Sikh girl takes school to court over kara


by Sunny
18th June, 2008 at 4:46 am    

A Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from lessons when she refused to remove a religious bracelet should not have been told to take it off because it is a symbol of faith and not a piece of jewellery, the High Court heard.

Lawyers acting for Sarika Watkins-Singh, 14, referred the judge to a photograph of Monty Panesar, the first Sikh cricketer to play for England, wearing a similar plain steel bangle, known as a Kara. Sarika claims she was was the victim of unlawful discrimination. Helen Mountfield, for Sarika, told the court: “there is no string of authority to say that school uniform rules may trump religious dress codes”

From the Telegraph. Interesting! I thought banning her wearing the Kara was silly anyway. It is a key tenet to Sikhism.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Religion






45 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. kara

    [...] symbol of faith and not a piece of jewellery, the High Court heard. Lawyers acting for Sarika Watkinhttp://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2073Video: Firefox 3 downloads–7 million and counting CNETIn Wednesday’s edition of the Daily Debrief, [...]




  1. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 9:00 am  

    She hasn’t won the case yet. The hearing continues.

  2. bananabrain — on 18th June, 2008 at 9:24 am  

    why can’t they just decide that the principle is about whether the article of clothing in question interferes with her school activities or the activities of others? surely it isn’t beyond the wit of man to devise a reliable test?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  3. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 9:55 am  

    bb – if they do that, and decide bangles do not interfere, then they should change the rule for everyone and allow them to be worn. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

  4. Rumbold — on 18th June, 2008 at 10:50 am  

    Thanks DavidMWW. Headline now altered.

  5. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:11 am  

    “A Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from lessons when she refused to remove a religious bracelet should not have been told to take it off because it is a symbol of faith and not a piece of jewellery,”

    Is wearing jewelry against the school dress code?

  6. Inders — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:14 am  

    David MWW the equality that you’re suggesting is the tyranny of the majority.

    The girl is wearing it for religious reasons and the school’s uniform code is breaking the law.

    I don’t see why Sikhs have to continue to battle issues that were resolved 25 years ago in some cases. Will 3rd Generation and 4th Generation Asians still be fighting their rights to religious expression in this country in 25 years time ?

  7. billaricaydicky — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:20 am  

    I was given one by an Asian girl friend in the seventies. It was one of the really heavy steel ones. I used to wear it on my right wrist and slip it down to use as a nuckle duster in fights. I introduced it to quite a few NF members but I wonder will there be a few of the gentlemen with orange and blue pugris after me for blasphemy.

  8. sonia — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:45 am  

    “surely it isn’t beyond the wit of man to devise a reliable test?”

    apparently not.

    these guys should really settle out of court, the school is being silly and everyone is being obstinate – really – public money being spent on whether someone should wear a bracelet or not – its ridiculous that so much symbolic significance is put on a hunk of metal – both from the school’s perspective and endowing a piece of metal with emotion from the girls.

  9. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:59 am  

    “its ridiculous that so much symbolic significance is put on a hunk of metal”

    Well, part of my family is Sikh, and I know how much a kara is important for them for their identity. None of my family members are particularly religious, but every single person wears their kara.

  10. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:04 pm  

    I mean, it is similar to asking my mother to not wear her bindi, which is so much a part of who she is. Or asking me to take off my nose-ring (though I don’t wear it for religious purposes). I don’t think it’s so much the religious factor, but rather, the identity factor (of which religion is a part of).

    BTW, I don’t mean identity in the way that it comes to signify in relation to Desis sense– ie we want to keep our cute little ways from the homeland, and we will be damned if someone stops us from us.Identity is something that all of us go through, and we do various things to express them– ie, for some people, their beautifully long blonde hair is their identity. For some, cutting your hair off means nothing, for others, it is their trademark or whatever.

  11. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:05 pm  

    It would not be right to ask someone to take off a cross pendent, would it?

  12. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:09 pm  

    “The school, at which Sarika was the only Sikh among 600 girls, has a strict “limited jewellery policy” and will only wristwatches and plain ear studs.”

    Ahh, I see. So the kara went against the dress code.

  13. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:09 pm  

    It is an Orwellian world of newspeak we live in when the principle that rules should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their opinion, is regarded as “discriminatory”.

