Father's fury after his 13-year-old daughter was sent home from school for having £140 waist-length bright white dreadlocks

First topic message reminder :

Father's fury after his 13-year-old daughter was sent home from school for having £140 waist-length bright white dreadlocks




A furious father has branded his daughter's school racist after the 14-year-old girl was sent home after getting a dreadlock-style hair cut.

Chenise Benson, 14, claimed her friend of Jamaican origin was allowed by school authorities to keep a similar hair style.

Beyonce-fan Chenise, 14, had dreamed about getting exotic box-braids like the ex-Destiny's Child singer for months - but was left in tears at the school gates after staff wouldn't let her in.

Her friend Jamila, who is of Jamaican origin said their hair was exactly the same.

A policy document on the school's website states: 'Please note we do not allow extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring. Any hair accessories should be of a practical nature and should not be decorative.

'If you are in doubt please contact your child’s tutor at the school. Hair should be no shorter than a Grade 3 cut.

'Please be aware that what is and is not acceptable will be decided by the school in line with this policy and the school’s decision is final.

'Please note that in sending your child to George Pindar School that you are agreeing to ensure your child abides by this policy.

'If you have any queries or questions regarding any aspect of uniform, jewellery, hairstyle, please could you contact the school.'

Chenise's father Darren, 39, said: 'I'm not racist in any shape or form - but this is like racism against their own.

'Chenise is being picked out here because she's white - if she was black or mixed-race they wouldn't have a problem.

'Chenise's friend whose dad is Jamaican even told the teachers "look at my hair, I'm still allowed in".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3877806/Father-s-fury-daughter-13-sent-home-school-having-140-waist-length-bright-white-DREADLOCKS.html


I know I'm a stickler for school uniform and proper socks.....but this is ridiculous! How is her hair in any way a problem?

veya_victaous wrote:

Major wrote:

Matbe just maybe the Ausis should educate their people not to abuse the Aborigine people,just maybe  

If IF IF the UK advanced backwardz it would be many many years sinking to the Ausie depths of depravity of gang banging boomerz cus they cannot tell the difference between a Sheila and a boomer..

English, DO YOU SPEAK IT???

we could not be as backwards as you
this is a non issue in the Aussie education system
cause as wolf pointed out we care about shit that matters
this does not

Anyway
school is in breach of Western Principals of freedom, May as well be Sharia. What next demand she cover her face!!!
Destroy it and everything it stands for.. OR are you just the British version of a sharia lover

Stormee CAN speak English, depending on which of his split personas is writing at the time.
He demonstrates sound evidence of DID

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

Pefect congent written work when upset or angry, and shows his alter ego of black gangsta chav speak to impress.
Added to his extensive collection of snuff movies such as "slaughterhouse blues" and "confessions in an abbatoir", gives one an insight into his psyche.

Oh for goodness sake! Major has no "disorder" or anything else! He writes stupidly for fun - possibly his, who knows, and who fucking cares really?

I think the issue in this story is the fact that she got sent home and the Jamaican girl, with the same hairstyle, didn't.

veya_victaous wrote:

Major wrote:

Matbe just maybe the Ausis should educate their people not to abuse the Aborigine people,just maybe  

If IF IF the UK advanced backwardz it would be many many years sinking to the Ausie depths of depravity of gang banging boomerz cus they cannot tell the difference between a Sheila and a boomer..

English, DO YOU SPEAK IT???

we could not be as backwards as you
this is a non issue in the Aussie education system
cause as wolf pointed out we care about shit that matters
this does not

Anyway
school is in breach of Western Principals of freedom, May as well be Sharia. What next demand she cover her face!!!
Destroy it and everything it stands for.. OR are you just the British version of a sharia lover

The school is not in breach of Western Principles of freedom. They have a very clear code on what's acceptable and what is not, and clearly the girl is in breach of those rules. She has a lot of time when she's left school to mess about with her hair and to get a job when the employer likes white plaits.

eddie wrote:I think the issue in this story is the fact that she got sent home and the Jamaican girl, with the same hairstyle, didn't.

Is there a photo of the Jamaican girl? The issue isn't just the style, it's the colour and the fact that much of the hair is in fact not actually her hair at all.

