Carlow school issues clothing diktat to female students

Hurrache

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

They would/do...

If they reported something that satisfied the tort of defamation.

Remember when we used to have journalistic standards, to prevent things like that happening.
Every allegation would have to be verified.

There's no defamation. The media didn't make the claims, they reported what others claimed. Some members of the media went looking for clarification, got no acknowledgement to their queries, never mind a response, and the story goes that "X,Y,Z made the claim of 1,2,3. A,B,C refused to comment on these claims."

We'd have no media if it worked any differently. Apology or clarification at best.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

You haven't even acknowledged (maybe you have, had a very quick review of your posts) the story is false , yet here you are beating a drum the school handled it badly.

Better? Possibly
Badly? Certainly not.

I did acknowledge it appears to be false, whilst saying the school allowed it to appear much worse when they had a chance to stem the tide.

kippy

Hurrache wrote: »

All it took was one single statement saying we're looking into it, and that's it. Then do whatever they need to do in the background. Stonewalling is never a good look.

So the media are blameless.

Christ.
Dealing with the media is generally not within the principals brief - and to be fair to him as soon as facts were established there's been plenty engagement.

gadarnol

JustAThought wrote: »

It wasn’t implied by rhe media - it was spelled out at length - if that comment about male teachers being distracted wasn’t said by the school then the male teachers in PCC will have a great defamation case against Today FM for a start - where they had a parent on outraged at the ankles and collarbones coverup requirement and where the presenter repeatedly talked about the male teacher distraction issue . Every male teacher in that school is now suspect until that is clarified. One would have hoped a nation licenced broadcaster would have done the minimum in research /verification for balance/due dilligance before lashing into them at peak listnernship. Arn’t they subsidised by the licence fee too? Shocking if so but I wonder if it is the school rowing back on something that WAS said & now they’ve realised the mess they have created.

If I was a male teacher in that school I’d be laywering up.

Agreed. If, and everything around this is if, it was said male teachers need to lawyer up to deal with whoever in school said it about them to students if and I repeat if it was said. If it was not then they still need legal representation to deal with media reports and any identifiable person who commented on them in a defamatory way. The school statement this morning may end the frenzy online or it may draw further response from students and parents.

wirelessdude01

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

You haven't even acknowledged (maybe you have, had a very quick review of your posts) the story is false , yet here you are beating a drum the school handled it badly.

Better? Possibly
Badly? Certainly not.

Same as you I haven't looked back at the posters history but I'll go out on a limb here and say that this poster possibly has a prior issue with the school.

titan18

kippy wrote: »

So you believe that kids should wear what they want, when they want?

Great preparedness for life that, since most adults can't wear what they want when they want. Best they get told rules now and made obey them so they're prepared for that in adult life

strandroad

strandroad wrote: »

If even one of the heads delivering these assemblies did a solo run riffing on the reasons it wouldn't be false reporting though.
It's a mad idea to call an assembly just to say stick to the uniform, people tend to fill the void with rubbish.

True, I agree.
But it seems there isn't a scintilla of evidence that this was said.
Maybe they had a script - wear uniform, it's unflattering, immodest or whatever. The issue many have is the suggestion the male teachers are distracted. Specifically male.

I'd wager if those kids were asked by anyone with journalistic integrity, cross checking stories the narrative would change to "I'd swear he said.... I thought he said...isn't that what he said" from "he definitely said"

Sleepy

FFS, some people are never happy. If it's the case that the girls were addressed separately from the boys because they've been wearing inappropriate clothing to school you can be sure that this was done for the benefit of the girls (i.e. so the lads couldn't tease them along the lines of "sure even Mrs X thinks you dress like a slag" etc.).

Only the modern victim-worshipping, attention whore version of feminists could possibly have a problem with that.

Were I a male member of staff in that school, I'd be contacting my union and trying to trace the comment on Facebook so I'd know who to sue (because you can be certain the "distracting the male staff" comment originated on social media, probably a "Presentation Mammies" group or somesuch). TBH, though, were I a male teacher, I'd have no doubt left the profession and re-trained years ago. It's not a safe workspace for a man.

