Sydney wrote:
lol school uniforms.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Everything Else »
- UK Schools to switch to "Clip-on" ties over safety fears
ties have outlived their usefulness
When were they useful?jsnipy wrote:
ties have outlived their usefulness
They are the most random and useless piece of clothing ever... but I don't really mind wearing one, especially if you do it everyday.
Never underestimate a well-played "look at my bow-tie" squirt water in your face moment. It's one of my go to moves to impress the ladies. Bonus crotch wetness if you can give a Pee-wee Herman giggle afterwards.jsnipy wrote:
ties have outlived their usefulness
Try going into business without a tie.VicktorVauhn wrote:
When were they useful?jsnipy wrote:
ties have outlived their usefulness
They are the most random and useless piece of clothing ever... but I don't really mind wearing one, especially if you do it everyday.
I bet there's a way to use clip-on ties as a weapon.
YeahDesertFox- wrote:
They actually mix blue with black?SEREVENT wrote:
Blue blazer
White Shirt
Tie
Black Trousers
Black Shoes
Pretty much the same, its those blazers and shoes that are the most uncomfortable
I used to have to wear a clip-on for work, until they changed our uniform (Thank God). It wasn't too bad, though, I just don't like formal wear.
And I had to wear a uniform in the primary and secondary school I went to (except for 6th form). It wasn't bad, and after the first year or two they became less lenient on the shoes you wore, so that's how people "separated" themselves into groups.
That is unless you were one of the skater/punk rebels who just wore what they wanted.
And I had to wear a uniform in the primary and secondary school I went to (except for 6th form). It wasn't bad, and after the first year or two they became less lenient on the shoes you wore, so that's how people "separated" themselves into groups.
That is unless you were one of the skater/punk rebels who just wore what they wanted.
Not when you get to choose what school you go to.....mikkel wrote:
When schooling is mandatory, I can't say that I agree with you on that.Mekstizzle wrote:
Well actually it's the schools themselves that are switching, and the schools have every right to dictate what you wear.mikkel wrote:
Nothing like the government dictating what you wear.
Euros are a bunch of fops anyway.
You're still paying for these mandated dress codes through your taxes, aren't you?Bertster7 wrote:
Not when you get to choose what school you go to.....mikkel wrote:
When schooling is mandatory, I can't say that I agree with you on that.Mekstizzle wrote:
Well actually it's the schools themselves that are switching, and the schools have every right to dictate what you wear.
How do you pay for a dress code?mikkel wrote:
You're still paying for these mandated dress codes through your taxes, aren't you?Bertster7 wrote:
Not when you get to choose what school you go to.....mikkel wrote:
When schooling is mandatory, I can't say that I agree with you on that.
The schools do not provide the uniforms. The pupils have to buy them.
our school had clip on ties as an option. came about cause some kid got pretty badly hurt in a fight with a normal tie. it was optional.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
By funding the organisations that mandate and enforce it. Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools, in my opinion, should be all-inclusive, and not just welcome to pupils who wear a certain uniform.Bertster7 wrote:
How do you pay for a dress code?mikkel wrote:
You're still paying for these mandated dress codes through your taxes, aren't you?Bertster7 wrote:
Not when you get to choose what school you go to.....
The schools do not provide the uniforms. The pupils have to buy them.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-25 05:02:51)
It doesn't cost anything to have a dress code in place. There is no cost to the tax payer. They aren't paying for them.mikkel wrote:
By funding the organisations that mandate and enforce it. Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools, in my opinion, should be all-inclusive, and not just welcome to pupils who wear a certain uniform.Bertster7 wrote:
How do you pay for a dress code?mikkel wrote:
You're still paying for these mandated dress codes through your taxes, aren't you?
The schools do not provide the uniforms. The pupils have to buy them.
They are all inclusive. Anyone can wear a uniform.
It costs the tax payer to determine and enforce the dress code, and it costs the tax payer to buy the uniform for their children. Anyone can wear a gimp suit and ball gag as well. A dress code like that wouldn't make a place all-inclusive either.Bertster7 wrote:
It doesn't cost anything to have a dress code in place. There is no cost to the tax payer. They aren't paying for them.mikkel wrote:
By funding the organisations that mandate and enforce it. Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools, in my opinion, should be all-inclusive, and not just welcome to pupils who wear a certain uniform.Bertster7 wrote:
How do you pay for a dress code?
The schools do not provide the uniforms. The pupils have to buy them.
