Merseyside school bans expensive coats to avoid 'poverty shaming'

A school in Merseyside has banned pupils from wearing expensive designer coats in a bid to stop "poverty-shaming" among its students.

In a letter to parents, Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead said pupils would not be allowed to wear branded coats such as Moncler, Pyrenex and Canada Goose.

Head teacher Rebekah Phillips said pupils and parents supported the move.

However, some people on Twitter have called the ban "absolutely ridiculous".

The labels banned by the school include children's sizes which sell for between £400 and £1,000.

The ban will be introduced after the Christmas holidays.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-46221556

There are a lot of schools in my area that do this. I think it’s fair and also a very practical idea.
I’d never send my children to school in designer gear, but then, I don’t buy expensive designer gear in the first place.

Makes sense to me. A good warm school coat shouldn't cost more than £30 to £50.

I saw that item. Isn't it a kind of enforced equality?

Original Quill wrote:I saw that item.  Isn't it a kind of enforced equality?

Nothing wrong in that in schooltime. It's one of the reasons school uniforms are worn,

Dumb idea, as exactly what benefit will this have?

Many people will be friends with some of the more well off children after they leave school.

What is going to happen then?

Society bans people what they wear or the work place?

You cannot hide what is a reality and if trying to shield children, that some are better off, is not dealing with that problem. It is again trying to push this under the carpet

I mean what are they going to do next, make parents only spend a certain amount on a haircut for their child?

That the kids have no flashy expensive bikes?

Stop them having any money on their pockets?

Where do they want to draw the line on this?

Hence this is not even uniform througout all apsects of wealth that some kids will have.

So it wont make a blind bit of difference, as many will as friends, visit each others houses.

Are then those parents meant to hide their houses and cars?

What kids wear out of school is their business. When they are in school they are there to learn, it's not a fashion parade.

I thought lefties were against telling others what they can and can't wear...!?

Syl wrote:What kids wear out of school is their business. When they are in school they are there to learn, it's not a fashion parade.

Are you going to ban their bikes, bags, shoes, trainers for sport etc?

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:What kids wear out of school is their business. When they are in school they are there to learn, it's not a fashion parade.

Are you going to ban their bikes, bags, shoes, trainers for sport etc?

No, if parents want to pay top prices for school sports kit more fool them, but the basic uniform, plus overcoat and shoes should be standard wear not designer.

Its not about shielding kids from realising some have more than others, it's about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and an equal uniform is a good way of doing that.

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:


Are you going to ban their bikes, bags, shoes, trainers for sport etc?

No, if parents want to pay top prices for school sports kit more fool them, but the basic uniform, plus overcoat and shoes should  be standard wear not designer.

Its not about shielding kids from realising some have more than others, it's about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and an equal  uniform is a good way of doing that.

You are missing the point on how to tackle poverty shaming.

This is coming from some better off kids, in how they treat others.

Wearing expensive clothes, is not shaming people

To claim that it is, frankly is absurd

What you do is get to the problem, where others tease and shame others

Hence its trying to shield kids, and doing nothing to tackle poverty shaming

Many kids, have a sense of togetherness, no matter what their wealth, gender, ethnicty, religion etc are. We certainly do not cover up the skin, the religious symbols of people, due to a fear of discrimination. We make it as open as possible and to understand each other.

This policy does the complete opposite and tries to make kids, the same, when they fundmentaly are not the same. They are all uniquely different

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:
No, if parents want to pay top prices for school sports kit more fool them, but the basic uniform, plus overcoat and shoes should  be standard wear not designer.

Its not about shielding kids from realising some have more than others, it's about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and an equal  uniform is a good way of doing that.

You are missing the point on how to tackle poverty shaming.

This is coming from some better off kids, in how they treat others.

Wearing expensive clothes, is not shaming people

To claim that it is, frankly is absurd

What you do is get to the problem, where others tease and shame others

Hence its trying to shield kids, and doing nothing to tackle poverty shaming

Many kids, have a sense of togetherness, no matter what their wealth, gender, ethnicty, religion are. We certainly do not cover up the skin, the religious symbols of people, due to a fear of discrimination. We make it as open as possible and to understand each other.