    If the school let her wear her bangle, they need to let everyone wear one. Her reasons are no more legitimate than anyone else’s just because they are labelled “religious”.

  14. Desi Italiana — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:13 pm  

    “Sarika claims she was was the victim of unlawful discrimination.”

    I’m not convinced by this allegation; if there’s a minimal jewelry dress code at the school, it’s hard to argue that she’s been ‘discriminated’ against…

  15. Inders — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:17 pm  

    Stairs are equal to everyone, why should they be removed for disabled people ?

    Ey, pork is pork is pork. So why should there be other options for Muslims or vegetarians ?

    Equal is debatable. Fair is something else.

    Is it fair that a Sikh has to remove a religious article to go to school, while the majority of kids have to make no such sacrifice.

    If this school was majority Sikh would the rules be different ? If so, then the only reason this girl is hindered from her education is that she is in a minority.

    In a way that contravenes the race relations act, the European human rights act and the more recent education act.

  16. bananabrain — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:34 pm  

    If the school let her wear her bangle, they need to let everyone wear one. Her reasons are no more legitimate than anyone else’s just because they are labelled “religious”.

    surely matters of conscience are not to be confused with matters of aesthetics? could you not therefore argue that the school should have no obligation to provide vegetarian meals, or make all meals vegetarian? i don’t see a problem with a kara (unlike a functional kirpan) just as i don’t see a problem with a crucifix necklace. neither interfere with the curriculum and neither are aesthetic statements – obviously if someone wears a huge blinging crucifix necklace that’s a different matter. by this logic, an unobtrusive kara which is in any case mainly covered by the sleeve shouldn’t be an issue, although a massive steel knuckleduster would. i also don’t see why a turban, a hijab or a skullcap should interfere with the curriculum except perhaps in the swimming pool, gym or on the games field, in which case a reasonable compromise (e.g. sports hijab or simply take it off for an hour) could be reached. i’ve already made my feelings clear about where i would draw the line: things which interfere wholesale with the entire concept of uniform (the jilbab) and things which interfere wholesale with proper communication on every level (the niqab).

    it strikes me that one of the things that religions could do to facilitate these matters would be to introduce “minimalist” versions of the articles required that conformed with uniform rules whether at school or elsewhere, by exactly the same logic that “plain ear studs” are permitted – you could allow a “plain wooden crucifix of no more than x/y dimensions”, a “plain steel kara” and so on. it is the constant squabbling and attempting to score petty propaganda victories by both sides that really wastes both time and money.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  17. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 12:57 pm  

    No, bb – that’s a different argument. Vegetarian meals are available to everyone – they are not for the exclusive consumption of vegetarians.

    In order to make exceptions on religious, as opposed to aesthetic grounds, you would have to formulate a working definition of “religious” – one which would not be open to abuse. Good luck with that.

    Or you could just make the same rules apply to everyone.

  18. Inders — on 18th June, 2008 at 1:03 pm  

    The same rules applied to everyone, dictated by the majority for the benefit of the majority is a tyranny. A mono-cracy.

  19. Refresh — on 18th June, 2008 at 1:18 pm  

    Why are we rehearsing this argument again? Again and again.

    The school clearly lacks the capacity to develop its pupils for a modern world.

    I wish her luck and hope she wins. And the school should hang its head in shame – the head and governors are clearly in need of getting out more.

  20. Kulvinder — on 18th June, 2008 at 1:22 pm  

    If the school let her wear her bangle, they need to let everyone wear one. Her reasons are no more legitimate than anyone else’s just because they are labelled “religious”.

    I completely agree that her reasoning is no more special than anyone elses; as ive said before id allow people to wear what they want since her parents are paying the government to provide her schooling.

    Aside from all that i think Inders raises a valid point, everyone is i assume in favour of breaking down ghettoisation, but the jobsworth like application of rules for the sake of applying those rules just encourages communities to stick together.

  21. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 2:13 pm  

    Inders, the principle of equality before the law is a cornerstone of democracy. OK, we are just talking school rules in this case, but the principle is the same.

    I don’t think I am proposing anything controversial here. I’m quite happy for the school to change its policy on bangles, provided it is appled in a non-discriminatory fashion – across the board.

