muslim-school-censorship
Education

Inadequate Christian schools named and shamed; inadequate Muslim school.. censored

When the Durham Free School and Grindon Hall Christian School were excoriated by Ofsted last year for a raft of educational deficiencies (not least of which was failing to promote ‘British values’ by not teaching what Muslims believe and what lesbians do), they were very publicly named and shamed for their ignorance, bigotry and discriminatory views. Actually, it was apparently the ignorance of just a few individual pupils, but that didn’t matter to Ofsted. As one inspector concluded: “Leaders are failing to prepare students for life in modern Britain. Some students hold discriminatory views of other people who have different faiths, values or beliefs from themselves.” Such intolerance is absolutely intolerable, so these Christian schools were placed in special measures and closed down or taken over. You simply can’t have schools with a Christian religious ethos propagating un-British values as mediated and determined by Ofsted. This is the new orthodoxy.

When Muslim School X (it may not be named) is deemed to be inadequate, the Ofsted report must be quashed and the school shielded from public shame. A High Court judge (no less) has determined that censorship is justified on the grounds that disclosure is likely “to generate a media storm and tensions and fears for parents and the local community”.

The deficiencies in this case are an allegedly inadequate sex-segregation policy which makes girls feel inferior. It may or may not be the case that girls are forced to sit at the back of the class and may only consider careers in medicine and motherhood: we simply can’t know on what basis the judgment has been made. All that we have is:

But in a court hearing earlier this week, an Ofsted inspector told the court that the school’s own pupils had criticised its gender segregation policy. He said they felt it ‘was having a negative effect on being prepared for life in modern Britain’. The Islamic voluntary-aided School X is for ages four to 16 and separates boys and girls from age ten, for all lessons, lunchtimes, clubs and trips.

The inference is that of unlawful (‘un-British’) sex discrimination; the denial of dignity and equality. As with the Christian schools, the Ofsted judgment appears to be based on comments made by pupils. Muslim School X is perfectly entitled to appeal Ofsted’s inspection findings (natural justice requires such provision, and Ofsted has an established complaints procedure), but this clearly isn’t acceptable to the headteacher and governing body, for whom secrecy and suppression are the preferred approach.

The ban on naming Muslim School X remains in place until deliberations are completed and the judgment is published. If the High Court finds in Ofsted’s favour, presumably this Muslim school will suffer the same termination/takeover fate as the Christian schools. If there is a finding in the school’s favour and Ofsted is overruled, the censorship will most likely be indefinite, and we may never know the facts.

This is a taxpayer-funded school, no doubt using taxpayers’ money to fund its expensive High Court action to suppress a report of HM Inspectorate of Schools. How much does judicial review cost? How is this not a matter of public interest? Why are parents not permitted to know how this school treats girls differently from boys? Why can’t academics scrutinise reports of how the school’s culture deviates from its statutory ethos to promote ‘British values’? Why is educational justice being determined in secret rather than by the open and transparent procedures established by Parliament and which are deemed sufficient for Christian (and all other) schools?

Why does a High Court judge believe that public disclosure of a specific Islamic approach to sex-segregation is likely “to generate a media storm” or raise “tensions and fears for parents and the local community”. Certainly, there would be Daily Mail opprobrium and mutterings at Britain First’s next AGM, but ‘storm’ and ‘fear’? Didn’t sunlight help to disinfect the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal in Birmingham? Didn’t parental scrutiny help to defuse corrupt attitudes and allay community fears? If there are hardliners running Muslim School X, doesn’t the duty of care to guard children against potential radicalisation trump the need for censorship?

Surely media blackout and special exemptions for taxpayer-funded Muslim schools are far more likely to generate a media storm and raise tensions and fears? Yet if, as Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham avers, British Muslims “should be allowed to bypass police” when reporting hate crime owing to a “lack of trust” between the two parties, why should they not also be permitted to bypass Ofsted owing to its institutional anti-religious prejudice?

  • IanCad

    How can High Court judges be fired? Who signs their pay cheques?

    • CliveM

      I think they can only be fired for gross misconduct and criminal offence.

      • IanCad

        Thanks Clive, I suppose we’ll just have to live with it in that case. Rather the system we have than the one mooted by Terry. (above)

      • Anton

        It might be worth making sure that he gets no more cases to judge. I’d gladly pay his salary to do nothing. In fact the same goes for most MPs.

        • CliveM

          But who would make sure he doesn’t sit on further cases? Judges. I think you can see the problem. They will jealousy guard their ‘independence ‘ and won’t allow a proper oversight.

          • Anton

            That is to the greater good, for under such a system we may sue the government. But it is most important that the people make their opinion of this ruling known.

  • Terry Aston

    Judges have to start taking responsibility for their decisions and actions. They can ride roughshod over the people all they like with precious little come back. Maybe we should follow the American way and elect judges. That might keep them on their toes, they might also consider one of their roles is ‘fairness’ to all parties…. it’s always the ‘guilty’ that gets all the consideration. It has to stop.

    • IanCad

      Terry I share your frustration but please withdraw your suggestion that judges should be elected. We need less democracy, not more.

      • Anton

        It got us Brexit!

        • IanCad

          Occasionally they get it right.

