70 2 mins 15 yrs

purtiyringg.jpgWhat a pathetic decision from our wretched Courts. A 16-year-old girl was not discriminated against after she was banned from wearing a "purity ring" in school, the High Court has ruled. Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring – which symbolises chastity – or face expulsion. The school denied breaching her human rights, insisting the ring was not an essential part of the Christian faith. Miss Playfoot said she was "very disappointed" by the decision. She said the ruling would "mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith."

She’d dead right because Sikhs and Muslims GET to wear their bangles and headscarfs in the SAME school but all Christians get is a BAN. It’s an invidious attack on Christians yet this is still nominally a Christian country. What a disgrace that a girl who tries to keep her virtue and makes her commitment through an innocuous purity ring is discriminated against and our increasingly godless Judiciary support such discriminaton.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. sorry to go off topic,
    some great pictures of ‘Basra LOL 1’ over on slugger………

  2. David Cameron recently stated that Authentic British people could learn a thing or two about morality from assorted minority religious groups, perhaps he would see more evidence of traditional British morals if the British state did not actively suppresses the expression of such.

    What is the rate of underage pregnancy in this school,
    and what proportion of these pregnancies are aborted and how many bastards are produced ?

    surely, if the often listed social problems in Britain among young people are to be tackled seriously, this young woman should have been commended and her position promoted.

    (i wish, in some 8 years her senior, I knew some ladies like that :<)

    totally bizarre, and a symptom of the imbalance and disparity of equality concepts in this country.

  3. I support entirely what the girl was standing for. However, I think the reality is that the ring isn’t the fundamental expression of the Christian faith – but it was every bit as valid as some of the things other pupils were allowed to wear. So on the facts in that case I think it was an unfair decision.

  4. Wrong. The school does not discriminate against the cross and chain. Kara bangles and headscarves are an integral part of both respective faiths and are outlined clearly as such aswell. The chastity ring is not an integral part of the christain faith and nowwhere is it outlined as such. It is an american fad. What a complete waste of tax payers money. The court made the correct decision. Bravo.

  5. John,

    Last time I checked British schools were not the preserve of Islam of Hindu faiths. Ban them ALL, or let the girl wear her ring, with the Thessalonian reference.

  6. This is a multi-faith society for which the school, with very strict jewellery guidelines, had made allowances. Therefore be content with wearing a bangle, a scarf or a cross and chain in respect of your faith and end the insanity. She went to court on the basis of faith discriminaion which it is not. Moreover there is nothing to stop her ‘being chaste’ without the ring whilst at school. Unless the school is crawling with horny boys from 8am to 4pm which, somehow, i doubt.

  7. I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the taxpayers of her council pay for free condoms to be handed out.

  8. BNP Member – look up chastity pledge failure rates. Heres a thought – maybe her demand to wear her ring as ‘a symbol of faith’ should be matched by sikhs demanding to wear Kirpans.

  9. First off let me say that no child of Sonny and Cher should be banned from any school!

    Second, the school apparently has a jewellery ban against all, and would ban jewellery of a secular or Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Jewish nature, so I don’t see the problem.

    Third, surely the young lady does not need a ring to be reminded to remain chaste, or Christian for that matter.

  10. No – how about Sikhs and Muslims understanding that this is a Christian country, and that whilst we tolerate other religions, it is NOT at the expense of our own. This is a Dhimmi decision.

  11. Crawley is a very small place, I know it well, and already we have had muslim terrorists arrested there. Hiding away in such a small out of the way place, where no one would think of looking for them, yet only an hour outside london. Its scary in a small British town these outsiders are dictating to us.
    At schools in Belfast you cannot wear any jewellery at all, not a cross and chain, or a ring. On the other hand, anything worn outside of uniform and you are out on your ear. No headscarves-which are seen as old fashioned, nothing.
    This could have been sorted had all schools kept to the policy that was always in this country, strict code of dress – a uniform and no jewellery.
    The rot set in once they allowed in these headscarves. A muslim fad. I have seen these headscarves and that is a very bad description of them. Its a huge piece of long material, usually nylon or cotton, with a bit at the end like a sock, and you put your head through the sock, which is extremely tight fitting the long piece which hangs from your chin to the floor is then wrapped around the head and fastened with a pin type brooch.How anyone could study in this stuff is beyond me.
    They are wearing this stuff as a political statement not a religious statement, and schools are no place to fight political battles.
    I expect it won’t be long until we get them here too.