    Similarly I have no problem with a law which states that turbans are an acceptable substitute for crash helmets – as long as it applies to everyone, not just a particular group who define thmselves by their metaphysical opinions and habits.

  22. bananabrain — on 18th June, 2008 at 2:21 pm  

    DavidMWW:

    Vegetarian meals are available to everyone – they are not for the exclusive consumption of vegetarians.

    you’re missing the point. they are there to cater for the right of vegetarians to exercise their right to freedom of conscience. i don’t understand how that is different from wearing a religious article and clearly it has far larger implications in terms of one-size-fits-all utilitarian solutions, to say nothing of cost.

    In order to make exceptions on religious, as opposed to aesthetic grounds, you would have to formulate a working definition of “religious” – one which would not be open to abuse.

    or, alternatively, you could rely on the judgement of the school as long as you made sufficient provision to allow them room for interpretation, as clearly hasn’t happened in this case.

    Or you could just make the same rules apply to everyone.

    which is how we started off – giving the nutters on both sides licence to scream discrimination or “PC gone mad” at any point as well as wasting vast amounts of public money on something that could be sorted out with a little bit of room for professional judgement.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  23. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 2:47 pm  

    bb – no doubt both the school and the girl could have been more reasonable in this case. But I will try one more time to explain my point.

    The school has 3 options:

    1) Allow bangles for all
    2) Forbid bangles for all
    3) Allow bangles only for Sikhs

    Now, seriously, which of these 3 options is the least likely to give licence to nutters to scream “discrimination” or “PC gone mad”? Option 2) allows one side to scream “discrimination” (justly or not), option 3) allows the other side to scream both.

    On what grounds would people object to option 1)?

  24. Hermes123 — on 18th June, 2008 at 3:02 pm  

    DavidMWWW,

    There is some trivilisation of the debate here because the Kara is being renamed ‘bangle’, which immediately conjures up a picture of ornamental jewelry. It is no such thing. The Kara is a religious symbol, the same as the Cross worn around the neck by many.

    And yes, sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions to do what’s right, even if it leads to the ignorant headlines in the Daily Mail about pc.

  25. sonia — on 18th June, 2008 at 3:34 pm  

    i wouldn’t ask anyone to not wear something, i dont really care either which way. but if humans want to make a fuss out of material objects, well hey, i guess we have the time energy and effort to waste! of course that is purely my personal point of view. people want to have their right to decide what they want to wear or not and that’s the wider issue, their right to autonomy to decide what is suitable for them ( though we all know schools are dictatorial places rather than about instilling libertarian thinking anyway and frankly that is the wider problem) SO i guess i find it surprising people arent bothered about that so much but are concerned about that same authoritarian thinking when it comes to a bangle or something. What about what they are feeding the minds of the childreN??
    people seem to only care about independence when it comes to independence of customs of one group over another. but anyway.

  26. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 4:21 pm  

    Hermes, I’m not trivialising the debate by calling it a bangle, I’m clarifying it.

    The personal significance of the bangle has to be disregarded, because it is impossible to quantify. How would you tell a girl whose bangle was given to her by her grandmother on her deathbed that she can’t wear it, but this other girl can wear hers because it is a “religious symbol”? Is her promise to a dear-departed grandmother less important?

    That’s a recipe for disaster and discord.

    It’s a bangle. Just a bangle. A bangle is a bangle is a bangle. If it walks like a bangle… etc etc

  27. Hermes123 — on 18th June, 2008 at 4:24 pm  

    So would yoyu also say that the turban is just a headwrap, comparable to a bandana?

  28. DavidMWW — on 18th June, 2008 at 4:56 pm  

    As far as I’m concerned it is just a headwrap.

    What would you say to the girl with her dead granny’s bangle?

  29. Avi Cohen — on 18th June, 2008 at 6:02 pm  

    Sunny – “From the Telegraph. Interesting! I thought banning her wearing the Kara was silly anyway. It is a key tenet to Sikhism.”

    Isn’t wearing a Hijaab a key tenet to some Muslims? People have always opposed that in school but are you now saying that leeway needs to be given for other faiths?

    Then should a Sikh boy be allowed to bring the kirpan to school as well because that is a tenent to faith?