This policy does the complete opposite and tries to make kids, the same, when they fundmentaly are not the same. They are all uniquely different

Where did I mention anything about poverty shaming?
I said it's not about that, its about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and a standard uniform helps to do that...a minority swanning about in designer gear defeats the object imo.

We have opposing views re kids wearing uniforms in school, I think we have had this debate before, so we will agree to differ.

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:


You are missing the point on how to tackle poverty shaming.

This is coming from some better off kids, in how they treat others.

Wearing expensive clothes, is not shaming people

To claim that it is, frankly is absurd

What you do is get to the problem, where others tease and shame others

Hence its trying to shield kids, and doing nothing to tackle poverty shaming

Many kids, have a sense of togetherness, no matter what their wealth, gender, ethnicty, religion are. We certainly do not cover up the skin, the religious symbols of people, due to a fear of discrimination. We make it as open as possible and to understand each other.

This policy does the complete opposite and tries to make kids, the same, when they fundmentaly are not the same. They are all uniquely different

Where did I mention anything about poverty shaming?
I said it's not about that, its about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and a standard uniform helps to do that...a minority swanning about in designer gear defeats the object imo.

We have opposing views re kids wearing uniforms in school, I think we have had this debate before, so we will agree to differ.

That is the whole purpose for this ban.

Poverty shaming

That is why the school has done this

There is many schools that do not have a uniform, espcially in the US and to me have a greater sense of unity

The point is, you have to have uniform policies, which means teaching about diversity, which actually does include, about how well or not well off people are. To place a blanket over those with wealth. Is trying to promote a view, is wrong to be successful and wealthy

Which is absurd.

Openess, teaches about all walks of life, as all people are different

Hence to me there is no reason to place children in uniform and even more so this ban

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:


You are missing the point on how to tackle poverty shaming.

This is coming from some better off kids, in how they treat others.

Wearing expensive clothes, is not shaming people

To claim that it is, frankly is absurd

What you do is get to the problem, where others tease and shame others

Hence its trying to shield kids, and doing nothing to tackle poverty shaming

Many kids, have a sense of togetherness, no matter what their wealth, gender, ethnicty, religion are. We certainly do not cover up the skin, the religious symbols of people, due to a fear of discrimination. We make it as open as possible and to understand each other.

This policy does the complete opposite and tries to make kids, the same, when they fundmentaly are not the same. They are all uniquely different

Where did I mention anything about poverty shaming?
I said it's not about that, its about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and a standard uniform helps to do that...a minority swanning about in designer gear defeats the object imo.

We have opposing views re kids wearing uniforms in school, I think we have had this debate before, so we will agree to differ.

Ok... for your very same reasons... ban religious garb too...!!!


Yes...?


Or... are you all of a sudden goi g to say no... And that it is up to the individual as to what they choose to wear...!?

Kids shine and show individuality in the way they perform, the fact that they are wearing a uniform wont hinder them.
I dont really agree with the reason the Merseyside school has given for banning expensive designer coats, there is no shame in being poor and there is no superiority in being rich, not in school, where  kids succeed more from how they are than from how much they have.

A uniform bonds kids, gives a sense of community  and  encourages them to be proud of the school, it also takes the emphasis off trying to outshine anyone else ...like i said school is for learning not for flaunting the latest fashion.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Where did I mention anything about poverty shaming?
I said it's not about that, its about giving schoolkids a sense of togetherness, and a standard uniform helps to do that...a minority swanning about in designer gear defeats the object imo.

We have opposing views re kids wearing uniforms in school, I think we have had this debate before, so we will agree to differ.

Ok... for your very same reasons... ban religious garb too...!!!


Yes...?


Or... are you all of a sudden goi g to say no... And that it is up to the individual as to what they choose to wear...!?