Hurrache

kippy wrote: »

So the media are blameless.

Christ.

Christ indeed, you haven't read my posts correctly with that hot take.

TP_CM

paw patrol wrote: »

quality victim blaming here.
The school clearly did nothing wrong, the media believed local busy body rumour and ran the story

I hope this comes across as a genuine question. Why is victim blaming a bad thing? I know I'm missing something.. but I just don't know what. If someone runs out in traffic and gets hit, it's not victim blaming.. if someone goes swimming during a storm and drowns, it's not victim blaming.. Or is it? I'm not trying to debate this by the way, I'm genuinely just trying to learn more about it and I don't know where to start. Why can a person who takes a dangerous looking path as opposed to a safe path not be blamed?

Hurrache

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Same as you I haven't looked back at the posters history but I'll go out on a limb here and say that this poster possibly has a prior issue with the school.

Another genius here. First winter frost bite slowing down the brain?

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

There's no defamation. The media didn't make the claims, they reported what others claimed. Some members of the media went looking for clarification, got no acknowledgement to their queries, never mind a response, and the story goes that "X,Y,Z made the claim of 1,2,3. A,B,C refused to comment on these claims."

We'd have no media if it worked any differently. Apology or clarification at best.

I did acknowledge it appears to be false, whilst saying the school allowed it to appear much worse when they had a chance to stem the tide.

you've no idea of jproper ournalist ethics and defamation law

fair enough if you've acknowledged the incorrect story, I missed it in all your posts saying the school handled it badly

Gatling

So this all came about from Chinese whispers and false social media claims from a few girls and their parents looking for attention,

Frankly anyone of the students found to making false claims on social media should be asked to find a new school

meeeeh

kippy wrote: »

So you believe that kids should wear what they want, when they want?

Well I believe they should wear clothing that is appropriate for weather and activity they are doing. After that I don't overly care. From my experience girls never wore overly inappropriate clothing because they could get comments from their peers.

strandroad

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

True, I agree.
But it seems there isn't a scintilla of evidence that this was said.
Maybe they had a script - wear uniform, it's unflattering, immodest or whatever. The issue many have is the suggestion the male teachers are distracted. Specifically male.

I'd wager if those kids were asked by anyone with journalistic integrity, cross checking stories the narrative would change to "I'd swear he said.... I thought he said...isn't that what he said" from "he definitely said"

The principal wasn't there to hear what was actually delivered, the students were. It looks like at least some of the assemblies went off the rails, and the original idea wasn't good to start with - if they simply messaged parents to remind about uniform rules instead of lining up girls to chastise them...

Hurrache

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

you've no idea of jproper ournalist ethics and defamation law

fair enough if you've acknowledged the incorrect story, I missed it in all your posts saying the school handled it badly

Ethics and defamation law are completely different though. Whilst the reporting of the story may be unethical, that doesn't imply it's also defamatory.

kippy

meeeeh wrote: »

Well I believe they should wear clothing that is appropriate for weather and activity they are doing. After that I don't overly care. From my experience girls never wore overly inappropriate clothing because they could get comments from their peers.

I'd suggest you need to get some more experience.

Brendan Bendar

A respected school principal had to go on air this morning to defend this rubbish.

A man who seems to have built up the schools reputation over many years.

The media have questions to answer and others have questions to answer as to how this has been

blown up out of all proportion.

Common sense seems to be sadly lacking when this mans work over the years seems to be being

called into question .

I sympathize with him.

walshb

meeeeh wrote: »

Well I believe they should wear clothing that is appropriate for weather and activity they are doing. After that I don't overly care. From my experience girls never wore overly inappropriate clothing because they could get comments from their peers.

Things have changed..

It is now all about revealing as much as they can within boundaries..

Look at social media..

Look around any places today. The clothing some young girls are wearing..

It’s life today..

And anyone who may find it too sexualised/revealing is called out as having a problem..

Gatling

By the sounds of that no matter what the facts say it didn't happen anyone can just make up their own versions to make the girls look like some victims of body shaming

Jinglejangle69

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

A respected school principal had to go on air this morning to defend this rubbish.

