NZFF

by **Fozzer** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:21 pm

...its all to do with "discipline"....

Both in, and out, of school.

That's what makes a Man a Man.

Paul.

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:12 am

There was a lot of string pulling to have it enter a court room in the first place , how it even got that far , the simple thing of money, the costing of going to court - someone one had the dosh , as I said set rules for some people and set of rules for others.

by **omitchell** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:17 am

Ian Warren wrote:
QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jun 28 2014,9:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There was a lot of string pulling to have it enter a court room in the first place , how it even got that far , the simple thing of money, the costing of going to court - someone one had the dosh , as I said set rules for some people and set of rules for others.

Yes you're right Ian. Justice shouldn't be served. Peoples rights should just be trampled on. People should be punished for following the rules. Get your head out the sand Ian. I can't tell if I am talking to you or an ostrich. ...

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:43 am

Well one thing is a fact ! you won't see that kid in the Military .. MOM they made me cut me hair ... MOM I have sore feet with all this marching .. MOM that man over there told me to stand here ... MOM

by **toprob** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:07 am

Ian, you do seem to have figured out a lot about the boy. All I managed to figure from seeing him on the news was 'seems like a nice kid.' I missed all the cues which pointed to the arrogance, the judicial bribery etc.

by **SUBS17** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:16 am

omitchell wrote:
QUOTE (omitchell @ Jun 27 2014,1:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was a good ruling

No it wasn't that guy went to that college knowing the rules and chose to try and break them. The short hair is a matter of discipline, imagine if he tried that in the Army lol. And he got off on a technicality where it is that colleges rules that hes breaking.

omitchell wrote:
QUOTE (omitchell @ Jun 27 2014,7:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now you are just making no sense at all...

If he wants to grow his hair then he should go to a school that allows it, the school he is in is not a public school.

by **toprob** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:18 am

SUBS17 wrote:
QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 28 2014,10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it wasn't that guy went to that college knowing the rules and chose to try and break them. The short hair is a matter of discipline, imagine if he tried that in the Army lol. And he got off on a technicality where it is that colleges rules that hes breaking.

Really? Did you know all the rules when you went to school? I didn't have a clue. I think I need a do-over...
By the way, I don't see any relevance in the jump from school to the military -- I don't see school as preparation for the army, and I wouldn't inflict military discipline on children.

by **omitchell** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:19 am

SUBS17 wrote:
QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 28 2014,10:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it wasn't that guy went to that college knowing the rules and chose to try and break them. The short hair is a matter of discipline, imagine if he tried that in the Army lol. And he got off on a technicality where it is that colleges rules that hes breaking.

If he wants to grow his hair then he should go to a school that allows it, the school he is in is not a public school.

Once again since you missed it HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES... his hair was tidy and off the collar as per the rulea and he was suspended for it...

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:19 am

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jun 28 2014,11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ian, you do seem to have figured out a lot about the boy.

It was a trait I learned teaching safety in an engineering workshop ... one for example broke the arm in three places and had the arm removed form the socket .

On hearing the yells and yips .. my only words were .. "It serves you right" , there were two other incidents one even loosing a finger.

For it to even get to court , there is something seriously wrong ..

by **Charl** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:23 am

For this to have gone where it's gone, I suspect there's stuff they are not telling us: it would have gotten personal at some point, perhaps between Daddy and Mommy and the Principal.
The kid will keep his bun, but the war is lost.
It will start with not getting to the ball. It will continue with not being picked for first team practice. There are 1,000 ways to make his life a misery and it won't be anything you can go to the High Court about.
I don't think he has been done a favour, at all... be surprised if he's still around this time next year.
Which is presumably what the kerfuffle was all about?

by **Ian Warren** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:26 am

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jun 28 2014,11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By the way, I don't see any relevance in the jump from school to the military --

Its the place were discipline is the primary and taught ... military is a school , abide by rules and regulations, simple

by **toprob** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:40 am

Wow. Just wow. For a topic about judging, there sure are a lot of judgmental folk here. Or judge-mental...

by **SUBS17** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:44 am

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jun 28 2014,10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Really? Did you know all the rules when you went to school? I didn't have a clue. I think I need a do-over...
By the way, I don't see any relevance in the jump from school to the military -- I don't see school as preparation for the army, and I wouldn't inflict military discipline on children.

The school rules had to be signed by both parents and student for some school applications and I happened to see one recently which covered discipline and drug and alcohol policy for a similar school. In some schools they maintain a high standard of dresscode
for the pupils for the schools. My reference to the army is they have a policy on hair as well and only females are allowed to have long hair and it has to be in a bun when on parade. If the guy wants long hair then he should go to a school that allows it. The school he is attending
is not a public school.

by **SUBS17** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:50 am

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jun 28 2014,10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow. Just wow. For a topic about judging, there sure are a lot of judgmental folk here. Or judge-mental...

Not really you have to understand it would not be a big deal if he went to a school that accepts long hair, instead he chose to go to a school that is private and break their rules by growing his hair to an unacceptable standard. Its not impossible for the school to change their rules and make hair cut to a regulation length.

by **toprob** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:26 am

SUBS17 wrote:
QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 28 2014,10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not really you have to understand it would not be a big deal if he went to a school that accepts long hair, instead he chose to go to a school that is private and break their rules by growing his hair to an unacceptable standard. Its not impossible for the school to change their rules and make hair cut to a regulation length.