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:You have mentioned her cheeks a few times now Quill, I'm glad her hair judge-dreads have made you see her in a better light  

Mmmm his comment that it "thins out her face " stood out a bit. No wonder so many young girls have body image problems

I agree. She shouldn't be worrying about the face shape she was born with. Quill is merely encouraging body image problems.

Original Quill wrote:Judging from the pictures, I like her hair in the dreads.  Improves her face...thins it out a bit.

sexists objectification of women

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You have mentioned her cheeks a few times now Quill, I'm glad her hair judge-dreads have made you see her in a better light  

Okay, here is Chenise's original look:



Go back and see how she looks with her plaits.



Thins out her face, right?  That cute chin looks downright svelte, eh?

so she goes from looking like a sweet little girl to

eddie wrote:I think the issue in this story is the fact that she got sent home and the Jamaican girl, with the same hairstyle, didn't.

does the jamaican girl have obviously fake hair in a style that is not allowed under the school rules? Does the jamaican girl even exist?

A sensible person would have checked with the school first before they encouraged such a drastic hairstyle. Better still, they would have actually read the school rules when the kid started there.

Jules wrote:

Ziz wrote:Sorry to be blunt, but I think her hair style is horrible. But much that teenagers are and do is horrible, so who cares?

She's a carefree teen, she'll probably cringe when she is older and looks back.



-------------------------------------------------------------

Syl wrote: .... I translate this to mean "I have had my 5 minutes of fame so her hair can go back to normal now".

Pssst ...  Aren't you forgetting something?
They did not just get 5 minutes if fame, they get a nice fat cheque too.
They deserve every penny, imo , they have earned it cos they provoked lively forum discussions
Well played.

There's no such thing as a "carefree teen".

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You have mentioned her cheeks a few times now Quill, I'm glad her hair judge-dreads have made you see her in a better light  

Yes, it's well-known that straight hair accents a round face:

What?

The reality is...the weight of those extensions will, over time, make her go bald. Also, they are that long, they could be a danger to her. One yank of one strand of those braids and it'll just rip it out from the roots.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Judging from the pictures, I like her hair in the dreads.  Improves her face...thins it out a bit.

sexists objectification of women

It was an awful comment. He's basically saying that her face is too fat - I bet he wouldn't say that in front of her.

HoratioTarr wrote:The reality is...the weight of those extensions will, over time, make her go bald.   Also, they are that long, they could be a danger to her.  One yank of one strand of those braids and it'll just rip it out from the roots.

I agree. They will probably damage her natural hair and damage her scalp. There are lots of clip-in plaits she could use if she wants to look a bit different out of school.

Raggamuffin wrote:A sensible person would have checked with the school first before they encouraged such a drastic hairstyle. Better still, they would have actually read the school rules when the kid started there.

a sensible parent would not have indulged a child in that way

HoratioTarr wrote:The reality is...the weight of those extensions will, over time, make her go bald.   Also, they are that long, they could be a danger to her.  One yank of one strand of those braids and it'll just rip it out from the roots.

plus in a month or so they will no longer be at the root of the hair.

We are all agreed, I think, that the hairstyle is awful and possibly dangerous (?) in certain circumstances, but the real question is....should the school have sent her home?

eddie wrote:We are all agreed, I think, that the hairstyle is awful and possibly dangerous (?) in certain circumstances, but the real question is....should the school have sent her home?

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

Ziz wrote:

eddie wrote:We are all agreed, I think, that the hairstyle is awful and possibly dangerous (?) in certain circumstances, but the real question is....should the school have sent her home?

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

Ah, sounds like whim rather than regulation then - the school should have sent both home or neither.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

no there isn't.

eddie wrote:We are all agreed, I think, that the hairstyle is awful and possibly dangerous (?) in certain circumstances, but the real question is....should the school have sent her home?

if they broke clearly posted school rules then yes. If it isn't in the rules then no.

I think we know which is the right answer there.

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

Does the other hairstyle consist of fake white plaits?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

Does the other hairstyle consist of fake white plaits?

Is taste the issue here?

eddie wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If a school rule exists which prohibits such hairstyles then yes.

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

Her Jamaican friend (who's family have wisely kept her out of this attention seeking ploy) will no doubt have natural wiry hair that often plaited or braided to control it.
So one girls hair is natural and the other girls hair is anything but.
Anyway this girl says she wanted to look like Beyoncé.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does the other hairstyle consist of fake white plaits?

Is taste the issue here?

