Not my own story, but my original retelling of a public one.
Back in the summer of 2017, Devon (in the UK) was suffering from a heat wave. The boys suffered the unbearable heat in trousers. Girls were luckier - skirts were part of the school uniform.
One boy, Ryan, asked his teacher for an exception due to the heat, but was told that all clothes worn must be a part of the approved school uniform, without exception. Another boy who asked was given a sarcastic reply: "Well, you can wear a skirt if you like."
Cue malicious compliance.
The next day, Ryan came to school in his uniform. Every item he wore was on the approved list - including his official school skirt.
Pretty soon, nearly all the lads were wearing skirts.
A few days later, after the worst of the heat wave was over, the headteacher announced that shorts would be allowed as part of the official school uniform starting the next school year.
TL;DR: School won't allow boys to wear shorts in extreme summer heat because it's not on the approved uniform list but sarcastically points out that they can wear skirts. Boys wear said skirts. School gives in and adds shorts to the list.
Original articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/22/teenage-boys-wear-skirts-to-school-protest-no-shorts-uniform-policy
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/23/exeter-schools-uniform-resolve-melts-after-boys-skirt-protest
I'm not seeing the 'or' bit. The article says the driver was already sentenced to nine years back in 2019. So it might be prison and deportation.
It also says he was a new permanent resident when the crime was committed. I'm surprised how they can so easily deport someone who has PR.
Alas, this is the real problem. And this case/hearing isn't going to affect the precedent on that, it will only affect the precedent for the future chumps.