I wonder at this:

Schools Secretary Ed Balls is getting together with Britain’s agony aunts for a “relationship summit”.

An “anguish of agony aunts” - the collective noun chosen by themselves - will advise ministers on how to support children facing family breakdown.

I won’t contest the benefits of a stable childhood. But consider the role of an agony aunt. They receive letters from those who consider themselves to have a problem. Some might therefore have some insight into those caught up in family breakdown perceive their trouble; but a very specific group of those, who might consider opening their private lives to that most public of forums, the tabloid newspaper.

Nor does the receipt of letters necessarily guarantee that the replies will be of any use. The agony aunt’s position doesn’t require them to dish out advise that’ll work, but that sounds plausible to the reader. And so play to whichever prejudices and conceptions they feel their readers might have of family breakdown. Nor do we have any means of seeing whether any find their Aunts’ advice useful. They hardly make themselves open to feedback forms; and given that most write for a newspaper with wider content, aren’t subject to the vagaries of an open market which might demonstrate how well their advice went down.

So, we’ve no idea whether they’re worth much at all, and have no means of finding out. Way to find a potential cul-de-sac? Listening to those involved in break-ups would seem a surer start…

Oh no, another toss-up between my virulent anti-theism and desire to allow free expression to flourish is required. How irksome.

Complicating this matter there is the whole “Multi-Cultural” angle, with this one calling herself “A proud Welsh and Punjabi Sikh girl.” Why exactly she would be proud of being Welsh or, more seriously, feel the need to distinguish herself from others who share the affliction is beyond me. Regardless, the model I have always admired for integration is that offered by the Zorastrians while seeking entry to India. They assured their potential hosts that they would dissolve “As honey into milk” when entering their new home. I suppose that a few bangles are modest enough to be deemed appropriate remnants of such a solution.

But this ruling still troubles me. It claims that the school was guilty of “Indirect discrimination” and in breach of race laws. Exactly how does it constitute discrimination to enforce rules equally upon Sikhs to upon those of other or no faith? Surely this is the total reverse of discrimination?

Perhaps the optimum solution would be the school simply taking a less hard-line stance and relaxing uniform policy. That she was suspended for so minor an offence is the root cause of this nonsense. I see no reason, though, that the school should honour irrational leaps of assumption and their sartorial implications over any other piece of reasoning. Where precisely is the distinction between somebody who has a “Lucky” bracelet and one that thinks it is representative of some fictional creature lasting for infinity?

I have no doubt that Singh is sincere in her conviction but there is no cause to imagine that her choice in garb is any better supported besides theology. It was an immensely petty to have her so severely punished over, but the same is true of any student.