  12. David,

    Would you prefer that all religous (and non-religous non-uniform apparel) be banned including this ring, Muslim headscarves etc, or do you think both should be allowed? Do you think non-religous wear worn for similar reasons such as political badges or footbal shirts should be allowed?

  13. The whole thing is an underlying bias against the majority. It is what society has become. The minority must be catered to at the expense of the majority.

    It all stems back to the curruption of what was supposed to make things equal for the minority but was currupted into privlige for the minority and discrimination for the majority.

    instead of equality you get reversed discrimination Oh wait I’m sorry that’s called Affirmative Action

  14. Hannah – do you mean a jilbab? The long tight fitting muslim robe that is worn to the floor with the face revealed?

    Because if so Shabina Begums case to demand to be allowed to wear this at school was thrown out last year and set a new precedent. Shabina was a muslim pupil at Denbigh High School, in Luton, who claimed she had a right to wear a jilbab.

    The courts are doing a good job at stemming this at the moment.

  15. Maybe everyone should realise that this is a Christian country and stop demanding to be treated equally? The alternative is to officially declare this country as a secular country, which is effectively what it is but its still a vote loser to say so. the US government put tax payers money behind the Christian chastity ring scheme and as i said, teen pregnancy has gone down there while ours is the highest in Europe;


    As an aside in response to David i think sikhs should get special privilege’s that allow them to be treated equally religiously because they have a good history and are generally a good people, while muslims should not be given any such privilege for reasons that really dont need to be restated here.

    I think the way we treat people should be rational and based on how they act. If they choose to identify with a group that attacks and kills us then they should be treated accordingly and not given many or any of the benefits of living in a Christian country but if they choose to subscribe to a good, decent group then they should be treated as equal (Or better? discuss) to us and given privileges that they ask for if they do not offend our sensibilities. For example the Sikh ceremonial dagger is not a good idea in school’s if for no other reason than it will encourage less responsible people to carry them (Sikhs are taught about them from their elders and betters from a young age and what they represent, like Americans teach their children about guns, while blacks are taught by gangsters what real knives represent and just carry them to stab and scare people!), though some symbol of Sikhism wont do any harm. But the Burka should be entirely banned.

  16. No Alison. I am talking aboutthe headscarves. Some of them come all in one piece and you put your head thru it, but the original ones come as a huge piece of material, under which you can wear a cap like nuns used to do. but these can also be worn without a cap, because they are tight fitting, Once your head is threaded thru at one end it hangs to the floor and then it is wrapped around the head and falls to the shoulders.

  17. BNP member if you do that then there is a wrangle over who makes the decisions, and are they fair. It’s best if schools are neutral places where a school uniform is worn and nothing else. A strict dress code firmly adhered to would cut out this nonsence.

  18. Oh i know what you mean.

    Personally I think all religious dress and symbols should be ‘banned’ and the school be allowed to determine a neutral school uniform policy that meets its requirements and not the religious. As they do in France.

  19. upon reflection, do we really want the seculat courts deciding what or what not is a Christian symbols? What about a ring that says "no homos"? Death to witches? Perhaps this case was gone after wrong. Chastity in teenagers is for the public good. Possibly framing it as a religious issue was problematic from the start.

  20. David – I don’t think there is any branch of the Christian faith that requires the wearing of a cross, while there are certain faiths that call for certain modifications in dress that a reasonable society could tolerate. The yarmulke comes to mind.

    Is the chasity ring necessary? No, it is an optional piece of jewellrey. The young lady has the right to remain chaste and to practice her faith. I don’t see the hullabaloo here.

  21. I’m not one bit ashamed to come forward and admit … I honestly can never understand what you are all talking about?? Why?? all the constant seperating of everything into groups … It would only make sense that that is part – if not all the problem. to me there are only 2 groups in the world – stupid and stupider.
    Why a ban on jewllery in the first place?
    Banning things does not really solve a problem sometimes, it only oppresses it which will eventually lead to defensive action.
    Why do people want everyone to be the same? look the same? act the same? dress the same???
    HOW BORING! not to mention stagnant…
    then when someone IS diffrent ….. dont you see where that leads?
    anyway keeping with the topic (or not) personally I went to art school where personal expression is encouraged and what you get from that is people in dreadlocks working together with others with mohawks and piercings working with hippie types and beatnicks … preppys and gangsters believe it or not even muslims – christians – mormans and a few scientologists…. am I painting a picture?