    It is interesting that people find this acceptable but not what Muslims want and apparently this isn’t being portrayed as an assult on secular values.

    Interestingly a similar fight to wear the kirpan took place in Canada and is increasingly becoming an issue for employers.

  30. Inders — on 18th June, 2008 at 7:45 pm  

    Sikh boys (or girls for that matter) are allowed to wear their kirpans. Or they used to be when I was at school.

    number of incidents of stabbing with ceremonial kirpan in school = 0 For one thing most ones that children carry are sewn into the sheath.

    As for the hijab girl she won her case on appeal.

    These issues are not increasing because any problems are increasing. They are increasing because people are more intolerant then they used to be.

  31. Inders — on 18th June, 2008 at 7:49 pm  

    My final post on the subject.

    The school has broken the law.

    If David MMW disagrees with the law he should try and get the law changed so that people have less rights in this country.

    If he don’t like it, he can leave. He doesn’t have to go far, France will do. They like his thinking over there. (irony…i’ve always wanted to say that to a white person…assuming david is white of course)

  32. Sid — on 18th June, 2008 at 8:57 pm  

    Isn’t wearing a Hijaab a key tenet to some Muslims?

    If it is a tenet to some Muslims and not to others, how can it be a “key tenet”? If you claim it is I would like to see a definitive ayat (or word from the mouth of g!d) to say that it is. Only then can it be a fundamenta legal requirement and thereforel a “key tenet”.

  33. Indrak — on 18th June, 2008 at 10:22 pm  

    re the case in point, from the link:
    “But the school appeal panel refused the exemption in October, saying they were “not convinced that, as part of her religion, it is a requirement that Sarika wear the Kara on her wrist.” ”

    -So that means the panel undertook to make a decision
    it was not qualified to do. The juidicial court should make good the panels failure to seek out such elemental knowledge.
    That’s not the end of the school’s failure though. Whence derives sanctity of wearing watches at a particular place in the body, or ear studs? What proscription applies to genital piercings??

    @28 – so you are happy to cause offense. Don’t kid yourself it’s about being equal or rational as you strive in earlier posts. The point about vegetarrians was good and you failed to address the principle.
    eg re religious grounds not being priveledged: a sincere materialist, philosophically opposed to any idealist realm would recognise that forcibly suppressing such beliefs engenders a reaction, and would therefore allow for accommodation.
    The best way to attenuate religion is to make it a non-issue, genuinely.

    Enough Sikhs are already following suite in becoming reactionary, just like other religions, though only muslims seem to suffer for it from the attention they get. They took the stupid route and walked into it over ‘the Satanic Verses’. The racist reactionaries [and newly lucred decriers of the 'left' that's allied with islamo'fascists'] have loved that ever since. At that time Thatcher’s Britain could have taken a principled stand against Iran and warned against taking the fatwa beyond rhetoric. Instead, gutless Rushdie hid behind her skirts and ate humble pie.

    Inders… – so, what is the situation now for sikhs in france now, i have wondered.

    For the likes of Sonia: the inception of the 5 symbols was exactly a consequence of oppressionto deal with it head on rather than acquiesce 2-facedly when it suited and then revert when safe. The fact that the christian world took the route of hypocritical liberalism in dealing with rationality, and claims that muslims’ salvation lies in doing the same, suggests that sikhs have not sufficient reason for the lapsing of their symbols.

  34. Indrak — on 18th June, 2008 at 10:28 pm  

    the above got sent without correcting typos, norwas there any provision to edit.

  35. Muslim — on 18th June, 2008 at 10:46 pm  

    As a Muslim I wish this girl all the best. However I cant help feeling as Avi Coehn said if this was a Muslim the reaction would be quite different.

    Sid hijab is agreed by Muslim scholars to be obligatory- its based on Surah 24:31. Where is the obligation for the Kara? The Christian cross isnt metioned in the Bible.

  36. Sid — on 18th June, 2008 at 11:08 pm  

    Muslim, I don’t submit to any “scholars” and nor should you or any Muslim who has an intellect of their own. The Quran is open to interpretation otherwise you’re going to have to explain to women that they don’t have to wear a hijab in front of their female slaves and their castrated male (eunuch) attendants, as per An-Noor verse 31.