No...rules are.

A policy document on the school's website states: 'Please note we do not allow extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring. Any hair accessories should be of a practical nature and should not be decorative.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does the other hairstyle consist of fake white plaits?

Is taste the issue here?

The issue is what constitutes "extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Is taste the issue here?

The issue is what constitutes "extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring".

An issue of taste then, as I suspected.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The issue is what constitutes "extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring".

An issue of taste then, as I suspected.

Nope...rules.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The issue is what constitutes "extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring".

An issue of taste then, as I suspected.

No. It's clear to me that fake white plaits are not natural, either in style or colouring.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

An issue of taste then, as I suspected.

Nope...rules.

Badly framed rule I suggest - perhaps they should simply say no dyed hair, wigs or extensions except for medical purposes - otherwise it sounds like a subjective judgement based on taste.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Nope...rules.

If the rules address colouring and naturalness then taste.

Well you could say that about uniforms, shoe styles, piercings, tattoos, in fact anything that a person chooses to adorn themselves with.
Would it be better iyo if rules (or taste if you prefer to say) did not apply in schools?

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

If the rules address colouring and naturalness then taste.

Well you could say that about uniforms, shoe styles, piercings, tattoos, in fact anything that a person chooses to adorn themselves with.
Would it be better iyo if rules (or taste if you prefer to say)  did not apply in schools?

See above - I hadn't quite finished.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well you could say that about uniforms, shoe styles, piercings, tattoos, in fact anything that a person chooses to adorn themselves with.
Would it be better iyo if rules (or taste if you prefer to say)  did not apply in schools?

See above - I hadn't quite finished.

Lol.....afterthoughts are often overlooked on forums....type (or in your case speak) quicker in future.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

See above - I hadn't quite finished.

Lol.....afterthoughts are often overlooked on forums....type (or in your case speak) quicker in future.

I'm old and slow now - but in my day...

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Lol.....afterthoughts are often overlooked on forums....type (or in your case speak) quicker in future.

I'm old and slow now - but in my day...

Yeah yeah.....

Personally her hair looks terrible. The difference between her and black peoples hair is their hair are suited to it.

Its like the little plaits black girls have all over their head, look lovely but on a white child would look ridiculous, their hair is very different.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

But there was already another pupil with the same hairstyle and that didn't seem to cause a problem.

Her Jamaican friend (who's family have wisely kept her out of this attention seeking ploy) will no doubt have natural wiry hair that often plaited or braided to control it.
So one girls hair is natural and the other girls hair is anything but.
Anyway this girl says she wanted to look like Beyoncé.

Now this looks nice, the colour and texture of the extentions look good. The girls hair looks like a wig and whats going on at the top of her wig, it looks so bad, im surprised she wasn't laughed at. He father really needs to stop pandering to her and see rules are rules and also protect his daughter from this instead of having her splashed across the papers. Smacks of look at me

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That wanting to be attractive is a timeless human trait, is a given.  We would not have begun combing our hair or inventing jewelry if it wasn't.  I can appreciate that it can be destructive as well.  

But the aesthetics of body image are the same aesthetics of a Michelangelo or a de Vinci.  Art can be competitive and destructive, but that's no reason to do away with art.  It's kind like the gun owners say, it's not what it is, it's how you use it.

The girl would not have gone to a hair dresser if she were not already concerned about her looks.  If you want to crusade against hair styles and hair styling, be my guest.  I'm just working within the child's reasoning: she wanted a better look.  She got it.

You didn't understand my point. (1) In the before pic she looks like a perfectly normal healthy child, she should be worried about changing her appearance to (2) what others perceive to be attractive or normal. (3) Your comments merely contribute to an atmosphere in which a 13 year old child has such worries in her head.

(1) Can you prove that she is normal by looking at that picture? Can you prove that she is healthy? If you can't prove it, you are dealing with a matter of taste, not health or normality.

(2) I think it what she wanted, not necessarily others.

(3) I think you are trying to lend credence to an argument of taste by bringing in all these issues about health, normalcy, and psychology, such as are talked about on those daytime TV shows aired after the kids are gone. It's just what you like versus what she likes. That's it.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

You didn't understand my point. (1) In the before pic she looks like a perfectly normal healthy child, she should be worried about changing her appearance to (2) what others perceive to be attractive or normal. (3) Your comments merely contribute to an atmosphere in which a 13 year old child has such worries in her head.