          • Anton

            I find your use of “they” distressing. You are one of “them”, ie us.

          • IanCad

            Oh Dear! I never looked at it from that angle. Me, Me, Me!
            This blog can do terrible things to a mild misanthrope.

  • Anton

    What is the procedure for sacking a judge?

    I hope that the school is widely named on multiple internet forums by a very large number of British people.

    • Linus

      It’s easy!

      Send an email to the queen complaining that one of her judges is a Christophobic Islamophile and he’ll be out on his ear before you can say “royal prerogative” three times in a row, clearly and distinctly, with no pauses.

      As Mr Justice Stuart-Smith’s job is now safe forever while Anton attempts unsuccessfully to intone the magic words that are the only way to unseat him, perhaps you can let the poor man get on with his job instead of commenting on matters sub-judice of which we are not fully apprised and about which we do not possess all the relevant facts.

      Or is that too much to ask of a group of soi-disant non-judgmental Christians?

      • Anton

        A level playing field is all I ask. You should be supporting that.

        • Linus

          I do support a level playing field for all. I also reason that if a judge had thought it necessary to suppress the names of the Christian schools judged to be inadequate, he or she would have done so.

          Just because one case benefits from name suppression doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate or necessary in all cases. Judges must have discretion to use it only when deemed necessary. Routine use would indeed be contrary to public interest.

          Your problem is that whenever someone who happens to be a Muslim benefits from a special provision designed to protect the vulnerable from clear and present threats, you shriek “favoritism” and “anti-Christian prejudice”. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that should really be beneath you, and would be if you weren’t just a zealot posing as an educated and reasoning individual.

          • Anton

            Sometimes it is anti-Christian prejudice. On this occasion it is Islamophilia, a common disease of foolish secularists.

          • Linus

            And in your case it’s a bad case of secularophobia that makes you immediately jump to unwarranted conclusions about anything that doesn’t unquestioningly support the Christian agenda.

            It’s a common disease of foolish Christians, which is also known as “playing the martyr”.

          • Anton

            My Christian agenda is called the level playing field. Prefer Islam if you like but you will reap a terrible harvest.

          • Linus

            The Christian agenda calls for a playing field heavily tilted in favour of Christianity.

            An established church with bishops in parliament. A head of state who uses her heavily publicised media appearances to promote Christianity. British values based on Christian doctrine. An end to Muslim immigration.

            These are all policies that are supported on this site. They’re all part of the Christian agenda. Pretending that you want a level playing field when what you’re really after is a place of privilege for your religion in British society is not just dishonest. It’s dishonorable too.

          • Anton

            Tell those who support an Established church and politicised ie coercive Christianity. I am not one of them as I have explained to you before.

          • Little Black Censored

            Gosh you are boring!

  • The Explorer

    I saw a headline that an Asian actor on ‘Coronation Street’ had been sacked for racism. I thought that couldn’t be right, since only whites can be guilty of racism. But when I read the report it turned out that he, as a Pakistani and a Muslim, had made derogatory comments on Twitter about Indians and Hindus. So fair enough. Presumably, had his comments been about white people there would have been no case to answer.

    But the fact that an Asian can be found guilty of racism of any sort is a seismic shift. By the same token, the fact that Ofsted feels able to criticise a Muslim school is encouraging.

    • Ivan M

      Indians would I am sure have hinted at violence, as the twit took it upon himself to curse piss drinking Hindus a day or two after the raid on an army camp that left 18 dead. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

  • Broadwood

    Equality before the law. We need to stand up for this. Here is another one – ‘no crime was committed’ – imagine the reverse!
    ‘Only open if you are an expert in the Quran’ – bomb scare sparked after suspect package left at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, in The Green, Chingford

    link – http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/65125

  • Dreadnaught

    A High Court judge (no less) has determined that censorship is justified on the grounds that disclosure is likely “to generate a media storm and tensions and fears for parents and the local community” Supercillious Wanker.

    • len

      Nicely put..

  • IanCad

    I do not suggest doing away with the garb, but somehow, bad judgement, when compounded with the absurdity of traditional robes and wigs, makes the case seem even worse.

    • Anton

      A fact of which His Grace is well aware, based on the juxtaposition of text and photograph above.

    • David

      I agree Ian. He looks a right chump !

    • Shadrach Fire

      The wearing of robes does not make one more qualified to administer Judgment but a uniform does add distinction. Police are recognised and the clerics such as his grace are are given reverence.

    • Merchantman

      Ban the Burka, ban the Whigs and Robes, I say. Makes them impossible to have a sensible conversation with!

  • Anton

    OFSTED reports are in the public domain, are they not? It is presumably not illegal to determine the name of an Islamic school which has gained such a report recently. And if there is only one such…

  • len

    Christians must rid themselves of the false assumption that education(or much else for that matter) is conducted on’ a level playing field’. Secularists have taken over the education of our youth and totally brain washed them into humanist doctrines.
    In the secular world the most aggressive becomes dominant and truth takes a back seat. This is why ‘greed’ features so much in the headlines today, the age of ‘Gordon Gekko ‘certainty has come to its full fruition.
    Islam is ideally suited to become the dominant religion in the UK.(Wonder why secularists haven`t worked this out yet?.)

