UK: Schoolgirl Goes to Court Over Chastity Ring

Originally posted by shots
You did not even read the link I posted did you? It clearly states the police arrested the kids who were spraying the graffitti.

Now what was that you said about not arresting them????

yes I did, and that incident refers to kids spraying graffiti on the outside of a public building. That IS considered criminal damage and is considered unacceptable by society at large.

The kids were NOT arrested for scribbling messages on their desk at school.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
That IS considered criminal damage and is considered unacceptable by society at large.

The kids were NOT arrested for scribbling messages on their desk at school.

What is the difference? Both are public property are they not?

Perhaps you are not aware that most of our schools are owned by the people/government ergo public property.

I realize this is getting all a bit off topic, but the difference, as I've already pointed out, is a sense of proportion. The fact that you consider scribbling on a desk in class, which all kids do and no-one but other pupils will see, in the same league as spraying graffiti on the outside of public buildings, which brings down the whole neightbourhood, make me wonder about your sense of portion..

Weren't you ever naughty as a child? Did you NEVER fight with your brother/sister (assault). Didn't you ever slag somone off behind their back (slander). Can you honestly tell me that no alcohol ever passed your lips until 21 or whatever age you are allowed to drink in your state? As a 14 year old didn't you ever have sexual thoughts about a girl in your class? (sexual predator of underage children)?

See what I mean? In the UK we accept that kids aren't perfect, and the police don't get involved stupid little incidents that would be far better dealt with by teachers.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
The fact that you consider scribbling on a desk in class, which all kids do and no-one but other pupils will see, in the same league as spraying graffiti on the outside of public buildings, which brings down the whole neightbourhood, make me wonder about your sense of portion..

I can see your point you are looking at from a kids view point and I am looking at it from the adult side. Damaging public property is still damaging public property inside or outside of a school and it is against the law to deface public property or even private property without the owners permission of course.

lmao i carnt belive this ? she aint a loud to wear a ring ? right any one wish to place a £1,000,000 bet that the teachers that are marryed in her school have wedding rings on ?

Originally posted by shots
You did not even read the link I posted did you? It clearly states the police arrested the kids who were spraying the graffitti.

Now what was that you said about not arresting them????

Theres a difference from spraying paint onto a wall and writing on a desk....
Please tell me you understand that a desk is easier to replace or refurbish than to replace a wall?

Originally posted by shots
I can see your point you are looking at from a kids view point and I am looking at it from the adult side. Damaging public property is still damaging public property inside or outside of a school and it is against the law to deface public property or even private property without the owners permission of course.

No offence but he is looking it from the persepctive who obviously understands that children are not adults and should not be treated as such.
A 14's sense of right and wrong varies QUITE differently from a 18 year olds or even a 15 year olds, please remember that we are talking about people who are in the most confusing and difficult part of lives.
But this is the world we live in which is litigation, I for one am glad that britain is not the land of solicitors that america is.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp
Theres a difference from spraying paint onto a wall and writing on a desk....
Please tell me you understand that a desk is easier to replace or refurbish than to replace a wall?

What difference does it make they are both considered crimes and subject to the laws of the country. Just because it is easy to replace does not mean it is OK to damage it.

No offence but he is looking it from the persepctive who obviously understands that children are not adults and should not be treated as such.

I realized that. So are you saying that it is OK for a kid to damage anything they want? That is sure what it sounds like and you should know that alone is wrong

Originally posted by shots
I realized that. So are you saying that it is OK for a kid to damage anything they want? That is sure what it sounds like and you should know that alone is wrong

Of course they should be punished, but the punishment should fit the "crime".

If a child is caught writing on a desk, then a week of lunchtime detention sanding down and re-varnishing the desks is appropriate. Saddling the child with a criminal record which will permanently damage it's future job prospects is not.. and will be MORE likely to encourage criminal behaiviour in the future because the child has nothing left to lose.

Originally posted by Vixion
lmao i carnt belive this ? she aint a loud to wear a ring ? right any one wish to place a £1,000,000 bet that the teachers that are marryed in her school have wedding rings on ?

Teachers wearing jewellery is a moot point, really - they know the dangers (I know a number of teachers I had when I was at school had their stories of jewellery-related incidents such as injuries and thefts) and they aren't likely to be involved in some game that goes horribly wrong or something (since they go off and drink tea instead of running around the playground at break times ).

The mind of a young person doesn't work like that of an adult - they don't think about that earring getting caught on something or that ring getting stolen.

I would also like to emphasise - once again - that it's up to each individual school to decide whether jewellery is acceptable or not, if it is then what sort of jewellery is appropriate, what constitutes a school uniform and so on. They usually have good reasons for banning jewellery, and I've never heard anyone make as much fuss as this girl has. The vast, vast majority of pupils just accept it and get on with learning - which is why they go to school in the first place (it's not a fashion show).

Originally posted by shots
What difference does it make they are both considered crimes and subject to the laws of the country. Just because it is easy to replace does not mean it is OK to damage it.

Theres a difference between writing on a desk and spray painting a wall , please tell me you understand the idea of treat each case as it is?
You do not need to arrest a child because they writes on a desk for gods sake...they are a child! Children are naturally rebelious , arresting them makes no difference apart from teaching them that they cant express themselves.
If you honuestly cant see a difference between writing on a desk and spray painting a wall then I pray that for the sake of america that your one of the few that thinks like this..

