents that make them and her think that she is not subject to the school rules?
2007-07-16 06:18:36 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The newspapers reported the other day that the parents had been ordered to pay but I would suspect that the taxpayer will one way or the other pay.Whoever pays I wouldn't think the girls parents will be too bothered considering they are the ones selling the ring(newspaper report) and have just had about 10million pounds worth of publicity for FREE.
2007-07-18 00:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by AFDEE 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
rules are rules . if the girl had caught the ring on some thing and hurt her self would they be saying the school should not let her ware it . Its good that she wants to keep her chastity may be she could ware a pink ribbon in her hair
2007-07-16 15:45:57 · answer #2 · answered by mikail brown 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually, her father is the sole distributor of this ring in the U.K.,theres no such thing as bad publicity,we may see a lot of impressionable young ladies wanting one of these just to make a point !
2007-07-16 15:38:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're not allowed to wear jewellery to school for health and safety reasons (as well as the issue of theft I imagine). Nowhere in her religion does it say that she has to wear such a ring - or any other type of jewellery - so it is right that she should follow the rules and not be allowed to wear it. And I feel the same way about head scarves/hijabs etc. Their religion does of state that they must wear it, so there is no reason why they should wear it to school.
In this day and age of lawsuits and political correctness everything seems to have gone a little bit mad. It's nice to see that they haven't given in, this time at least.
2007-07-16 15:15:01 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmunk 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
That's Christians for you; they always seem to think that they deserve special treatment when they just don't. I'd also like to say that I fully agree with KD's views on this; her post was one of the best I've seen on Yahoo Answers in a while.
2007-07-17 14:58:35 · answer #5 · answered by chemical_sister_2000 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I just hope the same sort of ruling applies to the Burka etc. They are not actually obligatory either
2007-07-16 14:26:22 · answer #6 · answered by Scouse 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I'm glad she lost. Now she can focus on what matters: Her school work.
I take offense to the whole "purity" thing. It isn't whether or not we've had sex that makes us pure - it is our thoughts and actions and for heaven's sake, how much we give a damn about our fellow humans and other living creatures.
This young lady will learn soon enough that there is a big, wide world out there full of different people from all walks of life.
My mother once told me: Never marry a man you've never slept with. Hallelujah! You can't get much better advice than that. Think about it. You go without having sex with some fella, you end up marrying him, then guess what: After the vows are exchanged, you find out he can't get off unless you put your feet on his holiest of holies or some other dreariness.
Ok, I jest, but it does make sense.
Amen.
2007-07-16 13:29:41 · answer #7 · answered by KD 5 · 10⤊ 5⤋
Her dad's paying for it.
What that girl needs is a good fu*k.
And she needs a clit ring, not a chastity one.
2007-07-17 21:40:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
She's seen what's been going on recently and thought "i'll jump on this bandwagon too", i mean in what bible has anyone heard of a chastity ring? They're all a bunch of wasters, and it's our hard earned money they're wasting, would they have gone to court if they had to cough up themselves? somehow i don't think so.
2007-07-16 13:36:46 · answer #9 · answered by Papa Dom 4 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Good point Pumpkin. Another violation coming my way from some PC muppet.
2007-07-16 15:04:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