    • Anton

      In co-opting Islam against Christian values secularists are sowing the wind… will they reap the whirlwind?

      • len

        Undoubtedly.Look what is happening already in Europe…

        • Dominic Stockford

          My daughter’s class was today asked to put up their hands to say which believed in God, which did sometimes, and which never did. In a nice upper middle class massively white area, only 4 put up their hands to say they believed in God (out of 31)

  • David

    This is a disgrace, as it is a clear abuse of our Common Law by a member of that legal group, the Judiciary, who bear the most responsibly for upholding it !
    To give preferential treatment to one faith, especially when Christian Schools are criticised and paraded in public, shows an appalling lack of professional judgement as well as rank moral cowardice.
    The decision must be revered, and the errant judge pulled into line, or required to find alternative employment.

    • TropicalAnglican

      #Corrective Order 1: “responsibility”
      #Corrective Order 2: “reversed” (before you get a downvote by mistake)

      • Shadrach Fire

        Pedant.

        • chefofsinners

          The pedants are revolting.

          A relative of mine once spoke of cycling his bike.
          My mother corrected him: ‘You don’t cycle a bike, you pedal a bike.’
          ‘Ah yes’, he replied, ‘pedal, which comes just after pedant in the dictionary.’
          The smug look disappeared from his face a split second later when she replied ‘No, pedal comes just before pedant in the dictionary.’

    • len

      Christians are ‘a soft targe’t make an example of them.Islamic schools are a different matter entirely…they fight back.

      • David

        I am not sure what you mean by “they fight back”. But I certainly feel that passivity is not an option anymore for us Christians. We should agitate, protest and make whatever problems are needed by the authorities, to lever out of them fair and equal treatment. Niceness is not necessarily Christian. Jesus was often anything but “nice”, in the face of injustice.

        • len

          ‘Fight back’ in Islam is to kill intimidate ,and to terrorize…

      • David

        Some Christians do fight back – the legal organisation “Christian Concern”, for example. They are well worth supporting.

    • Anton

      He’s rather dhimmi…

  • Anton

    It should be possible to find, online, reports of the case pending from before this judge banned any naming the school.

    We may also hope that an MP names the school in the House of Commons.

  • Shadrach Fire

    One law for all? Or is it it only for sum?
    We are consistently told by members of the Government that this is a Christian country. That is until it comes into practice such as allowing Christian schools to be Christian.
    Other religious schools in this country should be subject to moderation that controls their anti Christian teachings. We should not have nations within nations.

  • The Explorer

    The main issue seems to be boys and girls being educated separately within the same building. Presumably, if there was a separate boys’ school and a separate girls’ school there would be no problem? If the issue is that boys and girls must be educated together, then presumably the days of Eton and Cheltenham Ladies’ College are numbered?

    • len

      There must be a problem with Muslims schools being forced to teach secularist ‘sex education’?.

      • The Explorer

        Yes. The issue must be wider than sexual segregation. Maybe having to teach evolution as well. Or not wanting to teach about other religions.

        • len

          Cannot imagine Muslim children being taught Christianity either as part of the curriculum.
          In fact there must be loads that Muslim Children cannot be taught in the UK?.

          • The Explorer

            I imagine they’d have a bigger problem with having to teach Hinduism than having to teach Christianity.

  • Simon Platt

    Moslem school X is voluntary-aided, takes boys and girls, and has both primary and secondary pupils.

    In 2010 there were 11 moslem voluntary-aided schools in England: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/maintained-faith-schools/maintained-faith-schools (I think this must be in England; I think the school systems are different in other parts of the United Kingdom.) There might be more such schools now, but I suppose not many more. They all seem to be either primary schools or single-sex secondary schools: http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/home.xhtml There seems to be only one school in England matching the profile of “school X”: Al Hijrah School, Birmingham: http://alhijrahschool.co.uk

    • The Explorer

      Good detective work. I read in a news report that the school IS in England.

      • Linus

        Ahem, if the media is banned from naming the school, and this site just has, is it not in contempt of court?

        Shall I send a link to the very fetchingly attired Mr Justice Stuart-Smith and let him make up his own mind?

        • The Explorer

          The report, as I recall, was Breitbart. Are American news outlets subject to the Judge’s jurisdiction. Besides, all I said was that the report said the school is in England. That’s not naming it. There are lots of schools in England.

          • Linus

            Interesting…

            You’ve repeated privileged information covered by a British suppression order within British jurisdiction. The fact that it has been published elsewhere is no excuse.

            Haven’t you ever read the Daily Mail before? It’s always complaining about how it can’t repeat what’s been said in the foreign media because of British reporting restrictions. Apparently it has access to better legal advice than you do.

            And what’s this? I said? But the user who revealed this information was one Simon Platt, not the Explorer. Have we finally found out who lurks behind your banal user name?

          • Anton

            Simon Platt made no mention of the school he named in relation to OFSTED.

          • Linus

            Tell it to the judge.

          • Anton

            If necessary.

          • The Explorer

            “I read in a news report that the school IS in England..” My answer to Simon Platt’s statement (“I think this must be in England.”)

            I do not, as it happens, agree with him that there is only one school that fits the data. A quick internet search will provide an alphabetical list of all the Islamic schools in the UK, their age range and whether Boys, Girls or Mixed. There are quite a few that are primary/secondary and mixed.