What are you on about?
I was arguing the other week that it was wrong for M&S to be selling hijabs for children as young as four years old in their school uniform range.

If my points are kids should wear the school uniform then why would you think I would make exeptions for religious grounds?

Syl wrote:Kids shine and show individuality in the way they perform, the fact that they are wearing a uniform wont hinder them.
I dont really agree with the reason the Merseyside school has given for banning expensive designer coats, there is no shame in being poor and there is no superiority in being rich, not in school, where  kids succeed more from how they are than from how much they have.

A uniform bonds kids, gives a sense of community  and  encourages them to be proud of the school, it also takes the emphasis off trying to outshine anyone else ...like i said school is for learning not for flaunting the latest fashion.

So if a uniform wont hinder them, why then need one in the first place?
The view that you are suggesting is only a uniform will bond children and create a sense of community
Many schools do not have a uniform, where they bond and are proud of their school

So that is a very moot point

The uniform is more about the school showing this off to others. Which kind of contradicts the point around shaming does it not?

Those schools are completely out to out do other schools, to be one of the best

Hence that uniform is a symbol, of a view, to look and be better than others.

The schools with uniforms, as thus very guilty, of trying to show off their children, as being as a better school

Its simple advertizement

So it takes no emphasis off trying to outshine others, when schools are constantly competiting with each other

There is nothing wrong with healthy competetion, which is why a uniform is not even required, as its the individuals that excel in whatever they do. 

All a school needs or requires, is a good education system. Good teachers and good discipline.

You dont require a uniform for any of the above, to have a great school

I didn't say only a uniform will bond kids and create a sense of community, but it helps.

Why shouldn't schools want to be the best they can be? People choose a school in the first place so their kids will get the best education possible for them, so in a way they are competing against other schools, nothing wrong with that.
I was proud to wear my school uniform and be identified as belonging to a certain school, granted it's a long time ago, but kids are still kids....and imo NOT wearing a uniform has  disadvantages....I have already  pointed out the advantages.

Syl wrote:I didn't say only a uniform will bond kids and create a sense of community, but it helps.

Why shouldn't schools want to be the best they can be? People choose a school in the first place so their kids will get the best education possible for them, so in a way they are competing against other schools, nothing wrong with that.
I was proud to wear my school uniform and be identified as belonging to a certain school, granted it's a long time ago, but kids are still kids....and imo NOT wearing a uniform has  disadvantages....I have already  pointed out the advantages.

You are not providing any evidence or statistical information Syl

You are simple making a blanket statement on uniforms

I never said schools should not want to be better than other schools

What did I say?

That I think healthy competetion is good

The reality is, my view, is that the same principle on shaming can be applied to wearing uniforms, based on the fact the school wants to look better than other schools.

There is only one single advantage of wearing a uniform

If sadly a kid has an accident and they thus know where that kid goes to school

That is it

The views you claimed, are all relative to schools that do not have uniforms

Personally kids should feel as comfortable as possible in what they wear at school when learning and for many they are not comfortable in uniforms

That then is a down side to uniform

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:I didn't say only a uniform will bond kids and create a sense of community, but it helps.

Why shouldn't schools want to be the best they can be? People choose a school in the first place so their kids will get the best education possible for them, so in a way they are competing against other schools, nothing wrong with that.
I was proud to wear my school uniform and be identified as belonging to a certain school, granted it's a long time ago, but kids are still kids....and imo NOT wearing a uniform has  disadvantages....I have already  pointed out the advantages.

You are not providing any evidence or statistical information Syl

You are simple making a blanket statement on uniforms

I never said schools should not want to be better than other schools

What did I say?

That I think healthy competetion is good

The reality is, my view, is that the same principle on shaming can be applied to wearing uniforms, based on the fact the school wants to look better than other schools.