    Furthermore, you have no right to question the tenets of another faith.

  37. Sunny — on 19th June, 2008 at 2:39 am  

    I have no problem with a school allowing a girl to wear the hijab if she thinks its central to her religious identity.

    I think school uniform is a fairly over-rated idea anyway. India allows all sorts of religious articles at school and it hasn’t collapsed as a democracy.

    There are a few tests that should be applied in these cases.

    1) It is hurting anyone else?
    2) Is it impeding their own development?
    3) Is it against the law?
    4) How will it destroy social cohesion (if that’s the inference)

    etc etc.

    Then you can have a more sensible debate. In all this, I’m in agreement with Inders.

  38. ashik — on 19th June, 2008 at 9:19 am  

    Sarika Watkins-Singh. Mixed race?

    Why complain about a trivial cultural-religio matter like wearing a bracelet (Kara) when one is potentially the product of a relationship which almost certainly goes against the tenets of the Sikh faith? Most Sikh’s like their Muslim and Hindu counterparts oppose mixed marriages from cultural and religious reasons.

    Reminds me of the Bengali girl Shabina Begum and the furore about the Jilbab. Turns out her Hizbut Tahrir activist bro was behind it.

    What is the likelihood that this girl is flirting with fashion and teenage rebellion as opposed to a deep sense of religiousity?

  39. DavidMWW — on 19th June, 2008 at 10:40 am  

    OK, just to clarify what I’m up against. Given a hypothetical authority has three options:

    1) Forbid X
    2) Permit X
    3) Permit X only for members of religious group Y

    Most people here are of the opinion that option 3) is the most progressive and/or liberal stance?

  40. bananabrain — on 19th June, 2008 at 10:53 am  

    you forgot this one:

    4) unclench and stop wasting everyone’s time and money on pointless battles between jobsworths and showoffs.

    if this were a criminal prosecution, the CPS would probably throw it out (says the non-lawyer). the school is clearly not empowered to relax.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  41. Parvinder Singh — on 19th June, 2008 at 12:50 pm  

    #38: ‘Sarika Watkins-Singh. Mixed race?
    Why complain about a trivial cultural-religio matter like wearing a bracelet (Kara) when one is potentially the product of a relationship which almost certainly goes against the tenets of the Sikh faith? Most Sikh’s like their Muslim and Hindu counterparts oppose mixed marriages from cultural and religious reasons. ‘

    - Disagree.

    My family is a mish mash of races. I have cousins in India who have married Hindus and one even a Muslim. In the UK, two of my brothers have married English Christians. In all of these relationships, no one has been asked to adopt the Sikh faith and the children can wear the Kara if they want to or not or become Jedis. No faith has a monopoly on truth. Sikhs are not a missionary religion, ie. don’t seek converts. The first Sikh teacher taught that what religion you were wasn’t important, but being human. The last teacher taught to ‘see the human race as one’. The Sikh holy book contains the hymns of non-Sikhs. The foundation stone for the Golden Temple of Amritsar was laid down by a non-Sikh as was the first head of the Akal Takht. The four entrances to it signifies the coming together of the four castes. The institution of ‘Langar’ or free kitchen was introduced to breakdown caste, sex and religious barriers.

    Since the time of the Gurus though, certain rules had been introduced such as the ones regarding marriage in the Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct), which advocates marriage within the community. It can be argued that this was introduced just at a time when this minority community needed to be consolidated after such a long period of being at the receiving end of Mughal and Afghan persecution. Nevertheless, I do think it contrary to what the Sikh Gurus taught.

  42. Dalbir — on 20th June, 2008 at 1:36 pm  

    ———
    There is some trivilisation of the debate here because the Kara is being renamed ‘bangle’, which immediately conjures up a picture of ornamental jewelry. It is no such thing. The Kara is a religious symbol, the same as the Cross worn around the neck by many.
    ———

    Are the two really comparable? I don’t think any Christian doctrine requires the wearing of a cross for Christians. Sikhs however are a majorly symbolic people and have been given symbols to wear to proclaim their faith/presence.

    The traditionally given reason for this is a purported denial of faith by some Sikhs at the public execution of the ninth Sikh Guru when soldiers challenged the Sikhs in the crowd after decapitating their leader (and torturing his two companions.) No overt symbols as associated with Sikhism today were part of the religion then. This happened in 1675 AD.