          • Simon Platt

            But are these islamic schools voluntary-aided? The Department of Education’s “edubase” system lists only eight coeducational “all-though” voluntary-aided schools, of which only one has a moslem “designated religious character”.

          • The Explorer

            Good point. I did not take voluntary-aided into account. Apologies.

          • Simon Platt

            The Explorer hasn’t repeated anything, so far as I can see.

            And all I’ve done is point out that the court seems to have identified this school by default, because it seems to be the only one of its kind in the country.

            It could have been worse. If there had been several such schools they would all have been under Mr Justice Stuart-Smith’s cloud, whether or not they deserved it.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Freedom of speech is far too important to be left in the hands of judges.

          • Linus

            I see, so you should be able to overrule judges, should you?

            First Ofsted, now the judiciary. What next? Should the police defer to you when making arrests? Should parliament submit all legislation to you for your approval?

            Hmmm … I wonder. Roy… comes from the Old French for “king”, doesn’t it? Southwest … that’s Cornwall, isn’t it?

            Gotcha! Who knew the prince of Wales was a commenter on this blog?

            Sorry your Royal Workshyness, but if you want to be above the law, you’re going to have to wait until that eternal mother of yours kicks the bucket. It ain’t your signature that makes things legal yet.

            How frustrating it must be to be so near, and yet so far! How do you cope? My father shuffled off this mortal coil while still relatively young, which meant I inherited while still in the flower of my youth. Of course I would have much preferred to see him survive longer, but not so long that he descended into infirmity and dotage. He would have hated that. So on balance, for his sake, I’m rather glad he went when he did.

            You however are saddled with Struldbrugs for parents. And without the relevant Luggnaggian accommodation that would enable you to bundle them off into a twilight rest home where they could drink gin and Dubonnet and trip over corgis for the rest of their days. Poor chap. You’re just going to have to wait your turn, aren’t you? No wonder you always look so fretful…

          • IanCad

            Nothing to stop anyone in the UK having a US email address and host. Say what you want then …. I think.

          • Linus

            Why don’t you put it to the test?

        • chefofsinners

          Pas de merde, Sherloque?
          The website of the school in question has crashed under the weight of visitors…we may not be the only geniuses to have deduced its identity. Indeed, the judge has revealed so much that he’s probably in contempt of his own court.

          • Simon Platt

            Good heavens! So it has!

            “The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.”

            This used to be known as the Streisand Effect – it’ll be the Stuart-Smith Effect to me from now.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Let’s hope the judge charges himself with contempt! It would save the rest of us from pouring contempt on him.

  • The Explorer

    Whether Al-Hijrah School is the one in question, it is certainly interesting in its own right/ According to the Wickipedia article about it, it was rated inadequate by Ofsted and placed in special measures in 2013. It went through three head teachers in the next eighteen months. Investigation into a significant budget deficit suggested that state funding intended for Al-Hijrah was being diverted to a school in Pakistan.

    Despite all this there are 1000 applications for 60 places (it has only 285 pupils), making it the most oversubscribed school in the UK. Join the queue if you live in Birmingham.

  • Albert

    Liberalism just is a form of irrationality. Trying to expect liberals to be consistent is like trying to reason a a drug addict of their drugs while they are high on drugs.

    • Linus

      “…like trying to reason a a drug addict of their drugs while they are high on drugs.” (my emphasis)

      So what drugs are you on today, Albert? Whatever they are, they’re clearly affecting your ability to type.

      • Albert

        Oh how ironic.

        • Linus

          Busted by a liberal, eh?

          So go on, what do they have you on? Aricept? Exelon? Razadyne? Perhaps the dosage needs adjusting. The idea is to make you less confused rather than more…

          • Albert

            If as a liberal, you judge me not by my reasoning but by my typing, then I think you make my case for me!

          • Linus

            Let’s look at your reasoning then, shall we?

            “Liberalism just is a form of irrationality.”

            Hmmm. Not “liberalism is just a form of irrationality.” But rather just is. I’m not a native English speaker, but I know enough about your language to understand that when you say something just is, what you mean is that no explanation is necessary. So liberalism just is irrational because you say so.

            Very rational. For an autocratic little tyrant with a god delusion, that is.

            But it gets worse. “Trying to expect liberals to be consistent…” means that the fault does not lie with the liberals, but rather with your inability even to try to expect anything of them. You’ve prejudged them and can’t even be bothered to give them a chance. In other words, you’ve written them off.

            And you call yourself a priest and a Christian? What happened to the seventy time seven times you’re supposed to forgive those who sin against you? That’s 490 specific incidences of forgiveness that you must extend to everyone. I’m a liberal, and I don’t think I’ve even benefited from a tenth of that number of declarations of forgiveness from you. Not even a tenth of a tenth. You condemn the moment anyone has the temerity to disagree with you. Some follower of Christ you turned out to be.

            A good example of this is comparing liberal ideas to addictive drugs. Not only is this reductive of the human dignity of liberals, it also denies us the use of our own free will. It creates a situation whereby anyone who disagrees with you becomes a drug addict who should be restrained and constrained to follow a treatment meted out by you.