There is only one single advantage of wearing a uniform

If sadly a kid has an accident and they thus know where that kid goes to school

That is it

The views you claimed, are all relative to schools that do not have uniforms

Personally kids should feel as comfortable as possible in what they wear at school when learning and for many they are not comfortable

That then is a down side to uniform

Have you provided evidence and statistics?
We are giving opinions, and ours are at polar opposites when it comes to the wearing of school uniforms.

The comfort point is important though I agree. A uniform should consist of a choice of skirts and trousers, short pants if boys prefer, but it should be a choice. Jumper, shirt, tie, flat shoes, overcoat or jacket depending on the weather, all in the school colours.....there is nothing uncomfortable in that.

Would you prefer them to roll up in joggers...or for ultimate comfort pj's?

Speaking of pj's..off to sleep, night Didge.x

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:


You are not providing any evidence or statistical information Syl

You are simple making a blanket statement on uniforms

I never said schools should not want to be better than other schools

What did I say?

That I think healthy competetion is good

The reality is, my view, is that the same principle on shaming can be applied to wearing uniforms, based on the fact the school wants to look better than other schools.

There is only one single advantage of wearing a uniform

If sadly a kid has an accident and they thus know where that kid goes to school

That is it

The views you claimed, are all relative to schools that do not have uniforms

Personally kids should feel as comfortable as possible in what they wear at school when learning and for many they are not comfortable

That then is a down side to uniform

Have you provided evidence and statistics?
We are giving opinions, and ours are at polar opposites when it comes to the wearing of school uniforms.

The comfort point is important though I agree. A uniform should consist of a choice  of skirts and trousers, short pants if boys prefer, but it should be a choice. Jumper, shirt, tie, flat shoes,  overcoat or jacket depending on the weather, all in the school colours.....there is nothing uncomfortable in that.

Would you prefer them to roll up in joggers...or for ultimate comfort pj's?

I dont need to provide evidence, when there are many schools that excel without uniforms

Its because they have good teaching methods, good teachers etc

You are supposed to present evidence, that it is better to have uniforms

You have not done so

I offered the only valid reason and in one situation it could be better

Again if schools do as well without uniforms, then there is no need to have them in the first place

The uniforms, are more about how the school wants to look and denying any individuality within a child

Syl wrote:Speaking of pj's..off to sleep, night Didge.x

Night Syl

x

Wait a minute, nobody in their right mind argues that children should enjoy the same freedoms of choice as adults do.

Otherwise we'd let children drink, smoke, decide if they want to go to school or not, etc.

We constantly try to make decisions that are best for children's upbringing. What should they learn, what environment should they be in, what should they be exposed to and at what age, when to protect them and when to stop protecting them.

Taking all that into consideration, the school is doing what it thinks will be best for the children it educates, and as a school teaches lessons, let's look at a few of the positive lessons this policy could teach. I don't necessarily mean all these things will be explicitly spelled out to kids - it's more of a subconscious thing in many cases:

* It could teach the poor kids that they're just as good as the rich kids

* It could teach the rich kids they're no better than the poor kids

Those are huge lessons. It's just as bad to look up to someone because of what they have as it is to look down on someone because of what they lack.

I predicted conservatives would have a bigger problem with this than liberals, because while liberals might say, "let the kids wear what they want, individual expression!", conservatives see this as a slap to what they think is "natural" - that if you have more money, you're better than those who don't.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Wait a minute, nobody in their right mind argues that children should enjoy the same freedoms of choice as adults do.

Otherwise we'd let children drink, smoke, decide if they want to go to school or not, etc.

We constantly try to make decisions that are best for children's upbringing. What should they learn, what environment should they be in, what should they be exposed to and at what age, when to protect them and when to stop protecting them.

Taking all that into consideration, the school is doing what it thinks will be best for the children it educates, and as a school teaches lessons, let's look at a few of the positive lessons this policy could teach. I don't necessarily mean all these things will be explicitly spelled out to kids - it's more of a subconscious thing in many cases:

* It could teach the poor kids that they're just as good as the rich kids

* It could teach the rich kids they're no better than the poor kids

Those are huge lessons. It's just as bad to look up to someone because of what they have as it is to look down on someone because of what they lack.