They are all inclusive. Anyone can wear a uniform.
since I've yet to see a school without a dress code that money would already be spent, and it would be easier to enforce as there is no gray area since it is a standard uniform. And the parents have to buy clothes anyway.mikkel wrote:
It costs the tax payer to determine and enforce the dress code, and it costs the tax payer to buy the uniform for their children. Anyone can wear a gimp suit and ball gag as well. A dress code like that wouldn't make a place all-inclusive either.Bertster7 wrote:
It doesn't cost anything to have a dress code in place. There is no cost to the tax payer. They aren't paying for them.mikkel wrote:
By funding the organisations that mandate and enforce it. Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools, in my opinion, should be all-inclusive, and not just welcome to pupils who wear a certain uniform.
They are all inclusive. Anyone can wear a uniform.
Last edited by jaymz9350 (2009-07-25 06:15:37)
Which costs nothing. Do you think they have specific staff determining this sort of thing. This will be 5 minutes of a staff meeting.mikkel wrote:
It costs the tax payer to determine and enforce the dress code,Bertster7 wrote:
It doesn't cost anything to have a dress code in place. There is no cost to the tax payer. They aren't paying for them.mikkel wrote:
By funding the organisations that mandate and enforce it. Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools, in my opinion, should be all-inclusive, and not just welcome to pupils who wear a certain uniform.
They are all inclusive. Anyone can wear a uniform.
In fact it would probably cost more to enforce a more lax dress code. Because of the number of varations you might find. Someone coming into school in a gimp suit would probably be frowned upon (as an overly extreme example).
Which is optional. If they don't want to they could go to a different school.mikkel wrote:
and it costs the tax payer to buy the uniform for their children.
Yeah they can. Which means anyone could go there. Which means that from an accessibility perspective, it's all-inclusive.mikkel wrote:
Anyone can wear a gimp suit and ball gag as well. A dress code like that wouldn't make a place all-inclusive either.
The point remains, it costs the taxpayer nothing - it may even save the taxpayer a miniscule sum. You don't have to pay for a dress code. A lot of schools with uniforms are not entirely publicly funded anyway - mine wasn't.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-25 05:39:35)
You missed the whole point entirely. Ties are non functional and useless. They're just there for style. I think we're all aware though that they're common in the bsns worldCybargs wrote:
Try going into business without a tie.VicktorVauhn wrote:
When were they useful?jsnipy wrote:
ties have outlived their usefulness
They are the most random and useless piece of clothing ever... but I don't really mind wearing one, especially if you do it everyday.
I somehow doubt designing a school uniform takes five minutes, but this isn't really the point, so no point in pursuing it.Bertster7 wrote:
Which costs nothing. Do you think they have specific staff determining this sort of thing. This will be 5 minutes of a staff meeting.mikkel wrote:
It costs the tax payer to determine and enforce the dress code,Bertster7 wrote:
It doesn't cost anything to have a dress code in place. There is no cost to the tax payer. They aren't paying for them.
They are all inclusive. Anyone can wear a uniform.
In fact it would probably cost more to enforce a more lax dress code. Because of the number of varations you might find. Someone coming into school in a gimp suit would probably be frowned upon (as an overly extreme example).
I don't see why they should have to. That's my point.Bertster7 wrote:
Which is optional. If they don't want to they could go to a different school.mikkel wrote:
and it costs the tax payer to buy the uniform for their children.
That's a daft argument. The point of the matter is that I feel that people should be allowed to wear what they want to wear, within the realm of decency, in any publically funded school. You may not agree, but I didn't ask you to.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah they can. Which means anyone could go there. Which means that from an accessibility perspective, it's all-inclusive.mikkel wrote:
Anyone can wear a gimp suit and ball gag as well. A dress code like that wouldn't make a place all-inclusive either.
As said before, I doubt that your speculation is accurate, but it doesn't really pertain to the point in any case.Bertster7 wrote:
The point remains, it costs the taxpayer nothing - it may even save the taxpayer a miniscule sum. You don't have to pay for a dress code. A lot of schools with uniforms are not entirely publicly funded anyway - mine wasn't.
Design a school uniformmikkel wrote:
I somehow doubt designing a school uniform takes five minutes, but this isn't really the point, so no point in pursuing it.Bertster7 wrote:
Which costs nothing. Do you think they have specific staff determining this sort of thing. This will be 5 minutes of a staff meeting.mikkel wrote:
It costs the tax payer to determine and enforce the dress code,
In fact it would probably cost more to enforce a more lax dress code. Because of the number of varations you might find. Someone coming into school in a gimp suit would probably be frowned upon (as an overly extreme example).