            And there’s the most irrational thing of all. It’s all about you, isn’t it? You get to judge everyone and decide whether they’re rational or not. You get to define who’s a drug addict. And of course everyone must submit to you.

            Only in your head, poor deluded priest. In reality, in a given class of 31 children in Britain today, only 4 believe in god. And probably only 1 of them is a Catholic. So who’s going to submit to you when the current crop of Irish grandmothers and Polish plumbers has died off or otherwise disappeared?

            If you’re elderly yourself, which is certainly the impression I get, this may not worry you too much. Après vous le déluge after all.

            Ready to check out, are you? Who could blame you? After a lifetime of struggle during which things have only gone from bad to worse for the Church, a tacit admission of defeat and a change of priorities to focus on your own personal salvation may be the only way forward for you. Will we be seeing less and less of you here, and will your comments be as incoherent as the last one? Is this proof that you’re losing your connection with this terrestrial plane and that your spirit is starting to drift off into the wild blue yonder? Looks like a plausible theory to me.

          • Albert

            So liberalism just is irrational because you say so.

            I’ve not read beyond this. But I’m not saying that it is so because I say it is so, I say that it is so because that is what words mean (I also think that’s how liberalism behaves – but that would be a personal opinion, so you would have a point if that’s what I was saying).

            By “liberalism” I mean the philosophy that values (or claims to value) freedom above all else. But that means it values freedom above reason, from which I deduce it is irrational. I think rationality is to liberalism what four-sidedness is to triangles.

    • You want evidence of irrational behaviour? Have a read:

      Now a Christian Cross is evidence of hate. And mentioning the name “Trump” amounts to an assault.

      A report issued by the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse is revealing 192 hate or bias incidents were reported by students during the 2015–2016 school year. Reported incidents include offensive doodles on classroom whiteboards and a person having an image of a Confederate flag on his car. Fourteen percent of the incidents were found to be false or frivolous.

      One of the cases the school’s Hate Response Team took seriously, however, was a student report of a Campus Crusade for Christ poster showing an image of a cross. The student called the cross a sign of “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community” and reported feeling unsafe as long as so-called homophobic student clubs were allowed on campus.

      The university’s website notes 71 percent of people reporting hate/bias incidents are witnesses and not actually the person to whom the alleged incident occurred. It encourages people with the slogan “See something? Say something! Report it.”

      The Hate Response Team — formed in 2005 — investigates student claims of hate or bias on a case-by-case basis. It describes a hate/bias incident as “[a]ny non-criminal act motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, disability or nationality.”

      A school representative noted that students can “feel unsafe or threatened by behavior another person wouldn’t find objectionable.”

      The university claims it is committed to a “culturally diverse and inclusive climate that fosters intellectual and academic freedom, the free expression and exchange of all ideas.” It maintains that “no campus is immune to larger systemic issues such as racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, sexism, ableism and classism.”

      Last year an event known as “the chalkening” triggered responses from university students across the country. Students at Emory University were thrown into a frenzy on seeing chalk
      scribblings on some university walls that read “Vote for Trump,” “Trump for Pres,” and “Accept the Inevitable: Trump 2016.”

      Students claimed they feared for their lives and that they were “attacked” by the name of presidential candidate Donald Trump. One even claimed, “I legitimately feared for my life. I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus.”

      http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/university-student-calling-cross-hate-symbol

      • Pubcrawler

        Good grief! Words fail me.

      • Albert

        “I legitimately feared for my life. I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus.”

        No you didn’t legitimately fear for your life. You’re either telling lies and just want to prevent other people’s freedom or you need to get some psychological help to deal with why you have such a heightened threat reflex. This story (never mind the mention of the cross) is almost enough to make me wish Trump wins – if he name of presidential candidate Trump causes people to fear for their lives, imagine how the name of President Trump will make them feel.

        But what’s most amazing is not that people say these things, but that liberalism is so irrational that they are taken seriously.

        Some people really are stupid

  • Dominic Stockford

    I find that the tills at M&S discriminate against those of us on a lower income by charging us. Can I bypass them please?

    • Anton

      In Italy you can just steal what you want:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36190557

      which is great unless you own a shop.

      • Dominic Stockford

        I can’t afford to get there….

      • carl jacobs

        Since tomorrow the man will be hungry again, this ruling amounts to a standing court order that shopkeepers must feed the indigent. The logical outcome will be the disappearance of shops in proximity to indigents. They will either go under or move. You have to wonder at the brain-dead nature of certain judges. When mercy becomes entitlement, human behavior will adjust accordingly.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Perhaps judges should be held to account for the consequences of their actions. If some of them found themselves on trial for negligence it might concentrate the minds of the others wonderfully.

  • Inspector General

    Shouldn’t think Mr Justice Stuart-Smith took the decision to withhold the school’s name lightly, Cranmer. But he’s a High Court Judge and thus well qualified to decide.

    Look, old chap. It’s an Islamic school. We really are going to have to let these people do their Islamic and that is that. So long as Ofsted didn’t find any bomb making equipment or severed heads, then all is well. One really can’t see the bother of getting all annoyed about them. They will do as they will do.