I predicted conservatives would have a bigger problem with this than liberals, because while liberals might say, "let the kids wear what they want, individual expression!", conservatives see this as a slap to what they think is "natural" - that if you have more money, you're better than those who don't.

So based on your reasoning on kids being discriminated against or bullied, you want to cover up all different minorities, religious, genders from each other. As that is the bases for the argument being made on clothes here

Its not the parents deciding but the school deciding on what is being worn and off a mistaken belief this will stop shaming

Its utterly absurd to claim

Some kids will shame others, no matter whether in rich or poor clothes. Neutralizing the clothes will not do anything to stop that shaming. What will is teaching kids to respect each other

When what you do with any shaming, is tackle the problem at its very core, the people doing this

The view that clothing that is more expensive as a problem, is nothing more than some warped leftist belief, that somehow its wrong to be rich. That to wear clothes of the rich, makes someone feel bad

In other words, the left want to do the right thing by embracing all aspects of what they see as good.

Diversity, but stop short on what they see as evil, people better off. So they do not embrace that these people are differeny but have them shunned

Love the backwards thinking of the left

I had very little when growing up and when I saw things my parents could not afford. It made me get out and have a paper round and earn my own money. It made me save and learn the value of money and not to spend it willie nillie

So I looked up to the fact that people better off, have done so through working hard and success. That is a good thing, as it instills confidence in people to better their lives.

So to say to look up to someone is bad, is like saying its bad to look up to our parents and older siblings

In other words, what a load of bollocks

I certainly knew the reasoning behind this by the left was to view people better off as somehow bad and evil

You tackle problems where people shame, by teaching how that is wrong. But covering up what they are, is not helping people understanding people are different and come from different walks of life. You dont need to stop people wearing clothes, that is more expensive to show they are equally valued.

I mean what are you going to do to equalize Black and white kids?

Paint them all the same colour?

Its the same dumb view that has been introduced with gender neutral schools

Its a poor experiment which is going to mess up the minds of many kids

Stop trying to deny the differences between people with poor leftist daft experiments. Just teach people are different and to respect each other.

Oh and by the by, me being the conservative, was the one advocating for allowing children to wear what they want, to feel as comfortable as possible

There are plenty of rich family kids who don't choose to wear expensive/flash/designer coats to school... And there are plenty of poorer family kids who do like to try to have these type of coats etc...


Some kids might be poor but have done extra chores or some sort of work and/or saved up hard to have been able to afford to buy themselves a nice coat of their own choice to be able to wear and feel good about themselves wearing etc...


Some kids get chauffeur driven to and from school by their parents in expensive luxury cars... while others have to walk or get the bus...


Should the school ban that too...!?

It's strange how some kids like to show off about how much money has been spent on something, but many adults like to say how little they spent on something.

Isn't it better to teach kids that all coats are equal, regardless of how much they cost?

The whole point of a school uniform is so that everyone looks the same and nobody looks better than anyone else or feels inferior.

HoratioTarr wrote:The whole point of a school uniform is so that everyone looks the same and nobody looks better than anyone else or feels inferior.

So what colour have you decided upon, to paint the school kids the same as?

Also what hairstyle have you chosen that they all must have?

Are you then going to have all children have plastic surgery, to make them near also possible looking the same?

Do see how ridiculous that argument is, when all kids are uniquely different. As why try to make them look the same, when they are different.

Rather over the top response there. In as have already been expressed
School children should be concentrating on their work not thinking about their ensemble for tomorrow. Hair should be styled simply and off the face, jewellery kept to stud earrings if they must be worn.
What they wear at home or outside school is they and their parents problem . A uniform is hardly trying to clone them. Maybe nurses should wear what they like too, provided its clean.