A man who seems to have built up the schools reputation over many years.

The media have questions to answer and others have questions to answer as to how this has been

blown up out of all proportion.

Common sense seems to be sadly lacking when this mans work over the years seems to be being

called into question .

I sympathize with him.

Par for the course nowadays Bren.

Everyone believes everything they hear and jump on the bandwagon.

It's across politics, media, social media.

Society is well and truly ****ed.

The J Stands for Jay

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Society is well and truly ****ed.

We're all humping its corpse right now!

thegetawaycar

No wonder male teachers are few and far between. If the school has said that the teachers felt uncomfortable then the teachers should be straight onto the union and no doubt lawyers will be coming in fairly sharpish.

If a student has gone home, informed their parents the way they've interpreted being told what to wear and making up the reason then I'd suggest the parents talking to newspapers and being quoted get ready for some fairly hefty defamation cases.

The male teachers will now be seen as pariahs in the town and the implication of possible pedophilic tendencies is literally career destroying for them.

If a teacher did feel uncomfortable with leggings then they need to resign.

If the school have appropriate dresscode rules then that's fine, they don't need a reason for them other than they must be worn.

tabby aspreme

McGaggs wrote: »

Do you have a link? I'm not doing a good job of googling for it.

I don't, but it should be on the RTE player, around 8.45-8.50 this morning

Jinglejangle69

thegetawaycar wrote: »

No wonder male teachers are few and far between. If the school has said that the teachers felt uncomfortable then the teachers should be straight onto the union and no doubt lawyers will be coming in fairly sharpish.

If a student has gone home, informed their parents the way they've interpreted being told what to wear and making up the reason then I'd suggest the parents talking to newspapers and being quoted get ready for some fairly hefty defamation cases.

The male teachers will now be seen as pariahs in the town and the implication of possible pedophilic tendencies is literally career destroying for them.

If a teacher did feel uncomfortable with leggings then they need to resign.

If the school have appropriate dresscode rules then that's fine, they don't need a reason for them other than they must be worn.

They didn't say it.

Hoboo

strandroad wrote: »

The principal wasn't there to hear what was actually delivered, the students were. It looks like at least some of the assemblies went off the rails, and the original idea wasn't good to start with - if they simply messaged parents to remind about uniform rules instead of lining up girls to chastise them...

Or parents could act like parents and remind their children what the uniform rules are. They just can't be bothered, it's up to teachers to parent these days.

walshb

The other question needs to be asked:

Why did it come to this for the school?

Parents: “ok, love. Take off those skin tight leggings, please. You’re going to school. Please put on something more appropriate for school.”

But as usual, it’s always someone else’s fault..

Jinglejangle69

PBP young one on ranting and raving even though it was pointed out 15 times the principle denied the comments happened.

Still ranting and raving.

Just needs the drama no matter what the truth.

meeeeh

The hate of women in girls in this thread is scary. It's fúcking leggings, we all wear them when exercising because they are the most comfortable clothing to exercise in. I actually don't understand why would anyone find cotton track suit bottoms suitable for relatively intensive PE.

As for school denial they only addressed girls. Not kids who according to them were breaking the rules, they addressed girls. So either no boys and all girls were breaking uniform rules or they handled this terribly.

walshb

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

PBP young one on ranting and raving even though it was pointed out 15 times the principle denied the comments happened.

Still ranting and raving.

Just needs the drama no matter what the truth.

No surprise here..

What would anyone expect from that crowd..

walshb

meeeeh wrote: »

The hate of women in girls in this thread is scary. It's fúcking leggings, we all wear them when exercising because they are the most comfortable clothing to exercise in. I actually don't understand why would anyone find cotton track suit bottoms suitable for relatively intensive PE.

As for school denial they only addressed girls. Not kids who according to them were breaking the rules, they address girls. So either no boys and all girls were breaking uniform rules or they handled this terribly.

They addressed girls because the girls' dressing was the issue for them.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If the boys were not an issue, why would they need to be addressed?