    On the broader subject of British values, which you mention, then you’re getting much closer to what it’s really all about. We need to make it clear that what these fellows do in their madrassa or whatever it is the place is, is certainly NOT in line with British values – then no one’s going to choke over their cornflakes. Are they?

    One more thing. You really are going to have to get used to the idea that the population now comprises of races that do things differently to us. And a TRUE British value is to let them get on with it, just as an English school is some Middle Eastern country is similarly allowed.

    There! Said it…

    Pip Pip!

  • Inspector General

    Good grief! Such a blasting of a member of our judiciary by some of the finest here!

    Sense of proportion here, fellows. Stuart-Smith (almost typed him as Stuart-Hall, then. That would never do!) hasn’t struck down an extradition order for some barking mad terrorist, you know. So have a care!

    Interesting phenomenon though. An Inspector can only put the wrath down to our unfortunate involvement with the ECHR. It tarnishes everything judicial it seems, so the sooner we cut that nonsense loose and let it float away, the earlier we can get back to respecting our justice. Still the finest in the world, of course. Much better than Johnny European can manage, what!

    Over to you, Mrs May..

  • The Explorer

    Modern British values require that all religions be seen as equally true (in practice, as equally untrue) and that same-sex and heterosexual acts be seen as equivalent. Enforcing these concepts is part of Ofsted’s role. Neither Islamic schools, nor Christian schools that are true to their precepts, can go along with either of those propositions, and so a collision course with Ofsted is inevitable.

    Those Church schools that can reach an accommodation with Ofsted have done so by making themselves indistinguishable from their secular equivalents. Their existence is therefore pointless.

    I see two ways out of the impasse. 1. Modern British values revert to traditional British values. 2. Faith schools are closed down.

    • Inspector General

      Close down our Christian faith schools?

      NEVER sir!

      Snort!

      • len

        Just the muslim ones then?

      • Linus

        Why close them down? Just suspend their public funding and all official recognition of the qualifications they issue.

        If they can struggle on in those circumstances, good luck to them. Why go to all the trouble of sending in the police with wire cutters to snip headmasters and bishops off the railings they’ve chained themselves to? Let them go on hunger strike and march up and down Whitehall ranting about their cherished right to indoctrinate. They’ll get tired of it eventually, just like the Manif pour tous rabble did here in France.

        • Inspector General

          Nobody forces parents to send their children to faith schools…they just do.

          • Linus

            Let parents send their children wherever they like. If they want to pay the huge fees charged by independent schools that do not receive public funding, it’s their choice.

          • Inspector General

            Christians pay tax that becomes public funding, you idiot…

          • Linus

            But Christians do not have any say over how their tax contributions are spent by the government.

            If you had any electoral clout, you could vote in a Christian Democrat government that might implement a Christian education policy. But you just don’t have the numbers.

            Secularists are in control of education policy. Live with it. There’s nothing else you can do.

          • Inspector General

            Who decides the values of the ‘state’ then. YOU?

          • Linus

            The governments elected by the British make those decisions. I don’t vote in British elections. So British values have nothing to do with me.

            If you don’t like the choices British voters make, take it up with them, not me.

          • Inspector General

            Here’s something. You won’t find many politicians around who still oppose SSM..Oh no. They’ve been magically converted. After all, why trouble your vote base over something that’s been decided. That’s how you survive. You grub for votes. But taking on Christianity – put it this way, you won’t find a queue of MPs prepared to do that…

          • Linus

            You will however find a queue of civil servants and Ofsted employees dedicated to imposing standards on all English schools. These standards will be decided by other civil servants working for the Ministry of Education. A politician will rubber stamp them. But the actual work will be done by those god-damned secular liberal elite types that staff government departments, advisory committees and schools.

            I doubt that many of these policies will be discussed in parliament. They’ll merely be quietly implemented. And as there is no Christian party that can question the government from a uniquely Christian perspective, who will take the government to task over its lack of Christian principle? The bishops? Pull the other one! What do they ever do except waffle on about lurve and how nasty all those payday lenders are?

            Only if the government chooses to introduce a new bill that aims to replace existing legislation governing how schools are run will parliament get involved. If it prefers to work under the auspices of legislation already in place, all that MPs can do is table the odd question relative to education policy and then rant about how unsatisfied they are with any answers they receive. And nothing will change. The creeping secularization of the education system will continue during the lifetime of this government, and quite probably the government after that, and so on, and so forth, even unto the end of time. Or at least until the end of your time…

          • Inspector General

            And here we are today. With Christian faith schools and good they are too. How disappointing for you…

          • Linus

            You’ve already admitted that most faith schools are trimming their sails to the prevailing secular wind and will soon cease to be faith-based in anything but name. Those that resist will find themselves Ofstedded out of existence.

            Disappointment is most certainly not the emotion with which I contemplate the future of education in the UK. Calm confidence in the inevitability of religion being ousted from yet another sphere of influence is how I would describe what I feel about the subject. Your emotions are easier to discern. Blind panic and a desperate attempt to hold onto something that you can feel has already largely slipped away from you is what characterizes your input in this debate. Typical really. Plus ça change …

          • IanCad

            Actually there is something parents can do. One of the few freedoms left is the privilege of schooling their children at home if they so wish.
            The fact that so few elect to do so speaks volumes about the sheep like nature of modern Britain.