Vintage wrote:Rather over the top response there. In as have already been expressed
School children should be concentrating on their work not thinking about their ensemble for tomorrow. Hair should be styled simply and off the face, jewellery kept to stud earrings if they must be worn.
What they wear at home or outside school is they and their parents problem . A uniform is hardly trying to clone them. Maybe nurses should wear what they like too, provided its clean.

How is it over the top, when the view expressed is make all school children look the same?

In other words, a school uniform will never hope to achieve this and hence is meaningless

So how can a child not then conentrate on education, based on what they wear?

Sorry, to burst your bubble, but what you think is best, may not be best for every single individual in how they learn and study

As Nurses, they choose that profession, children have no choice to go to school

Kids should be as comfortable as possible when learning and uniforms, do not help achieve that

There's nothing wrong with uniforms for schools, we wore them, we were in the same clothes but it didn't make us any less individuals.
It's good to learn to be part of something while being individual and uniforms can be uniting.
It was a lot easier for my parents as well.
I don't see why its any different for education than for a job, it doesn't hurt you. .

Vintage wrote:There's nothing wrong with uniforms for schools, we wore them, we were in the same clothes but it didn't make us any less individuals.
It's good to learn to be part of something while being individual and uniforms can be uniting.
It was a lot easier for my parents as well.  
I don't see why its any different for education than for a job, it doesn't hurt you. .

That is your personal view point but to many, they are a problem and uncomfortable when learning

How are they not part of the school, if not in uniform?

Are you saying in sports, they do not respresent the school, as it does not have a school uniform?

The school uniform is nothing more than advertizement for the school

It serves little purpose for the school children themselves and everything about the image for the school itself. Hence its a marketing gimic

A job is a choice that people go into willingly, a child has no choice over school

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Wait a minute, nobody in their right mind argues that children should enjoy the same freedoms of choice as adults do.

Otherwise we'd let children drink, smoke, decide if they want to go to school or not, etc.

We constantly try to make decisions that are best for children's upbringing. What should they learn, what environment should they be in, what should they be exposed to and at what age, when to protect them and when to stop protecting them.

Taking all that into consideration, the school is doing what it thinks will be best for the children it educates, and as a school teaches lessons, let's look at a few of the positive lessons this policy could teach. I don't necessarily mean all these things will be explicitly spelled out to kids - it's more of a subconscious thing in many cases:

* It could teach the poor kids that they're just as good as the rich kids

* It could teach the rich kids they're no better than the poor kids

Those are huge lessons. It's just as bad to look up to someone because of what they have as it is to look down on someone because of what they lack.

I predicted conservatives would have a bigger problem with this than liberals, because while liberals might say, "let the kids wear what they want, individual expression!", conservatives see this as a slap to what they think is "natural" - that if you have more money, you're better than those who don't.

So based on your reasoning on kids being discriminated against or bullied, you want to cover up all different minorities, religious, genders from each other. As that is the bases for the argument being made on clothes here

Its not the parents deciding but the school deciding on what is being worn and off a mistaken belief this will stop shaming

Its utterly absurd to claim

Some kids will shame others, no matter whether in rich or poor clothes. Neutralizing the clothes will not do anything to stop that shaming. What will is teaching kids to respect each other

When what you do with any shaming, is tackle the problem at its very core, the people doing this

The view that clothing that is more expensive as a problem, is nothing more than some warped leftist belief, that somehow its wrong to be rich. That to wear clothes of the rich, makes someone feel bad

In other words, the left want to do the right thing by embracing all aspects of what they see as good.

Diversity, but stop short on what they see as evil, people better off. So they do not embrace that these people are differeny but have them shunned

Love the backwards thinking of the left

I had very little when growing up and when I saw things my parents could not afford. It made me get out and have a paper round and earn my own money. It made me save and learn the value of money and not to spend it willie nillie

So I looked up to the fact that people better off, have done so through working hard and success. That is a good thing, as it instills confidence in people to better their lives.