I realized that. So are you saying that it is OK for a kid to damage anything they want?

No, I am saying theres a difference between using a broad sword and scalpol...I dont know if its engrained into american culture to weild the strongest tools against every problem but it sure seems to be a reccuring theme.

That is sure what it sounds like and you should know that alone is wrong

No I am talking about moderation in using your powers...giving the pupil a letter to his parents that he defaced a public item (desk) is enough IMO or even giving the child detention or making him or her have detention is enough. Arresting them is ridiculous..

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Is there a dire need for this girl to wear a chasity ring? Does her faith call for it? If not, then why is this a religious issue? Will she still be chaste without the ring, or must she make it known to others that she is chaste?

I think this is more of an issue of fashion over religion. If the girl were refused to wear a cross, then yes, it would be an anti-Christian ruling, but since they enforce this rule on everyone, no matter what type or ring they're wearing, what's engraved on the ring, or what faith they are, this is nothing but a girl getting angry that she can't wear something that makes her stand out.

You have a point.

As Dion Fortune wrote, Spirituality does not need to advertise itself.

However, I still know damn well that, whether this girl is wearing the ring as to appear chaste due to spiritual-pride or not, the materialistic henchman of the Zionists and Marxists are everywhere trying to suppress all expressions of human Spirituality regardless as to whether such expressions are genuine or contrived.




[edit on 29-4-2007 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by shots
What difference does it make they are both considered crimes and subject to the laws of the country. Just because it is easy to replace does not mean it is OK to damage it.

Theres a difference between writing on a desk and spray painting a wall , please tell me you understand the idea of treat each case as it is?
You do not need to arrest a child because they writes on a desk for gods sake...they are a child! Children are naturally rebelious , arresting them makes no difference apart from teaching them that they cant express themselves.
If you honuestly cant see a difference between writing on a desk and spray painting a wall then I pray that for the sake of america that your one of the few that thinks like this..

I realized that. So are you saying that it is OK for a kid to damage anything they want?

No, I am saying theres a difference between using a broad sword and scalpol...I dont know if its engrained into american culture to weild the strongest tools against every problem but it sure seems to be a reccuring theme.

That is sure what it sounds like and you should know that alone is wrong

No I am talking about moderation in using your powers...giving the pupil a letter to his parents that he defaced a public item (desk) is enough IMO or even giving the child detention or making him or her have detention is enough. Arresting them is ridiculous..

I agree with you completely.
There are rights and wrongs to everything.
Though ti was not right for the child to write on the desk, it certainly wasn't right for the child to be ARRESTED.
This is something that as has been said, could have been handled by a simple letter, or phone call to the parents, and detention doing desk cleaning duty.
In this instance, you have a child being subjegated at a very early age to punish out of proportion to the crime. What this will do is breed fear and/or resentment.
Not EVERYTHING that is a crime calls for police action. A 4 year old threatened to kill my 7 year old, and throw her in a dumpster. Am I ocncerned? Not enough to call the police.
Should this 4 year old child be arrested for making terroristic threats, and whatever else they can think of?
There are ways to handle this thing in proportion to the age of the child.
In this instance, I talked with the parents, and told them I do not want their child any where near my children or property. For not this will suffice.
If this child had been 12ish, considering some of the things that have happened recently with younger children killing other children, I probably would have called the police... Though most of these killings are older children killing younger ones.

As for the topic of this thread.
I think this girl just wanted to draw attention to herself.
If she really wanted to sport her ring, she would have found a creative way of doing it. Off the top of my head, she could have put it in her hair with a hair band, or hair clip. She could have threaded it through her shoe laces. If they had to wear ties, she could have threaded her tie through it, all the way up to the knot.

Whilst the UK may be turning into a Nanny state, what with ID cards and massive camera surveilance, but to suggest that this is a sign of a police state is a joke.

If anything this is just taking a leaf from the originally American ideal of suing everyone who doesn't get along perfectly with you. As many have said we have had enforced school uniforms for ages, and with a degree of reason - kids can't be singled out for wearing different things, which extends to rich students being a level over others etc. Same goes for jewellry, but with even more cause. The schools have a responsibility to keep everyone safe, if an earring is pulled out in a crush of kids or if some girl with a spiky ring slaps someone then the school will wind up being responsible.

Like others have said, many of those who are claiming ill will of their government should look a little closer to home IMO.


The money that's going to pay for this trial would be far better employed elsewhere.

Originally posted by x4nder
If anything this is just taking a leaf from the originally American ideal of suing everyone who doesn't get along perfectly with you.


The money that's going to pay for this trial would be far better employed elsewhere.

Abso-effing-lutely. My problem with the whole thing exactly. It is a very, very sad trend. Just as people who'd rather air their dirty laundry on Trisha or the like.

The police though stuff really splits my sides - personally I'd like to see just one officer once in a blue moon!!! They're obviously too busy setting up the gulags

[edit on 30-4-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

Actually I see a lot, but maybe that's just because I dislike them...

Always there when you don't need them, never there when you do... (the police I mean, not the gulags)

[edit on 30-4-2007 by x4nder]