    The son of the murdered man was the next Guru (the legendary Guru Gobind Singh) and took steps to ensure Sikhs would not be able to hide themselves again.

    The kara is a very significant symbol because it is worn by more Sikhs as a marker than any other symbol today. I couldn’t be classed as a seriously disciplined Sikh but I have had a kara on my wrist pretty much since I was born. It is a part of me now and the last visible link to my Khalsa heritage. I’m not a superstitious man but I really would feel odd without it now. It isn’t jewellery.

  43. maria — on 28th June, 2008 at 11:08 pm  

    I would just like to say did you all know that Sarika was the subject to racial bulling in this school for the 2 years, and while this brought to the attention of the head teacher she was told not to worry but that this is not a problem for the school to deal with but that this is because of big brother, (I am sure you all remember the Shipla Shetty and jade goodie business) during this time Sarika was also put into isolation

    Prior to being excluded she had been put into isolation at school and was being taught separately to every other student, as she refused to remove her Kara. While in isolation she was not allowed to talk to any of her friends and was not even allowed to go to the bathroom without a teacher. She has not been allowed to take part in school activities or clubs after school. It is very concerning that Sarika was taught in isolation because of her beliefs.

    While in isolation she was not getting taught the education that she should because she was made to copy out of books and if the support teacher did not know about the subject she could not do the work and was told to do something else instead. Sarika at times had to wait to go to the bathroom for 45 mins, because the teacher had to take her daughter to Tesco….
    the head teacher gave Sarika’s parents a choice she said that Sarika should stop complaining about the bulling in school and the kara will not be an issue… because Sarika refused this she has had no choice but to take this route, the family exhausted all avenues before going to the papers, hence why the LEA would not get involved because they had advised the school that should this go to court they would loose but the governors said that this is not about the law but about school rules. (to this day the local education authority have said that they are not supporting the school on this matter at all and they will not support the school financially)
    When the case did go to court the Judge asked for the race policy that the school claimed to have in force but could not produce this in court when the Judge said that he wanted there in the afternoon the school came up with a do it yourself guide on how to write a policy, then the school audit reports confirmed that that the school looked at a policy in 2005 but never put this into force….
    The school has not once disputed the treatment of Sarika.
    The Human Rights Commission, National Assembly Against Racism, The National Union of Students, The Welsh Assembly, the LEA, The Coalition, the Mayor of London (ken Livingstone), United Sikh, The Metropolitan Police, Sikh Federation, Liberty and many many more organisations’ and people are all behind Sarika,
    I ask you all had this been your daughter would you, all sit back and take the mis- treatment of a child and watch or would you raise a voice and say that this is not right…

    Sarika did not want to be treated any different than other girls at the school but she had worn the kara for 2 years to this school and it had never been a problem for the school until Sarika and her family said that they will sit back and take the abuse.
    Sarika handed a petition into Downing Street with over 2 million supporters, surely this is saying something in other ways to say that the school had no real reason to treat Sarika in this way, Sarika was not only bullied by girls in the school but was also bullied by the teachers, and rather than putting a stop to all this they may her different and singled her out even more by putting her into isolation. And now it is not just her education that has suffered.

    SCHOOL IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST TIME OF A CHILD LIFE’S, NOT A NIGHT MARE THAT WILL HAUNT THEM FOR THE REST OF THERE LIFE’S….

    IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE FAMILY AND CANNOT SUPPORT THEM PLEASE DON’T CRITISE THEM, AS THEY ARE A VERY LIKED FAMILY AND DID ALL THEY COULD TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. THE SCHOOL FORCED THE FAMILY TO TAKE THIS ROUTE.

    KIND REGARDS,
    MARIA A VERY CLOSE FAMILY FRIEND… WHO SUPPORTS SARIKA AND THE FAMILY ALL THE WAY…..

    I HOPE THAT THE FAMILY CAN COUNT ON YOUR SUPPORT

  44. Amrit — on 28th June, 2008 at 11:33 pm  

    Maria -

    That’s real touching and all, but you couldn’t you have upped your credibility by not writing like a raving lunatic would talk?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.