          • Parents have to work so would this involve a visiting home tutor and how much would that cost?

          • IanCad

            There are only a minority of parents who have the financial ability to educate at home Marie; but it is still a substantial number.
            Bear in mind that groups of parents can form their own schools.

          • Linus

            Difficult to home school your children when both parents are working round the clock to pay the vastly inflated mortgage on their substandard and ugly little home.

            Alternatively they could elect to move “oop Narth” and live in genteel poverty on one salary. This would have the positive effect of tidying all the Christians away in an area of the country where few others set foot, thereby ridding society of a lowering, complaining and carping presence, and surely making everyone much happier in the process.

            You could be on to something here. Why not set up Christian compounds in remote areas where you can live your lives in strict adherence to biblical precepts and not waste your time complaining about your heathen neighbours and trying fruitlessly to convert them?

            Some Mormon sects have done this in remote areas of Utah, I believe. Nobody really knows what goes on in their compounds, although that’s their business, isn’t it? And if all their children look vaguely alike with the widely spaced eyes and vacant expressions that bespeak of a narrow gene pool getting narrower by the day, just think of the time and effort you’ll save on schooling them! And they won’t just have faith like a child, but like a simple child, which will surely grant them instant access to heaven.

            For the good of your children, rise up as one ye Christians of Britain, and go into the wilds where ye will find an abode in the Lord! And he will suffer the genetically challenged little children to come unto him. And all the people will rejoice…

          • IanCad

            Linus, Are you, in fact, the missing blogger, one, Sarky?
            Home schooling is for all – religion not required.

          • The Explorer

            “complaining about your heathen neighbours and trying fruitlessly to convert them.” Which way round is it in reality? We, for instance, are not visiting your blog. You’re visiting ours.

            Christians are not saying secular schools cannot have sex education or cannot preach the equality of all religions. They are simply asking for the right to preach their own beliefs in their own schools. It’s Ofsted that’s doing the imposing and forbidding.

            Personally, I couldn’t care less about state-sanctioned SSM. If the State wants its men to marry one another, good luck to it. All I ask is that it does not impose its beliefs on the Church, which has a different concept of marriage.

            Some branches of Christianity may have tried to impose their beliefs on everybody, but that’s not been universally true; certainly not since the Reformation. The Anabaptists, for instance, believed that faith had to be a matter of choice. They would not have imposed their opinions even if they had had the power to do so. They saw themselves as a community of believers in the midst of the heathen. The heathen had their own value system. All the Anabaptists asked for, was to be left alone. (In practise, they were persecuted until they emigrated: which is why there are Amish and Mennonites in the US and Canada, characterised by their wish to have no dependence on the State, not even for electricity.)

          • Anton

            Electricity companies are private in the USA.

          • The Explorer

            Electricity companies are still ‘The English’. To the Amish, ‘The English’ constitute the State. The Amish want land. That’s all. They don’t want to rely on the English for electricity, water, telephones, welfare, education, medicine or anything else. Total self-sufficiency within the community.

            When I was touring in Amish country someone asked why the Amish had dynamos on their buggies if they disapproved of electricity. One of the Amish explained that they had nothing against electricity, or against generators on their farms. What they were against was any form of dependency. (By implication, dependency on the hostile power surrounding them.)

          • Anton

            Just a giant monastery. They should realise that the era in which they have frozen themselves is arbitrary, and that they still depend on a myriad inventions and foodstuffs from all round the world, even if they put those ideas into practice and grow those foodstuffs themselves.

            They also give teenagers the option of joining wider society but if they do then they ostracise them. I ask you, is that Christian behaviour of a father to his son?

          • The Explorer

            You’ve put your finger on the weaknesses. (it was pointed out to the Quakers of Pennsylvania that if the neighbouring states had shared their pacifism Pennsylvania would never have survived.) I wasn’t citing them as an ideal. I was using them as an example of Christians who don’t try to impose their opinions on others.

          • Anton

            OK!

          • CliveM

            I read that they give them the opportunity to enable them to decide whether they want to join the church or not. They only ostracise then if they then join and subsequently leave.
            Not that I agree with that with.

        • The Explorer

          You say why close them, but that appears to be what happened with the two schools mentioned by His Grace. They would not teach Islam as a true religion or about lesbianism, so they were closed down. That is to say, they remain as schools, but no longer as church schools. Unless I’ve misunderstood.

          • Linus

            You may be right. But if so, it was Ofsted’s decision, not mine. I would have let them stay open, although closing them down may have been the kinder thing to do.

            What point is there in a school without pupils? And what parent would send his child to a hugely expensive fee-paying school that couldn’t provide its pupils with access to state-approved examinations and qualifications?

            Parents have a legal obligation to enter their children into formal education, and without Ofsted approval, no school can provide this. So shutting an unapproved school down rather than letting it slide into bankruptcy was probably the best decision all round.

    • Linus

      What impasse? The way ahead is open and clear.

      Retract all public funding from any school that won’t comply with Ofsted standards. Refuse to recognize any qualification it issues until it agrees to implement fully the national curriculum and abide by all the rules that every school must abide by. That’s the only way this situation is going to end.

