The headscarf is part of a religious tradition (in the Hadith) that goes back countless centuries. The Silver Ring is not part of any longstanding religious tradition. That's the bottom line. If Jesus had insisted on silver rings, and everyone had won them for 2000 years, the inconsistency charge might make sense. Those in favour of the ring, where is the line drawn? Can I send my kids to school with rings which say "God thinks premarital safe sex is a wonderful thing"? Or how about "God hates gays (Leviticus 20:13)"? How about "Women are inferior to men (I Corinthians 11:3)?" Can I define any new right-wing fad as an essential religious symbol?

Nick, Manchester, UK

I think it was a fair decision. I'm a member of SRT, and I also attended a High School with the no jewelry rule. We were not allowed to wear the WWJD? wristbands when I was in High School. There are other ways to display your faith. My cousin keeps his Silver Ring, as a key-chain while at school. I used to cover all my notebooks with Christian sayings and Bible Verses. We, as Christians, are expected to obey the rules of Government and our elders (as long as they don't contradict the Lord's commandments). I think that Lydia and her family made a big deal out of something extremely minor.

Ashleigh Langhein, Bloemfontein, South Africa

What's wrong with the good old cross around the neck in the name of Christianity? I'm personally glad she lost her case. As stated, there is a "vested interest" in this "movement" from her family, which I'm sure would be part of their motivation although this would likely be firmly denied. The ring's not essential to her beliefs, but her and her parents income. By all means commit to abstinence if you so wish, but this is just a symbol of another right-wing Christian fundamentallist cult.

David Ian Warner, Stirling, Scotland

i think Lydia should have been allowede to wear her purity ring to school. i mean what could possible be wrong with wearing a ring that means something relly important to the individual. i feel taht the judgement is ridiculous and Lydia should appeal because a fundamentall human right has beenbreached.

Stephanie Amoah, london,

The Judge erred because he took no cogniscannce of the headscarf/bangles already allowed in the school. THIS IS NOT A FAIR DECISION

Niki Garratt, Johannesburg, South Africa

Lydia should have selected a golden calf instead of a silver ring - a certain High Court Judge might have protected her human rights. I think I know who would get my vote for moral judgement and common sense.

Tony Wood, Bishops Stortford, UK

It is such a shame that a simple thing - a silver ring can not be worn to express what one believes. It does seem like double standards that bangles can be worn in the name of religion however Christian people can not express their views. Schools should be pleased that teenagers are being responsible and pledging no sex before marriage. What ever happened to compromise, after all it is a simple ring with a greater meaning. It is all about tolerance and being flexable these children are our future leaders.

pauline costins, Perth WA, Australia

Well done to the Judge and the headmaster (I just hope the £12,000 covers his fees). I believe that the girl’s parents had a stake in selling the rings, which makes the freedom of choice issue a bit suspect. The whole thing was a callous publicity stunt.

As for muslim girls wearing the headscarf personally I’d ban that too. School is for education not inculcation, no place for any superstitious claptrap or out of the book moralising. Still at least the school does mix Christian, Muslim Sikh and presumably atheist kids which is a good thing.

tim ellidge, manchester, uk

It is time to ban ALL religious symbols within our state schools. Allowing some religions to wear their symbols of faith and banning others is creating a schism within our schools and society. The actual decision as to what constitues an intergral part of any faith should not be for the law to decide, faith and it's symbols are always evolving. After all the cross, which is now an intergral part of christianity was not used as a symbol of faith untill around the end 300 A.D.

Les, Southport, England.

Is it really so wrong to allow a teenager this small expression of her religious faith? Its not like she turned up with a tattoo on her face. I am not a christian but I feel that children should be encouraged to express their individuality and beliefs, as long as they do not compromise the image of the school. You can hardly say a small silver ring does that. This whole case smacks of bloody mindedness by the school and education authority and will only increase the divide between people of different religious beliefs. What a waste of time and money.

R King, Norwich ,

So bangles are OK, headscarves which are immensely more 'in your face' are OK, but a purity ring is not.
I rang the school to ask if small crosses are OK, they are not.
This IS blatant discrimination against 'non minority' religion and will stoke up legitimate resentment. It is simply unjust.