(1) Can you prove that she is normal by looking at that picture?  Can you prove that she is healthy?  If you can't prove it, you are dealing with a matter of taste, not health or normality.

(2) I think it what she wanted, not necessarily others.

(3) I think you are trying to lend credence to an argument of taste by bringing in all these issues about health, normalcy, and psychology, such as are talked about on those daytime TV shows aired after the kids are gone.  It's just what you like versus what she likes.  That's it.

The point is that congratulating a 13/14-year old on how her hairstyle slims down her face is not a good way to look at it. The implication is that she has a fat face, and that she should do everything she can to hide it or change it. At such an age, insecurities can be magnified, and making comments like you did will make that worse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

(1) Can you prove that she is normal by looking at that picture?  Can you prove that she is healthy?  If you can't prove it, you are dealing with a matter of taste, not health or normality.

(2) I think it what she wanted, not necessarily others.

(3) I think you are trying to lend credence to an argument of taste by bringing in all these issues about health, normalcy, and psychology, such as are talked about on those daytime TV shows aired after the kids are gone.  It's just what you like versus what she likes.  That's it.

The point is that congratulating a 13/14-year old on how her hairstyle slims down her face is not a good way to look at it. The implication is that she has a fat face, and that she should do everything she can to hide it or change it. At such an age, insecurities can be magnified, and making comments like you did will make that worse.

Here is an analogy: The implication of taking a bath or shower is that we smell and are probably untouchable (Compare: the implication of her hair change is "she has a fat face").  Whatever happened to wanting to present a nice appearance? On the one hand we have the bathing ethos of cleanliness and good hygiene, on the other we have the potential for a dented psyche.  You obviously side with not bathing so as not to damage the person's psyche.  I think that's pc crap and would throw it out with the garbage.

WTF...why not just say that we could improve, by bathing or by a hairstyle change, whatever the example.  Admit it, what you don't like is the style.  It's a matter of taste, and you are trying to boost your choice by linking it with a bunch of psycho-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo.  If the girl had gone in for a 3" bob, would you be saying her hair style will permanently damage her self-esteem?

Stick to the rules argument, or just say it: I don't like it!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that congratulating a 13/14-year old on how her hairstyle slims down her face is not a good way to look at it. The implication is that she has a fat face, and that she should do everything she can to hide it or change it. At such an age, insecurities can be magnified, and making comments like you did will make that worse.

Here is an analogy: The implication of taking a bath or shower is that we smell and are probably untouchable (Compare: the implication of her hair change is "she has a fat face").  Whatever happened to wanting to present a nice appearance?  On the one hand we have the bathing ethos of cleanliness and good hygiene, on the other we have the potential for a dented psyche.  You obviously side with not bathing so as not to damage the person's psyche.  I think that's pc crap and would throw it out with the garbage.

WTF...why not just say that we could improve, by bathing or by a hairstyle change, whatever the example.  Admit it, what you don't like is the style.  It's a matter of taste, and you are trying to boost your choice by linking it with a bunch of psycho-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo.  If the girl had gone in for a 3" bob, would you be saying her hair style will permanently damage her self-esteem?

Stick to the rules argument, or just say it: I don't like it!

The point is that the shape of her face is natural, and there is no comparison with not having a bath. I'm not saying her hairstyle will damage her self-esteem, I'm saying that people like you criticising the shape of her face will damage her self esteem. Trying to take the moral high ground here is not working for you because you just insulted the girl based on the shape of her face. Get a grip.

It's not a question of whether people like it or don't like it anyway.....it's a rule of the school that....

" we do not allow extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring. Any hair accessories should be of a practical nature and should not be decorative."

Syl wrote:It's not a question of whether people like it or don't like it anyway.....it's a rule of the school that....

" we do not allow extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring. Any hair accessories should be of a practical nature and should not be decorative."

Yes. I don't know why some people are constantly kicking against school rules. It's not an unreasonable rule at all, and the man should have checked before he let her have such an extreme hair style at such great expense. There's plenty of time for her to "look like Beyonce" when she's older - if she still wants to.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:It's not a question of whether people like it or don't like it anyway.....it's a rule of the school that....

" we do not allow extreme, unnatural hairstyles or colouring. Any hair accessories should be of a practical nature and should not be decorative."