      Your first option isn’t an option. It’s a conservative fantasy. You can’t turn back time. Even poor old Cher in her never-ending struggle to reverse the ravages of aging knows that.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Ousted standards are not British standards, just Guardian reader standards.

        • Linus

          Ofsted standards apply to every school in England, so whether or not you agree with them is rather beside the point.

          Tell you what though, why don’t you found a political party dedicated to the destruction of Ofsted and put up a few candidates at the next general election?

          Can I recommend Twickenham as a place where you’ll easily find a few dozen people to vote for you? Other extremist nutcases managed to get over a hundred votes last time, so there’s no reason why you shouldn’t do equally as well.

          • The Explorer

            In ‘Submission’, the Muslims have two political priorities. One, win the breeding race. Two, take control of education Leave finance (it’s a coalition to keep out le Pen) to the Socialists. Control what the kids are learning, and you control the future.

          • Linus

            Honestly, between the bible and Houellebecq, you’ll never want for moonshine. Is that the secret to living with Christianity? Keep yourself constantly drunk on myths and legends so you never get a hangover?

      • Demon Teddy Bear

        Dear dear, why don’t you just be honest and say how much you hate church schools?

  • len

    Censoring anything is the surest way to arouse people’s interest and for them to start searching for more information.
    The internet has many bad points but information cannot be restricted on it.One case in point is the Gospel of Jesus Christ going places it would never be accepted normally. Censoring orders are made ridiculous by the freedom of information on the net.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Perhaps the judge is simply trying to ensure that the school remains a faith friendly place for Muslim students and staff. In Wales the Equality and Human Rights Commission has just issued a report entitled Creating a Faith-Friendly Workplace for Muslims.

    https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/creating_a_faith_-_friendly_workplace_for_muslims_eng.pdf

    The recommendations range from creating prayer rooms to offering a choice in toilets between using toilet paper and jugs of water.

    Turning back to England, does anyone know if the Equality and Human Rights Commission has had time yet to say anything about the events in Rotherham over the past couple of decades or has it been to busy trying to find links between BREXIT and hate crime?

    • Inspector General

      There’s no cure for socialism they say, but individuals afflicted do tend heal over the years ahead…when it dawns on them what fools they’ve been.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    This is all getting rather humourless. So let us all enjoy this video from Italy, where it seems they are less influenced by the Political Correctness that, like the grey squirrel, has been brought over here from America.

    Mustafà lu vu cumprà

    Without written lyrics, the Neapolitan dialect is hard to follow, but one does not even need to know standard Italian to appreciate this one and its relevance to the matter in hand.

    • TropicalAnglican

      Poor staff…

  • The Explorer

    The legal judgment on the School (in the public domain and available to read online) indicates that segregation by gender is not the hef issue. That has the approval of many of the parents, and is the main reason some of them want to send their kids there.

    What seems to have most troubled the Inspectors is certain books in the library demeaning the status of women. The School’s responses to these are confusing. One is that the Management did not know the books were there. Why not: it’s a small school? The other is that the books are perfectly straightforward commentary on extracts of the Qur’an. Quite so.

  • Malcolm Smith

    Linus’ rant should remind us: the only reason the servants of Satan are successful is that they pick us off one by one because we do not stand together. When the Christian schools were originally threatened with closure, that should have been the signal for all Christian schools to issue a joint statement to the effect that they would not teach either religious or sexual perversion. Faced with mass defiance, Ofsted would have backed down. All bullies do. Remember, they are just bureaucrats; their policies are not law. If they wanted to force the issue, they would need to run crying to their political masters. But MPs are typically moral cowards anyway. In any case, mass defiance would put a bit of backbone into those MPs who still have a conscience, and would be prepared to support the cause of right.
    Of course, the same goes for other assaults on virtue. The bed-and-breakfast case and the gay-cake case should have been the signal for sermons to be preached in every church on the need to defend freedom of religion and virtue, followed by harassing of MPs. Indeed, the mere commencement of litigation should have been the signal.
    Political correction must always be nipped in the bud.

    • Anton

      “When the Christian schools were originally threatened with closure, that should have been the signal for all Christian schools to issue a joint statement to the effect that they would not teach either religious or sexual perversion.”

      These are Church of England schools, weren’t they? WHERE WERE THE BISHOPS? It’s about time these invertebrates started repeating from their pulpits the words for which perfectly peaceable street preachers are persecuted, and attend their trials.

      • TropicalAnglican

        Hear, hear!

        • Mike Houlding

          Her majesty is Defender of the Faith is she not ?

  • The Explorer

    As a teenager, the historian Richard Cobb fell out with his best friend’s mother. Knowing that Cobb was about to apply to Oxbridge, she contacted the relevant colleges: “Do not interview this boy under any circumstances. He is a degenerate.” Cobb was immediately flooded with invitations, the admissions tutors being interested in identifying the nature of the degeneracy.

    Similar situation here. The censoring has immensely intensified public interest.

    (Cobb’s friend also fell out with the mother, and later murdered her. He tried to throw the body off a cliff, but was prevented by a couple copulating in the back of a car. “They were rutting like animals. Absolutely disgusting!” For those who don’t know it, it’s quite a racy autobiography.).

  • What this judge may not realise is that until the school is named every Muslim school is under suspicion