How to approach teacher about my brother's non-uniform coat being seized?

What kind of a school has policies on the coats that can or can't be worn?

Any school with an oddly expensive uniform coat that can only be bought from one shop in the area; and no explanation of why its so extremely expensive.

Which is a huge amount of them.

In an an accident scenario as I posited, I'd imagine the School's solicitor first metting with the principal upon receiving the notice of legal action from the parent's, would include something along the lines of: 'Are you fuc*ing insane? What the f*ck did you think would happen?'

Yes, the degree to which Irish schools seem to be up-themselves with what hey think their remit is and what they can get away with is incredible. It no longer beggars my belief that the government take no action to remind schools that education is a compulsory legal requirement, taxpayer funded and draw some lines in the sand for them. The sheer laziness of the Irish government is breathtaking.

I went to a school that insisted students wear their full uniform while travelling to and from school. I was literally the only student I am aware of who cycled. In wet weather, I wore a bright yellow jacket and yellow over-trousers (this was years before flourescent fabrics were available), which I removed on arriving at school, which despite being truly up-itself, never once in 5 years ever took issue with my non-compliance with their stupid rules. This was in another country known for it's down-to earth practicality and sensibility.

My school, in the 1990s, had a uniform that consisted of trousers (girls could wear a skirt if they wanted), a shirt and a jumper that had to be bought from the school. Of you wore a tie, it had to be grey. Otherwise, you could do what you wanted, and sort of shoes, coats, bags, etc. I understand that since then they've put in rules around facial jewellery and they limit the shoes to black ones (think they still allow black trainers). This all seems much more reasonable than sock inspections and school coats that are mentioned on here.

My school in the 90s - navy trousers/skirt, navy jumper, blue shirt, no logos so cheapest stuff from Dunnes absolutely fine. Black footwear of any kind, even fully black runners were usually allowed.

My school now - crest and collared jumper (very expensive), crested jacket (actually not that expensive weirdly), specific tartan kilt for girls (they do allow trousers recently though - of course the kilt is very expensive), specific tie (guess what - very expensive for what it is), *a PE uniform* which is 65 quid, formal dress shoes (no heels for girls), specific colour socks, a specific lab coat... I'm sure if they could check any other items of clothing they'd have a specific one too.

This is a VEC school, but one with absolute notions.

They used to let you do the state exams in normal clothes but that's changed too.

You want the boy(adult) and/or his adult sister to compromise but not the school? The school are the ones acting intransigently. They should bend a little themselves. I can understand the school having rules but this is a clear case of pettiness. Those rules are to ensure that pupils conform to the prescribed dress code. This guy wasn't flouncing around the school grounds in a leather Gestapo trench coat or an obnoxious P-Diddy style fur or a denim jacket plastered in Slayer and Megadeth patches. He wore a hi-vis over his school jacket for safety FFS and some dick of a teacher went on a power trip. From my experience school coats are usually made of wool. In a downpour wool gets soaked. The smart thing would be to wear a water-proof poncho over the coat/blazer if it was bucketing down. Of course this plank of a teacher would probably have some issue with that too. The teacher could very easily have taken the lad aside and asked him to explain himself. If the guy said he wore the hi-vis for safety then only an idiot would have a problem with that. The teacher could simply have told him to take the hi-vis off once he stepped onto school grounds in future as he walked his bike to the bicycle shed. No harm done. Apologise! Apologise for what? Being responsible and conscientous?

I don't think you understand the thread, or my post.

He wasn't wearing a hi-vis vest. He was wearing his own jacket instead of the school one. His excuse is that his own one has better visibility. I am the one suggesting he wear a hi-vis one over his school one (or over no jacket on warm days etc).

And of course he should apologise. He intentionally broke the rules rather than trying to find a suitable workaround. As an adult, if you don't like a particular law, that doesn't give you license to break it (without consequence). You try to have the law changed.

Refusing to apologise to a power-tripper who is treating an adult like a child is how you try to get something changed. Apologising to them for an imagined infraction is absolutely and utterly not,

The 18-year-old who is acting like like a spoiled little child?

It's not a necessarily a "power-trip" when a teacher attempts to teach a child some discipline.

Doing the sensible thing with regards to personal and basic road safety is acting like a spoiled child? Your concept of mindless obedience to 'rules' irrespective of common or legal sense, is very Irish.

@Jeremy Sproket your brother was 15 in April according to a post in your last uniform thread? So how's he 18 now?

Methinks there's some fibbing going on

Baa. Baaaaaaah!

This post is an incoherent mess.

Standing up to a power-tripping teacher treating an adult like a child has nothing to do with scumbag culture. The only scumbag here is the teacher, letting power go to their head to steal a jacket

"woke culture" doesn't exist except in the brains of the permanently afraid.