Skip to comments.Teacher orders boy, 10, to remove Help for Heroes wristband worn in memory of Lee Rigby
Posted on 03/12/2014 8:08:34 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Teacher orders boy, 10, to remove Help for Heroes wristband worn in memory of Lee Rigby 'because it might cause offence'
By Mark Duell
PUBLISHED: 04:33 EST, 12 March 2014
A teacher allegedly ordered a 10-year-old boy to take off his Help for Heroes wristband because it could cause offence.
Tracy Tew was shocked when her son Charlie was put on a report card at Maldon Primary School in Essex after he refused to take off the charity rubber bracelet sold to honour injured soldiers.
Charlie wears the wristband - bought at the Colchester Military Festival - in honour of murdered solider Lee Rigby and service personnel in his family, including his great-granddad and uncle.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Tracy Tew's son Charlie was put on report card at Maldon Primary School
Refused to take off charity rubber bracelet sold to honour injured soldiers
Charlie wears item in honour of Rigby and service personnel in his family
Mrs Tew, 38, says: 'We are really proud of Charlie for sticking to his guns'
Essex school insists wearing any wristband is against its jewellery policy
H4H 'haven't heard of any health and safety incident connected to them'
‘because it might cause offence’
The dumb teacher brought MORE attention to it by objecting to it...
It’s becoming time to “offend back” the Obamaholes who are “offended”.
They get offended.
We out offend them by 10 dB. (Look it up, libtards.)
England is case in point. Abandon God and the pagans will fall against you, just ask the Ancient Israelites. Muslims now run the UK, and they’ll be setting up pedophile summer camps in the fall.
Muzzy Common Core type schools can’t have an infidel reminding the public that their kind ran a soldier down and then proceeded to stab and hack him to death with blades. No, no that’s politically incorrect to accuse your Muslim brethren of doing that when it was viewed by witnesses in public areas.
Active defiance is needed. Refuse to comply.
Islam is evil and must be eradicated
I’d beat that heifer with a frying pan.
When I was in elementary school, kids had Vietnam POWs bracelets, then again, we didn’t have the right not to be offended but none of us knew anything about Vietnam either.
I get the feeling that today, teachers force their views on kids so kids know GWB was evil and Odinga is their master.
When will we start telling these idiots:
“AND I’M OFFENDED BY YOUR STUPIDITY! SO THE WRISTBAND STAYS!”
Can teachers be removed for being offensive?
Goodness gracious, not to give “offense”.
Especially to the homocidal maniacs who are Muslims and recent imports to Old Blighty.
I wish Alfred the Great, or Longshanks, or some other REAL Briton could arise from the grave, expel all those monsters and deal with his own people who have become so pusillanimous and cowardly.
Anything that is patriotic or supports Western culture is “Offensive” to immigrants. What does it say about the immigrants?
“because it could cause offence”
Perhaps the teacher “offended” the boy by telling him to remove it? Do you think that stupid twit thought of THAT?
Yeah, might as well give ‘em a real reason. If that was me in the 4th or 5th grade, I might have told the teacher to “eat me”.
'Could cause offence': Tracy Tew was shocked when her son Charlie was put on a report card at Maldon Primary School in Essex after he refused to take off the charity rubber bracelet sold to honour injured soldiers
I read the whole article, at the beginning it says something about someone (and never says who) might be offended. Then later the article quotes the Headteacher Tracy Thornton insisted wearing wristbands is against the schools jewellery policy.
So which one is it? Apparently they can’t get their stupid reasons together.
Eradication of Islam will first require the nuclear obliteration of Mecca, the Kaaba, the cursed Black Stone (which is nothing but pieces), the Grand Mosque; followed by the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa mosque, the cities of Qom & Qarbala (where pious muzzies bloody themselves) & the cave of the Twelfth Imam.
Just for starters. Muzzies mean to conquer the world even if by murdering one “infidel” at a time. They’ll never stop.
Would love to see a headline in the Daily Mail “Muslim attackers beaten to death by angry counterattackers shouting `Drummer Rigby!’”.
Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
So the boy is honoring an innocent person murdered by a subhuman bearded savages, and is disciplined.
The school has taken the side of the humanoid fanatical murderer.
And in other news.
Judge sets hearing on request to drop some charges against Boston Marathon bombing suspect
Published March 12, 2014
| Associated Press
BOSTON A hearing on a request to dismiss some of the charges against the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect will be held a year and a day after the deadly blasts.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR’ tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) also wants a judge to lift special restrictions placed on him while he awaits trial.
The teacher has NO right to object to something like a bracelet unless ALL children are forbidden to wear bracelets.
The only person “offended” was this Muslim-loving teacher.
because they do have a school policy, this is all the teacher should have said... she was dumb to say anything about it possibly causing offence... all she had to do was enforce the school policy...
all children are forbidden... other than watches and tiny studs, no jewelry is allowed... including wristbands... according to the article...
It’s expected. It’s the UK after all.
Good for him. A well educated and smart boy. Stand defiant in the face of idiocy.
There is functionally no difference between a rubber wrist band and a wrist watch. In fact, a watch is more dangerous because it wouldn't stretch if caught on a fixed object. The "safety" argument is pure liberal BS.
I’m offended that there might be offense to it. Apparently “no speech” for some equals “free speech” for others in their tyrannical little minds.
a cast iron one
You read the abuses every day.
Cinco de Mayo - no American Flag shirts allowed
Kid with knife in emergency kit, locked in car - expelled.
Make a gun with your finger - suspended, put on FBI watch list.
and on and on!!
This teacher should be fired.
Indeed it is.
Chapter 3 Liberalism Is a Sin
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because WITHIN IT ARE COMPREHENDED ALL HERESIES. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejectedfrom the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.
Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truthor a truth consequent upon Revelationby its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.
It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, “I will not serve.” Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellectnot to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.
When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.
We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator.
If the teacher had said to take it off because of the no jewelry rule than that’s one thing but to take it off because it might offend someone is another thing. But, hey, because of her probably taking offense it’s making headlines around the world, tee hee.
Did this school have any peaceniks in the 1960s who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War or nuclear arms as there were among American yutes?
As I told my students back when I was teaching, they were free to do anything they wanted in my classroom... including breaking the rules... as long as they were willing to accept the consequences. Charley was being disobedient (and likely not polite about it, given the age)... but he apparently was wiling to take the consequences for his stand. That’s making a good young adult - something schools generally are not adept at doing these days.
i didn't make the rules... and i didn't sign up for them by sending my child there... as a matter of fact, i would never send my children to any government school...
If it was a “I had gay sex” wristband he would be a national media star by now
i agree... as i said, as a conservative, i would never send my children to any government school...
Britons should rise up and drive thse beasts from their land!