  22. I have no problem with schools banning stuff.
    Pupils should be kept uni-form.. with no visible heirarchies (except for prefect privileges)
    School is, or ought to be, a benign mini-autocracy

  23. I have mixed feelings on this one and I’m not sure where I stand to be honest.
    At first when this story came out, I fully supported Ms Playfoot. Then I read that her parents were the company directors of the company that produces & sells these rings, and I wondered if perhaps there was an element of her being used by her parents in a sort of staged publicity campaign. Having no way of knowing one way or the other, I can’t come to a full opinion on it.
    Anyway, the court case was not about her motives, but about whether she shaold have the human right to wear this ring. On the face of it I see nothing wrong with wearing a dinky little ring if you want to. It wasn’t like a T-shirt with a religious/political message on it; you wouldn’t know what it was about unless she told you, so I can’t see that she was being deliberately provocative. But this makes me feel that the decision of the court was aimed against the expression of Christianity. Had it been an ordinary ring, would this have gone to court? Don’t think so.

  24. so gudone,
    your saying "school" has no part or should play no role in molding children into the adults they will be when released out into the world…. let me guess – thats the parents resposibilty?

  25. Lone Star..
    just let schools teach em how to read & write & do sums properly, as the first port of call.
    if you cant do that then all the rest is liberal bullcrap.
    for a safe & productive learning environment, kids need to be kept in line, and civilised…. hence uniforms .. hence school rules.

  26. Charles in Texas is certainly right to point out that by making it a Christian issue, she rattled the cages of the policy police, and as Tom Tyler suggests, it looks like her parents made her over-play her hand here.
    If the girl merely said it was one of the ‘Seven Holy Virtues’, and left it at that, it would have passed unnoticed.
    Clearly, she did’nt practice one of the other virtues….modesty.

  27. Clearly she didn’t practice one of her virtues – modesty.

    Bernard she isn’t some sort of religious, she is an ordinary teenager who wanted to tell the world through one symbol that she was a christian person and wanted to practice virtue.

    Nothing wrong with that until you are banned from doing so, like your ‘muslim’ peers.

  28. One solution would be for the Archbishop of Canterbury to come out publicly and endorse this ring as a Christian symbol — give the hirsute one something useful to do for a change.

    Even the local bishop could do it (I think).

    I mean, Catholics can and do strike religious medals with great frequency, thereby producing a never-ending number of religious symbols as soon as a peep is canonized.

    Once the ring is so declared then the row is over.

  29. One Ring to Rule Them All… points to Tom Tyler for the info on the parents’ interests.

  30. I don’t think that’s right, Hannah.

    Do you not think that her ring thing was purely a personal statement, unrelated to any religion, as ALL religions encourage this form of abstinence?

    I would guess, reading between the lines, she went about the school waving her finger with a somewhat smug look on her face.

    ….."ordinary teenagers", esp. girls…do things like that!

  31. ..sorry, that should have read "should have been a personal statement", not "was a personal statement".

  32. She was heading for disaster right from the word go…the judges of the UK are mostly left wing! Also it is not, and never has been the prerequisite of the Christian faith to wear a chastity ring. She should never have brought the case it just made a mockery of the Muslim/Christian thing. BY the way you see quite a few girls wearing the tight headscarf which Hannah describes walking by the side of her husband (whatever). It is hot in France at the moment very hot, he, the pot and pan is cool and wearing the coolest of teeshirts etc., while his ‘beloved’ following the faith is dressed up like a turkey ready for the pot and must be as hot as hell.

  33. Maggie,

    "It is hot in France at the moment very hot, he, the pot and pan is cool and wearing the coolest of teeshirts…"

    What does it say on the teeshirts, "I’m with Stupid"? :0(

  34. I expect you are right Bernard,but £12,000 isn’t easy to come by, so I’d say she did hold it more as a conviction than a personal statement, considering the lengths and money involved.

  35. Can I be the first to say, wearing this ring doesn’t actually mean you are chaste, it just means you’re telling everyone you are !