Yes. I don't know why some people are constantly kicking against school rules. It's not an unreasonable rule at all, and the man should have checked before he let her have such an extreme hair style at such great expense. There's plenty of time for her to "look like Beyonce" when she's older - if she still wants to.

Exactly.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that congratulating a 13/14-year old on how her hairstyle slims down her face is not a good way to look at it. The implication is that she has a fat face, and that she should do everything she can to hide it or change it. At such an age, insecurities can be magnified, and making comments like you did will make that worse.

Here is an analogy: The implication of taking a bath or shower is that we smell and are probably untouchable (Compare: the implication of her hair change is "she has a fat face").  Whatever happened to wanting to present a nice appearance?  On the one hand we have the bathing ethos of cleanliness and good hygiene, on the other we have the potential for a dented psyche.  You obviously side with not bathing so as not to damage the person's psyche.  I think that's pc crap and would throw it out with the garbage.

WTF...why not just say that we could improve, by bathing or by a hairstyle change, whatever the example.  Admit it, what you don't like is the style.  It's a matter of taste, and you are trying to boost your choice by linking it with a bunch of psycho-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo.  If the girl had gone in for a 3" bob, would you be saying her hair style will permanently damage her self-esteem?

Stick to the rules argument, or just say it: I don't like it!

That sounds more like an definition of your post than anyone elses Quill.

I wouldn't take a massive huge wager on the fact that the Jamaican girl's hair was also extensions i.e. fake hair. Most black girls can't or don't grow their hair exceptionally long.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Here is an analogy: The implication of taking a bath or shower is that we smell and are probably untouchable (Compare: the implication of her hair change is "she has a fat face").  Whatever happened to wanting to present a nice appearance?  On the one hand we have the bathing ethos of cleanliness and good hygiene, on the other we have the potential for a dented psyche.  You obviously side with not bathing so as not to damage the person's psyche.  I think that's pc crap and would throw it out with the garbage.

WTF...why not just say that we could improve, by bathing or by a hairstyle change, whatever the example.  Admit it, what you don't like is the style.  It's a matter of taste, and you are trying to boost your choice by linking it with a bunch of psycho-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo.  If the girl had gone in for a 3" bob, would you be saying her hair style will permanently damage her self-esteem?

Stick to the rules argument, or just say it: I don't like it!

That sounds more like an definition of your post than anyone elses Quill.

Proof is in the pudding...I didn't bring up the psychological pc crap.  I was all for treating this for what it is...a passing fad, that takes teen-agers now and again.  

It's all about style, not this pc mumbo-jumbo about permanent emotional harm, etc., etc., etc.  This is the type of stuff you hear on daytime TV shows, after the hubby and kids are gone.  Shows like The View, Dr. Phil, The Dr. Oz Show, The Ellen Degeneres Show,
The Jerry Springer Show, Maury, and so one.

This is an issue about taste.  You don't like it...crissake, say so.  Don't give me this fook-all psycho shit.  No wonder your kids run away from home!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Here is an analogy: The implication of taking a bath or shower is that we smell and are probably untouchable (Compare: the implication of her hair change is "she has a fat face").  Whatever happened to wanting to present a nice appearance?  On the one hand we have the bathing ethos of cleanliness and good hygiene, on the other we have the potential for a dented psyche.  You obviously side with not bathing so as not to damage the person's psyche.  I think that's pc crap and would throw it out with the garbage.

WTF...why not just say that we could improve, by bathing or by a hairstyle change, whatever the example.  Admit it, what you don't like is the style.  It's a matter of taste, and you are trying to boost your choice by linking it with a bunch of psycho-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo.  If the girl had gone in for a 3" bob, would you be saying her hair style will permanently damage her self-esteem?

Stick to the rules argument, or just say it: I don't like it!

The point is that the shape of her face is natural, and there is no comparison with not having a bath. I'm not saying her hairstyle will damage her self-esteem, I'm saying that people like you criticising the shape of her face will damage her self esteem. Trying to take the moral high ground here is not working for you because you just insulted the girl based on the shape of her face. Get a grip.

So is body sweat. You smell...that's the reason you take a bath. We do lots of things like that...including styling the hair, shaving the legs and under the arms. Is it psychologically damaging to admit that?

Get off your high horse and admit it...it's a style you don't like. Big deal.