So to say to look up to someone is bad, is like saying its bad to look up to our parents and older siblings

In other words, what a load of bollocks

I certainly knew the reasoning behind this by the left was to view people better off as somehow bad and evil

You tackle problems where people shame, by teaching how that is wrong. But covering up what they are, is not helping people understanding people are different and come from different walks of life. You dont need to stop people wearing clothes, that is more expensive to show they are equally valued.

I mean what are you going to do to equalize Black and white kids?

Paint them all the same colour?

Its the same dumb view that has been introduced with gender neutral schools

Its a poor experiment which is going to mess up the minds of many kids

Stop trying to deny the differences between people with poor leftist daft experiments. Just teach people are different and to respect each other.

Oh and by the by, me being the conservative, was the one advocating for allowing children to wear what they want, to feel as comfortable as possible

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rich people by and large don't pull themselves up out of poverty. That's a huge myth that y'all on the right are so in love with, but you need to reconsider this ridiculous notion.

In general, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Now, I can understand how you, as a capitalist shill, would not want to see demand for overpriced gimmicky clothing drop. After all, you look up to and admire these hucksters, and let's face it -- they need all the help they can get

No, I applaud this school for making itself a place where capitalist preening and prancing and envy-mongering is off limits. Let kids be tormented by that shit somewhere else. School should be an environment for learning, as free of distractions as possible.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


So based on your reasoning on kids being discriminated against or bullied, you want to cover up all different minorities, religious, genders from each other. As that is the bases for the argument being made on clothes here

Its not the parents deciding but the school deciding on what is being worn and off a mistaken belief this will stop shaming

Its utterly absurd to claim

Some kids will shame others, no matter whether in rich or poor clothes. Neutralizing the clothes will not do anything to stop that shaming. What will is teaching kids to respect each other

When what you do with any shaming, is tackle the problem at its very core, the people doing this

The view that clothing that is more expensive as a problem, is nothing more than some warped leftist belief, that somehow its wrong to be rich. That to wear clothes of the rich, makes someone feel bad

In other words, the left want to do the right thing by embracing all aspects of what they see as good.

Diversity, but stop short on what they see as evil, people better off. So they do not embrace that these people are differeny but have them shunned

Love the backwards thinking of the left

I had very little when growing up and when I saw things my parents could not afford. It made me get out and have a paper round and earn my own money. It made me save and learn the value of money and not to spend it willie nillie

So I looked up to the fact that people better off, have done so through working hard and success. That is a good thing, as it instills confidence in people to better their lives.

So to say to look up to someone is bad, is like saying its bad to look up to our parents and older siblings

In other words, what a load of bollocks

I certainly knew the reasoning behind this by the left was to view people better off as somehow bad and evil

You tackle problems where people shame, by teaching how that is wrong. But covering up what they are, is not helping people understanding people are different and come from different walks of life. You dont need to stop people wearing clothes, that is more expensive to show they are equally valued.

I mean what are you going to do to equalize Black and white kids?

Paint them all the same colour?

Its the same dumb view that has been introduced with gender neutral schools

Its a poor experiment which is going to mess up the minds of many kids

Stop trying to deny the differences between people with poor leftist daft experiments. Just teach people are different and to respect each other.

Oh and by the by, me being the conservative, was the one advocating for allowing children to wear what they want, to feel as comfortable as possible

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rich people by and large don't pull themselves up out of poverty. That's a huge myth that y'all on the right are so in love with, but you need to reconsider this ridiculous notion.

In general, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Now, I can understand how you, as a capitalist shill, would not want to see demand for overpriced gimmicky clothing drop. After all, you look up to and admire these hucksters, and let's face it -- they need all the help they can get

No, I applaud this school for making itself a place where capitalist preening and prancing and envy-mongering is off limits. Let kids be tormented by that shit somewhere else. School should be an environment for learning, as free of distractions as possible.

1) Gibberish, where is your evidence for that?

