JonnyF

Please read the survey again. The responses from parents in no way indicated that shorts should be banned. That was a conclusion reached by the school based on nothing whatsoever from the parents, so please stop this claim that this was a result of a survey of the parents, it came from the school and the parents objected to it. It doesn't surprise me one bit that whoever made this policy didn't consider there could be a heat wave in the summer, they've given no indication they have such intelligence or forethought. Whether it's one day over 30 and the rest of the month in the 20's, clearly it's hot enough to warrant a choice of cooler clothing for the children. Why ignore my comment about fat kids? OK, what is the woke term? Obese adolescants? Plus sized people under 16? Is that PC enough for you to respond? It's fairly obvious that overweight/fat kids feel the heat more. Why make them wear trousers in the heat? You seem more concerned about the use of PC language than the comfort/welfare of the kids. I had heatstroke as a kid and I can tell you it's EXTREMELY unpleasant. In bed for 3 days, vomitting and screaming for someone called Rita to come and help me (I didn't know anyone called Rita). Heatstroke is no joke I can assure you. Yes, Rockey has been forced to address this illogical and ill thought out policy. Good to see he's finally seen some sense. It seems you are very gradually coming around to the fact that is a stupid policy as well, which is encouraging.

Did you just say Woke and Tolerance/Acceptance in the same sentence? ???? They have zero tolerance or acceptance for anyone who doesn't share their radical views. Just look at the way they've treated someone like JK Rowling. Shameful stuff from the 'be kind' brigade.

I think they are capable of deciding whether to wear shorts or trousers during a heat wave ????. We're not asking them to decide how to deal with the war in Ukraine or which policies to implement to tackle climate change (although the Greenies were quite happy to make a deity of the clueless Greta when it suited their agenda).

So they did a survey during which there is no mention of parents requesting shorts be disallowed. Then they set the policy of trousers and skirts only. Yet you're claiming the policy is based on the survey of the parents, despite the fact they are now having to review the policy due to objections by parents. Hmmm, ok... If it was 30 degrees on one day, then my statement is correct. Some kids feel the heat more than others. Fat kids for example might get hotter. Or those having hormonal changes, medications etc. Why would you object to shorts being allowed? Maybe some of the girls would prefer shorts as well? Especially if they like to pretend they are/"identify as" boys. If trousers and skirts are deemed 'gender neutral', then surely shorts are as well. Like I said, the policy makes no sense at all, on any level.

I took a peek. There was nothing I could see stating that parents didn't want shorts allowed. The part about skirts and trousers being the uniform was in page 2 regarding the changes that the school had decided to implement.

So why ban them? Doesn't make any sense. Let the children choose based on what is comfortable for them.

I found it absolutely roasting in the summer, especially after a game of football during the breaks. I guess different people feel the heat differently, which is why it's best to offer the option to the kids, depending on how hot they are. I highly doubt the parents chose to disallow shorts for boys. Sounds like a PR statement by the school to justify a poor decision that became public.

I flew to Sydney with them last week, got back to BKK on Friday (via Phuket). The meals were small but perfectly OK. Chicken/beef with rice/noodles with a bit of veg and a bread roll and a small desert. The same as before Covid as far as I can remember. Wine and beer was served with the food. Only thing I noticed was there were no drinks served between meals. I reckon I could have got one if I'd have walked up to the stewards area but I wasn't fussed so didn't try. The bags were slow to come off (except for the air crew's bags). I'm guessing staff shortages are affecting most airlines/airports.

So did they allow shorts on the day when it was over 30 degrees? Or did the boys have to wear a skirt in order to cool down? Even in low 20's, it can get pretty hot inside, especially when kids aren't used to the heat. Why ban shorts if the boys are feeling the heat in non air con classrooms? They wouldn't wear them if it wasn't hot. Doesn't seem very kind (or logical) to me.

Yes there is currently a heat wave in the UK, do try to keep up dear. As for the Woke idiocy, it's quite common for people who are part of the problem to be blissfully unaware of it. Case in point. Why would you mock genuine concerns about children that are forced to wear trousers all day while sat in a classroom with no air conditioning and temperatures exceeding 30 degrees? I thought all you leftists were all about 'being kind'? Surely that's not some kind of ruse?

I had some hash chocolate brownies recently. Not sure what % THC was in there but I was absolutely stoned out of mind within an hour and had the best night's sleep I'd had in ages. I suspect not everyone is following this 0.2% rule. I'll be buying some more of those brownies, plus some weed and a pipe for smoking next week.

Seems like a stupid rule. Irrespective of the Woke idiocy plaguing many areas of life, why not allow boys/girls to wear shorts? Why should a heterosexual boy be forced to wear a skirt in order to stay cool in a heat wave?

Life without parole would have been more suitable for this piece of human trash. Let's hope he never sees life outside those prison gates again.

Should have worn his mask. We all know they are 100% effective.

Who is this “opposition” you speak of? Surely not Labour, led by Sir Keir, the woke, fake “working class hero” who doesn’t know what a woman is and is completely devoid of personality? ???? There is no opposition sadly.

It wouldn't stop the attacks. Irresponsible owners would simply buy different (but equally dangerous in the wrong hands) breeds and you'd see an increase in attacks by those breeds instead.

Yes big/strong dogs can inflict more damage. So what do you propose? A max weight limit? Height limit? Strength tests?

Yeah, it's all the fault of right wing extremists. ???? They're the ones to blame, not the rapists. The fact is, the police were slow to react due to the demographic of the Paedophiles. They feared being labeled as racists, Islamophobes etc. if they took any action. And they were probably right, as the Lefty apologists would have jumped all over it.

"Such animals"? Breed specific legislation? Don't be silly. It's nothing to do with the breed. Owners need to be educated on how to raise a dog. In isolated incidents like these the dog in question should be euthanized and the owner held accountable.

Producing a foreign passport should be an exemption from these stupid 2-5pm rules. Also an exemption for the ban on alcohol on election days/religious days when foreigners can't even vote and are generally not Buddhist (and if they are, they should still be allowed to choose). They have no problem discriminating against us with dual pricing etc. Why not flip the script on this one? Preventing a Catholic from having a glass of red wine with his meal because it's Makhu Bucha day sounds like Religious Bigotry to me.

Freudian slip. It's absolutely a social measure. It reminds everyone who is in charge and suppresses individuality, leaning more towards a collective notion of 'the greater good'. It also promotes the paternalistic style of governance that this mob in charge love so much, whilst providing the wearer the feeling of being a good, compliant little citizen a bit like a certain colour of shirt did a few years back. Anutin frequently doesn't wear one, which also serves to remind that he is above the law and doesn't have to wear his slave mask if he doesn't want to.

Back in the day we had a name for people who got sick from minimal amounts of weed. Lightweight.

Indeed. They are very selective about which rules they enforce and which ones are more, 'flexible'. Supporting Ukraine against the Russians? Flexible. Punishing Britain for leaving the club? Enforced with steely determination. Morality. EU style.

The EU. Unable to stop member states paying for Putin's gas in roubles, meanwhile pouring all it's resources into stopping Cumberland sausage ending up in Donegal. Their morality and ineptness laid bare for all to see. ???? Thank god we've left that corrupt mob.

For gods sake, could the mods post a sticky or whatever it is to clarify that the 0.2% applies only to extract. Buds are not extract. Ergo, the 0.2% does not apply to bud. https://lagunatreatment.com/drug-abuse/marijuana/buds-versus-extract/