Because the school says so. What do you suggest a government ban on school uniforms? That's a stupid idea.mikkel wrote:
I don't see why they should have to. That's my point.Bertster7 wrote:
Which is optional. If they don't want to they could go to a different school.mikkel wrote:
and it costs the tax payer to buy the uniform for their children.
Yet it is entirely accurate. Dress codes do not prevent access, they don't exclude anyone. They just require you to wear something different.mikkel wrote:
That's a daft argument. The point of the matter is that I feel that people should be allowed to wear what they want to wear, within the realm of decency, in any publically funded school. You may not agree, but I didn't ask you to.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah they can. Which means anyone could go there. Which means that from an accessibility perspective, it's all-inclusive.mikkel wrote:
Anyone can wear a gimp suit and ball gag as well. A dress code like that wouldn't make a place all-inclusive either.
Schools are publicly funded and the majority of people in the UK support having school uniforms. That's democracy in action.
You might doubt it, but given that you think school uniforms actually get designed (by the school - obviously each item of clothing is designed, but is not specific) then you clearly aren't too familiar with them.mikkel wrote:
As said before, I doubt that your speculation is accurate, but it doesn't really pertain to the point in any case.Bertster7 wrote:
The point remains, it costs the taxpayer nothing - it may even save the taxpayer a miniscule sum. You don't have to pay for a dress code. A lot of schools with uniforms are not entirely publicly funded anyway - mine wasn't.
What if someone can't afford the expensive clothes that all his/her friends are wearing, and then gets bullied because he/she can't buy the popular clothes? School uniform eliminates that.
Yeah, they just magically appear. Like I just said, it isn't the point, so there's no sense in pursuing it. You're clearly trying to twist my words if you think that this has anything to do with my argument.Bertster7 wrote:
Design a school uniformmikkel wrote:
I somehow doubt designing a school uniform takes five minutes, but this isn't really the point, so no point in pursuing it.Bertster7 wrote:
Which costs nothing. Do you think they have specific staff determining this sort of thing. This will be 5 minutes of a staff meeting.
In fact it would probably cost more to enforce a more lax dress code. Because of the number of varations you might find. Someone coming into school in a gimp suit would probably be frowned upon (as an overly extreme example).
A government ban on school uniforms where substantial government funding exists, yes. You might think that's a stupid idea, but I don't. That's the entire point.Bertster7 wrote:
Because the school says so. What do you suggest a government ban on school uniforms? That's a stupid idea.mikkel wrote:
I don't see why they should have to. That's my point.Bertster7 wrote:
Which is optional. If they don't want to they could go to a different school.
No, it's not accurate in the least. I'm sure you're misunderstanding the meaning of "all-inclusive", because your argument is by definition inaccurate.Bertster7 wrote:
Yet it is entirely accurate. Dress codes do not prevent access, they don't exclude anyone. They just require you to wear something different.mikkel wrote:
That's a daft argument. The point of the matter is that I feel that people should be allowed to wear what they want to wear, within the realm of decency, in any publically funded school. You may not agree, but I didn't ask you to.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah they can. Which means anyone could go there. Which means that from an accessibility perspective, it's all-inclusive.
I don't care about the majority opinion in the UK. I'm voicing my opinion as a citizen of another country.Bertster7 wrote:
Schools are publicly funded and the majority of people in the UK support having school uniforms. That's democracy in action.
As I said, whatever the case might be, it doesn't pertain to what I base my opinion in.Bertster7 wrote:
You might doubt it, but given that you think school uniforms actually get designed (by the school - obviously each item of clothing is designed, but is not specific) then you clearly aren't too familiar with them.mikkel wrote:
As said before, I doubt that your speculation is accurate, but it doesn't really pertain to the point in any case.Bertster7 wrote:
The point remains, it costs the taxpayer nothing - it may even save the taxpayer a miniscule sum. You don't have to pay for a dress code. A lot of schools with uniforms are not entirely publicly funded anyway - mine wasn't.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-25 08:40:55)
yeah, it makes complete sense that they would want to distance them selves from basically making kids wear nooses, but just making it optional should be enough to avoid being liable...FatherTed wrote:
our school had clip on ties as an option. came about cause some kid got pretty badly hurt in a fight with a normal tie. it was optional.
Trying missing the point more.Cybargs wrote:
Try going into business without a tie.VicktorVauhn wrote:
When were they useful?jsnipy wrote:
ties have outlived their usefulness
They are the most random and useless piece of clothing ever... but I don't really mind wearing one, especially if you do it everyday.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Everything Else »
- UK Schools to switch to "Clip-on" ties over safety fears