I think that this is a bit of a circular argument -- the suggestion was that there was no rule against long hair, just how it could be worn. So the issue is whether or not he can challenge the school's ruling, and make them comply with their own rules if there was any doubt about how it should be interpreted. So the real question in this thread is whether anyone has the right to challenge the school in a case like this. A lot of people here think that no, rules is rules, and even if the rules are vague and poorly implemented, it should be obvious to 'normal' people that whatever the school says takes precedence over everything else, and the kids are there to learn how to do what they are told, mainly because they may be required to go to war one day, and hopefully if they are obedient, and excel at following rules, they might get to press the button which nukes the towelheads...

Sorry, got carried away.

Don't get me wrong, my kids went to a school with some very clear rules which the parents needed to abide by. However the kids, not so much. I'd be surprised if you can legally contract with a kid in this case anyway. So is this even a legal matter, or just an agreement between the school and the pupils? Can it be challenged legally or otherwise? Only one way to find out. The fact that they DID challenge it legally, kind of negates the argument that they have to do what they are told, or else. They obviously don't, because they didn't.

But the thing which surprises me the most is what people here consider the main reason why kids go to school. I never thought for one moment that we were preparing kids for war, or teaching them to comply with all the rules, quite the opposite in fact. I like to think that I chose a school which would prepare them for a world unlimited by the need to fight for their country, and that they can judge for themselves what is right and wrong. I know that some people here went to school at a time when we WERE preparing them for war, and the rules were different then, but, really, they've had a long long time to get used to the concept of peacetime education, so maybe it's time to move on.

by **J7G** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:28 pm

I can not believe that this insignificant s**t has gripped the nation in such a way.

by **Charl** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:36 pm

It's media-driven of course, and strikes a chord because the audience imagines there is some lesson in morality going on that they should not miss.
I refer to this in my mind as Tuku Morgan Underpants Reporting, and it is always popular.

by **cowpatz** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:41 pm

omitchell wrote:
QUOTE (omitchell @ Jun 28 2014,10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Once again since you missed it HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES... his hair was tidy and off the collar as per the rulea and he was suspended for it...

I am under the impression that during the suspension a compromise was reached whereby he could return to the school if he had his hair up in a bun (and this is what happened until the outcome of the court case).
Was it always up or did it fall out sometimes during the course of the day....who knows...but schools usually don't go marching off to court unless they consider it important to do so. The BOT chairman had long hair as a youth so surely he would have had some empathy for this individual.....apparently not so there just might be something that has been conveniently left out of the article that we are not privy to.

I'm not sure why the military slant came in here. Sure youth will push the boundaries (as we all did) but part of it was also being bought back into line (the consequence) and even though some things might not make sense at the time they do later on in life.
Having served 2 terms as a trustee on the board of my kids school I had to deal with the 'tomorrows school' concept and all the inherent problems that go with that. Why each school should have to use tax payers money to ensure that they have a legally water tight rule for hair just defies belief.
This should come from the Ministry of Education as a legally checked rule set that schools could cut and paste into their own rules.

I hope daddy is there to support this young chap when he enters the real world.

by **toprob** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:57 pm

Charl wrote:
QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 28 2014,1:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's media-driven of course, and strikes a chord because the audience imagines there is some lesson in morality going on that they should not miss.
I refer to this in my mind as Tuku Morgan Underpants Reporting, and it is always popular.

Spot-on. This story guarantees a strong response from both liberals and knee-jerkers, so it is the holy grail for reporters.

by **SUBS17** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:03 pm

toprob wrote:
QUOTE (toprob @ Jun 28 2014,11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think that this is a bit of a circular argument -- the suggestion was that there was no rule against long hair, just how it could be worn. So the issue is whether or not he can challenge the school's ruling, and make them comply with their own rules if there was any doubt about how it should be interpreted. So the real question in this thread is whether anyone has the right to challenge the school in a case like this. A lot of people here think that no, rules is rules, and even if the rules are vague and poorly implemented, it should be obvious to 'normal' people that whatever the school says takes precedence over everything else, and the kids are there to learn how to do what they are told, mainly because they may be required to go to war one day, and hopefully if they are obedient, and excel at following rules, they might get to press the button which nukes the towelheads...

Sorry, got carried away.

Don't get me wrong, my kids went to a school with some very clear rules which the parents needed to abide by. However the kids, not so much. I'd be surprised if you can legally contract with a kid in this case anyway. So is this even a legal matter, or just an agreement between the school and the pupils? Can it be challenged legally or otherwise? Only one way to find out. The fact that they DID challenge it legally, kind of negates the argument that they have to do what they are told, or else. They obviously don't, because they didn't.

But the thing which surprises me the most is what people here consider the main reason why kids go to school. I never thought for one moment that we were preparing kids for war, or teaching them to comply with all the rules, quite the opposite in fact. I like to think that I chose a school which would prepare them for a world unlimited by the need to fight for their country, and that they can judge for themselves what is right and wrong. I know that some people here went to school at a time when we WERE preparing them for war, and the rules were different then, but, really, they've had a long long time to get used to the concept of peacetime education, so maybe it's time to move on.

Its not really anything to do with military as such I used that as an example, what if someone were to try that lol. Anyway the school mentioned here is a private school, when they wrote those rules they probably never thought that someone would try testing the rule the way this guy did and find a loop hole. When you sign up for a school if it has a dress code and hair restrictions then the child should be expected to follow them.
Its as much a disciplinary thing as it is the fact that the school wants its pupils to look tidy. So what other challenges would be next does a pupil want to start school at 10am and finsh at 1030 without homework, or show up to school in undies the madness continues and the legal system gets resources wasted on some guy who wants to have long hair when the High court should be focussed on real crimes cases.

NZFF

Judges...do they even live on the same planet?

Who is online