    She is either an honest girl, or a smart one 🙂

  36. Mahons/Aileen

    I can always rely on you two to accelerate my attempts to ‘sex up’ any thread !

  37. Always a bit uneasy about the idea that you make exceptions for things that are an integral part of someoneone’s faith. If I decide in the morning that my connection to the Devine necessitates me wearing a comic relief style red nose, then why should it matter than there is no other external validation for this?
    I think she should be allowed to wear her ring.It makes her feel better to do so and it’s not like it is a Comic Releif Red nose. It is presunable not even that noticable.

  38. Colm/Mahons

    It reminded me of Dragnet when Dan Ackroyd kept referring to "the virgin Connie Swayle" (think that was the name) and at some point in the story the "the virgin" bit was dropped.

  39. Colm: Thanks. I have been waiting for my amigo Charles in Texas to weigh in on why a sixteen year old (an Old Maid in Texas) is even still in school.

  40. It did cross my mind, have to admit: I wish this young lady all the best with her ring-pledge, and I hope she has the willpower and self-control to stay true to it. But we Christians do run the risk of setting ourselves up for a fall, when we take these symbolic pledges, thinking it will be all so easy to put will into action. It’s not that easy in real life, and we often find that we break our promises easier than we had thought we would.

  41. Tom

    It is a bit of a hostage to fortune. I can imagine that some blokes would see it as a challange.

  42. On a serious note I don’t think children should be required by any faith to wear a symbol – let adults choose to do so if they wish – and if schools have a policy on clothing or jewellery it should be applied without exemption to every pupil .

  43. You Yanky dudes sent over your ‘Guardian Angels’ to patrol the London underground (subway to you) many years ago.
    Being explicitly Christian, do you realize if that happened now they’d either be in prison courtesy of our policy police, or worse, gunned down by Muslims.

    Times have changed.

  44. Actually Bernard I don’t think they have a religious mission statement or requirement.

  45. I can imagine that some blokes would see it as a challange.

    Exactly Aileen. & cant we train young minds on something else? This whole emphasis on sex, challenges etc at that age is daft and as bad as dishing out condoms. Plus as Maggie said she set herself up for this fall. The school says no jewellery. The exceptions made were for a cross on a chain.- end of, in my book. This was a cynical attempt by daddy to rake in some cash.

  46. Alison

    I didn’t know the school allowed crosses on chains. If that is the case then this whole attempt to raise this case as an anti-Christian one is nonsense and it becomes just another attempt to encourage children to undermine the authority of teachers.

  47. Mahons.

    Maybe so, but the founder, Curtis Silwa was educated at a Jesuit high school.

  48. O/T, but there’s no fear of it undermining the authority of teachers, though. Blimey back in my days at school, you got the cane if you misbehaved, but did it stop us? Way no. We were fearless, we taught ourselves to absorb the pain and channel it outwards! But these days if they step out of line, they get a (gulp!) Consequence Slip and the threat of a very serious talking to (while observing their unalterable human rights of course). Phew, I couldn’t be a schoolkid now, the climate of fear and discipline would be so intense I doubt I could even concentrate on studying at all.

  49. Yeah the schools lawyers made this clear also : it is not operating a discriminatory policy because allowances made for Sikhs and Muslims only occur for items integral to their religious beliefs which both sikh bangles and muslim scarves are. It argued that a Christian pupil would be allowed to wear a crucifix.

  50. OK, so if Ms Playfoot’s ring had been just a ring, with no religious significance , would this have gone to court? Why are headscarves allowed, yet this ring is banned? There seems to be some hidden agenda here.

  51. No not really Tom. Scarves and bangles are written into sikh islamic teachings and as the lawyer argued are integral. Chastity rings aint.

  52. Why should any of these ridiculous cases go to court. If a school has a particular dress policy , you obey it, or you choose another school. Too much regular everyday attempts to impose rules in various organisations are being constantly stymied by the ever growing march of the ‘Human Rights’ legal system. This matter should rest with the teachers the heads and the governors of the shcool, not the bloody courts!

  53. just saw the comment number is (was)"69" under the chasity post … had to laugh … lol

  54. "The minority must be catered to at the expense of the majority"

    And so Northern Ireland was born.


  55. As was every royal family and its attendant aristocracy.

    It’s a sort of tradition in human society.

Comments are closed.