T, Oxford, UK

This is not about the lack of upholding Christian views. As purported Christians the Playfoots should be disgraced for attempting to stir religious tensions by claiming that this country does not afford rights to Christians.

The Playfoots' profiteering from The Silver Ring Thing further goes to show the lack of purity in their bringing proceedings against the school in the first place. They are nothing short of greedy individuals expoliting their daughter.

If Ms Playfoot has made a vow of chastity until marriage, good on her. Why does it have to be displayed? As for other religious symbols being used and worn, these are from established religions and the cases that have been brought by students wanting to be allowed to wear the headscarf have had no impact on their parents' ability to profit from the situation.

Shame on you Playfoot Family.

AC, London, UK

Rather than this being an example of "other religions getting preferential treatment", this is a rare vistory for commonsense. If you believe otherwise, please focus on this: "Lydia’s parents run the British chapter of the Silver Ring Thing and had a vested interest in being able to spread its message in schools."

This 'silver ring thing' nonsense - imported from our "nothing too sacred to make money from" friends in the United States has little to do with religion of any stripe and lots to do with a moneymaking business.

John Blackley, Austin, TX, USA

In this day and age, with teenage pregnancy being at ridiculous numbers, I think Lydia should have been able to wear the ring, whether it was her religious belief or just a personal choice.

There are, I imagine, very few youngsters that believe in the Christian doctrine of abstaining until marriage and this should be encouraged if someone chooses to adide by it.

Why is it that people cannot respect other's beliefs?

It's not as if she wanted to wear a huge banner saying 'No sex before marriage'.

What is wrong with a discreet ring indicating her beliefs? The school was wrong to make her remove it, and the judges unfair.

The fact that a ring doesn't symbolise the belief of abstainance by tradition shouldn't matter.

I'm tired of living in a world where people are scared that religious symbols will offend others.

The more cases like this, the more we will resent each other's beliefs, which is great for the media, making their millions at the expense of our country

Alexandra, Southampton, Hampshire

Letugo- it IS in the Quran that women must cover their heads. As Sikhs should wear a turban and Jews a skull- these have been religious symbols for centuries and accepted in the school system. And i'm pretty sure these groups observe the purity which Ms Playfoot is talking about without wearing a ring.

So many girls wear alsorts of jewellery without being caught out- they are just clever about it- why on earth bring this to court- it has NOTHING to do with Chrisitianity at all, its a a cult thing some bored teenagers created. Christianity like most religions preaches chastity- but the Bible doesn't tell you to wear a ring to show it.

Sam, Manchester,

It seems to me that the ECtHR, while sometimes casting confusion on the issue, has been sufficiently clear on the margin of appreciation for religious expression by clothing or artefact. (Sahin, etc)

Let's be clear about the crux of the issue: celibacy is hardly a central issue of Christian theology; it is a characteristic of some modern Christian culture. A ring to indicate this choice, however, remains irrelevant- it's a relationship with God (or even Church) that is important, not lording your celibacy over others, no matter how honourable the intent may be!

Whereas the State has no prerogative to limit or extend- or really even to comment on- theology per se, it is precisely the remit of the School to achieve an appropriate cultural balance.

That Miss Playfoot's parents are retailers of the product in question clearly suggests that there are financial interests also in play; we must not tub-thump too early for religious rights if those claiming them have been disingenuous.

Johnny, London,

It's entirely irrelevant when the practice of wearing the ring was established. The freedoms afforded by the ECHR say nothing about 'only practices that have been established for a long time'. We are free to practice our faith in whatever form we like provided we don't encroach on others' rights. The relevant consideration is what the practice stands for. It's a very admirable belief which the school should acknowledge - it's a crying shame they have tried to prevent it when more young people should be following this good example.

Jen, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

It is inappropriate to judge that a religious symbol is unworthy of exemption from Lydia Playfoot’s school’s uniform policy on the grounds that the symbol is not "integral" to her religion.

While Lydia states she is a “Christian”, this doesn’t license us to prescribe her Christianity to her. Lydia’s religious beliefs are personal, and the importance of a symbol to her experience of faith is for her to decide.

Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights protects Lydia’s freedom to display religious symbols. If her school’s uniform policy makes exceptions for other symbols of religious belief, it discriminates against her when it doesn’t offer her symbol the same treatment.