2) In general you are brainwashed I guess to believe that. The reality is the majority of people in the US do end up bettering their lives. What you pomoted is as usual the lefty bullshit lie as per usual

3) Did you mean shrill? I admire and look up to many people. That is what many people do everyday. It is what inspires people to be doctors, nurses, fireman, Policeman etc. The reality, is you think this somehow a bad thing and again based on nothing more than a rather twisted hatred of people who are wealthy. When they have done nothing wrong to you

4) So that is what it boils down to like I said, this has nothing to do with the children, but a hatred of capitalism. As the reality is claiming that clothes is shaming people, is going against diversity itself. On the one hand lefties want to embrace boys and girls to wear what they want to wear but only if it does not have a big price tag. They fail to see that shaming comes from people themselves and as seen here, you have a pretty hateful view point towards others. That simple and only comes from envy.

So no link

Anyone can post a graph without a single stats behind them

Another poor lefty tactic

I mean why on earth does the US draw to its country so many immigrants all the time?

Come over here with that attitude you wont last long mate

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

A school in Merseyside has banned pupils from wearing expensive designer coats in a bid to stop "poverty-shaming" among its students.

In a letter to parents, Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead said pupils would not be allowed to wear branded coats such as Moncler, Pyrenex and Canada Goose.

Head teacher Rebekah Phillips said pupils and parents supported the move.

However, some people on Twitter have called the ban "absolutely ridiculous".

The labels banned by the school include children's sizes which sell for between £400 and £1,000.

The ban will be introduced after the Christmas holidays.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-46221556

Any parents who put their child in a £1,000 coat for school has an agenda. Or maybe they need their bumps felt!

Like most English words, the word 'uniform' has latin /old french roots:-
uni-form / uniformis / uniforme = of one form.  ie everyone should dress as one. . . . . the same.

(ok, the coat is not part of the official uniform but it should still adhere to certain restrictions & parameters. Well done to the school for enforcing this.)

I can't even remember what kind of coat I wore to school. Nobody wore their coats whilst at school anyway. I'm seeing kids out and about now with bare legs when it's freezing!

If I have this correctly, school sports do have a uniform we did.
How are school uniforms uncomfortable when they are practically the same design as non uniform clothes,
skirts tick
trousers tick
blouse/shirt tick
polo shirt tick
socks tick
shoes tick
jumper/cardigan tick
jacket/blazer tick

Vintage wrote:If I have this correctly, school sports do have a uniform we did.
How are school uniforms uncomfortable when they are practically the same design as non uniform clothes,
skirts tick
trousers tick
blouse/shirt tick
polo shirt tick
socks tick
shoes tick
jumper/cardigan tick
jacket/blazer tick

Not necessarily, they normally have plain coloured shirts, many without the school symbol
Shirts, uncomfortable for the neck, espcially with a tie. I hate wearing shits tied up at the neck
Blouse, same problem
Polo shirt is not uniform in many schools
No such thing as school uniform socks, they just specify normally some colours
Jumper no problem
Blazer, uncomfortable again, also horrible when wet

Again that list is great for you, its not for many others and again, there is no benefit for children to wear uniform

The only benefit is for the school itself through advertizement

This isn't about uniforms though, it's about designer coats and "poverty shaming". What does it matter if someone wears a designer coat? I can't tell the difference tbh - they don't seem any nicer than any other coat.

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about uniforms though, it's about designer coats and "poverty shaming". What does it matter if someone wears a designer coat? I can't tell the difference tbh - they don't seem any nicer than any other coat.

There is no real difference Rags and this is more a political issue being made here, as I said earlier

Shaming from people will happen, no matter what people wear.

Hence you tackle the problem at its core, the people doing the shaming and teach them to respect others.

we should teach those without nice things to just say (if any rich kid, wearing designer gear looks down on them and makes remarks)

''you know what, your parents obviously know that you need expensive stuff to make you feel good about yourself, and I can see why, but luckily, I already feel good about myself''

or words to that effect.

I would like to know what the school would do. If one of the rich kids, actually looks up to a friend, who has far less and gives them their coat to keep. As that child has no coat.

Would they stop that kid from wearing this?