John Vantuson, York, United Kingdom

Ian Bennet, who decides what constitutes, "worship, tradition or heritage"?

Anne, Longstanton, UK

Spurious claims like this get the Human Rights Act a bad name. As far as I am aware, it was never the intention that the legislation would allow people to behave in a way which implies 'I have rights; I can do what I like and to hell with everybody else'.

Terry, Berkshire,

I always understood that muslim female headwear and Sikh bangles were cultural phenomena, rather than religious ? That said, is this not another example of the rights of the majority being trampled on in this country as the "authorities" here are too frightened to challenge the minorities, who would consequently shout "discrimination" ?

Peter, London, UK

This is yet another example of other religions getting 'special' treatment under our so politically correct society. 1 like most other normal people fail to understand the logic in allowing minority groups other than christians to express their beliefs by the wearing of a simple items of attire if indeed they are going to prevent christians from doing so. The judicery in this country has become a lacky of political correctness, the judgemant should be seriously challenged in this instance. The school in question needs to take a step back and consider itself and its polices. yet another reason for british people to feel segregated in our own country. I have always considered myself a tolerant being with a live and let live (providing it is lawful) approach to life.

Alan, Coulsdon, England

Let's not have pointless accusations of disparity in treatment of Christians, Sikhs, Muslims etc. There are limits to manifestation of any religious belief, as demonstrated last year in the Begum case. Moreover there is much evidence that the Silver Ring Thing is a manipulative movement which gives teenagers false information about sex and sexually transmitted disease, in order to further the movement. Absolutely the right decision by the court.

Radhika, Bromley,

I think it's a disgrace. someone trying to establish good morals has been kicked in the teeth. I wish the school system was as quick to clamp down on bad behaviour! It seems totally unfair that we are so accepting of other people's faiths and that government schools have adjusted many of their policies, even diet in some cases, whilst this school cannot alter their uniform rule for a very good cause. I wonder if short skirts and massive amounts of make up are allowed?

cyrilyn moore, warton, lancs

It is inappropriate to judge that a religious symbol is unworthy of exemption from Lydia Playfoot’s school’s uniform policy on the grounds that the symbol is not "integral" to her religion.

While Lydia states she is a “Christian”, this doesn’t license us to prescribe her Christianity to her. Lydia's religious beliefs are personal, and the importance of a symbol to her faith is for her to decide.

Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights protects Lydia’s freedom to display religious symbols. If the uniform policy makes exceptions for other symbols of religious belief, the school is discriminating against her when it doesn’t offer her symbol the same treatment.

John Vantuson, York, United Kingdom

If all religious junk was banned from schools nobody would have to waste their time with this rubbish.
Purity rings, head scarves, bracelets and bangles all say that the wearer has been indoctrinated by their parents into believing a load of illogical nonsense.

David Rothwell, Brighton,

On the face of it this decision is inequitable. What's allright for Sikhs and Muslims is allwrong for Christians. If a completely secular educational environment is required, then all pupils should be obliged to wear identical uniforms, with no headwear, jewelry, religious make-up, or anything else whatsoever which might remotely indicate their religious beliefs.

michael tormey, dublin,

It makes you worry about what sort of facists are running our schools. Any half decent headmaster would have welcomed such an initiative from his pupils. Clearly, Lydia Playfoot has a moral compass which her headmaster lacks. Sack him and let her run the school!

Mandy Wood, Oxford, UK

Ms Letugo entirely misses the point. The rings are not part of Christian worship, tradition or heritage. The Muslim and Sikh symbols are. The school has the right to specify was can and cannot be worn with school uniform, and that's the end of it. The judge is to be commended.

IanBennett, Stockport,

This "Christian" symbol was invented in the States in 1995 and imported into this country - and her family just happens to be involved in the company that sells them.

This seems nothing more than religion being used as a cheap marketing ploy.

Paul Millington, Reading, UK

So its alright for a muslim female to wear a scarf even though its not in the koran that women must wear a scarf, yet a Christian woman can't wear a Christian "purity ring". Just sums up what's gone wrong with this country. I hope she appeals

Ida Letugo, London, uk