Chav parents feed kids fish and chips through gates

Killerkebab said:
A little bit early to be throwing them into the norm for a working life...
Click to expand...

i dont see why not? when i was at school it was 15 minutes, 1 hour, 15 minutes. Now hte breaks are shorter but they school days are shorter also. Remember its proven that kids and teenagers can learn and retain information far easier than the average adult can, so ive no idea why some of us assume they will forget what they've been taught.....besides, you normally have lessons back to back between those breaks - thats never caused any problems.

Im all for shorter breaks in schools if it means shorter days. the problem i had was that at the end of the day i just lost interest in it because they days 'seemed' so long.
 
Killerkebab said:
A little bit early to be throwing them into the norm for a working life...
Click to expand...

I would say that during most of my nearly 30 years of working life I have only ever had 30-45 minutes lunch break and I've never really worked less than 8 hours in a day/shift. Kids work 6 hours a day, half an hour lunch is adequate.
 
Cybermyk said:
I would say that during most of my nearly 30 years of working life I have only ever had 30-45 minutes lunch break and I've never really worked less than 8 hours in a day/shift. Kids work 6 hours a day, half an hour lunch is adequate.
Click to expand...

They're kids FFS.

They've got the rest of their lives to work. They're free of any major responsibilities (bar learning) so why subject them to crap like this.

Seems to me the worlds going to pot. So concerned with work work work. At the end of the day you work to LIVE. Life's about making the most of your time, having fun... if a few people remembered that society would be far better off.

And the OP, talk about being blinded by sensationalism.
 
a half hour lunch is terrible! when i had meals the average queue time for me was around 20mins, some days i was lucky and would be at the front of the queue however on a few occations i wouldn't bother with lunch as i would be at the back of the queue and a 40 minute wait for a bite to eat, i just went to the courts to play football. (i'm not an overly active person, but casual football was far more enjoyable than queueing for lunch)

they're trying to encourage more physical activities in schools because the kids are getting fatter, so why cut this down by removing the time in lunch? ex. curric. activities do not have enough time to run half an hour.
 
NiCkNaMe said:
They're kids FFS.

They've got the rest of their lives to work. They're free of any major responsibilities (bar learning) so why subject them to crap like this.

Seems to me the worlds going to pot. So concerned with work work work. At the end of the day you work to LIVE. Life's about making the most of your time, having fun... if a few people remembered that society would be far better off.

And the OP, talk about being blinded by sensationalism.
Click to expand...

I have three kids of my own in school at the moment, one in primary school.

Are you saying you'd rather kids have less education and more break time? or have longer school days with longer breaks?
 
Gilly said:
WHAT??

They check lunchboxes??
Click to expand...

Yep, they certainly do. As far as I'm aware most if not all schools now do not allow crisps, chocolate, fizzy pop or anything like that in packed lunches.

I think it's an absolute ******* disgrace however, I mean who the hell do they think they are dictating to parents what they can and can't feed their children? I can understand the whole health drive thing, but to actually ban items that aren't deemed heathy? Madness. What's wrong with a kid having a pack of crisps with his sarnies? As long as it's in moderation, absolutely sod all in my opinion.
 
Trojan said:
I think it's an absolute ******* disgrace however, I mean who the hell do they think they are dictating to parents what they can and can't feed their children? I can understand the whole health drive thing, but to actually ban items that aren't deemed heathy? Madness. What's wrong with a kid having a pack of crisps with his sarnies? As long as it's in moderation, absolutely sod all in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But it's a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" though. And at the end of the day (from the schools point of view), in a situation like that you'd be mad not to opt for trying to please the Jamie Oliver influenced "we know best because we've been told by a guy on prime-time tv" nazi majority.
 
Last edited:
NiCkNaMe said:
They're kids FFS.

They've got the rest of their lives to work. They're free of any major responsibilities (bar learning) so why subject them to crap like this.

Seems to me the worlds going to pot. So concerned with work work work. At the end of the day you work to LIVE. Life's about making the most of your time, having fun... if a few people remembered that society would be far better off.

And the OP, talk about being blinded by sensationalism.
Click to expand...

You go back 40-50 years ago and children as young as 6 used to work as well as learn in the same day.

Also the summer holiday as we know it now was not a holiday for them.

I know many people in their 60's-70's who don't seem to be affected by this? Perhaps even the opposite.
 
Trojan said:
Yep, they certainly do. As far as I'm aware most if not all schools now do not allow crisps, chocolate, fizzy pop or anything like that in packed lunches.

I think it's an absolute ******* disgrace however, I mean who the hell do they think they are dictating to parents what they can and can't feed their children? I can understand the whole health drive thing, but to actually ban items that aren't deemed heathy? Madness. What's wrong with a kid having a pack of crisps with his sarnies? As long as it's in moderation, absolutely sod all in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree - the government have gone from one extreme to the other here. 'Junk' food in moderation is not unhealthy per se anyway.

With all due respect to Spie, the thread title is slightly sensationalist ;)
 
I saw this earlier and then read the article. The TV news didn't mention anything about the healthy food ordered or the bad lunch times - good old BBC :rolleyes:

Even if they did it hardly matters. The healthy food ordered is like MacDonalds saying how they actually serve salads now - yeah a tiny proportion that's used as an excuse while the real problem is still there. And lunch duration may be a valid point but it seems like they didn't mind waiting when there was a big plate of chips and a burger there.

The real people benefitting are the cafe workers. They are cashing in on parents either not caring about their children's lunch or not knowing. It is just one type of greed changed for another.
 
WTF why dont they just given the pack lunches like most parents, its not hard to make up some sandwiches and add some crisp/apple/chocolate bar.

This country :rolleyes:
 
Hostile17 said:
I think it’s gone too far all this healthy eating in schools. Just scare mongering in my opinion. "Look oh no little Jimmy is having chips in his dinner he'll be dead next week".
Click to expand...


It's not just about weight though, junk food, makes you sleepy. lethargic and basicly you cant learn. there's a few schools in America, where they've taken trouble kids. Forced them to eat healthy food along with stricter rules and most are now good kids.


Bumhucker said:
The real people benefitting are the cafe workers. They are cashing in on parents either not caring about their children's lunch or not knowing. It is just one type of greed changed for another.
Click to expand...

and have more calories than a big mac, unless they've changed it. What we need is proper health education. Just because it's a salad doesn't make it good. People should be able to read nutrional infomation and understand it.
 
Last edited:
Cybermyk said:
I have three kids of my own in school at the moment, one in primary school.

Are you saying you'd rather kids have less education and more break time? or have longer school days with longer breaks?
Click to expand...

They should most definately have more than half an hour for their lunch, as well as a break of at least 15 minutes.

I would say it is equally important that children have the time and opportunity to socialise with others outside of lessons as having time learning in class. Break and lunch give school children a chance to eat their dinner, talk to their friends, be active. I remember we always used to play football at break/lunch in primary school.
 
All the people saying "Work work work" and "Education education education" should realise one of the most important things when your a child is learning to socialize and interact with other students! Kids today already have so much peer pressure at an early age so let them have some fun too!

When I'm at school its: 20minute break at 11am then 50minute break 1:20pm. I personally bring in a packed lunch but if you go to the cafeteria you lose 20minutes just ordering your food then 10minutes eating it! Lunchtimes are the only times I'm basically "carefree" (well anything todo with work that is) because the second I get home I have 30mins of maths homework, 45mins english essay homework then whatever other subject has given me homework which usually takes about 30mins. 30minute break just isn't enough.
 
Schools these days are a dismal place. Not only is it the usual wolf's pit of bullying and misery but they have reduced the break times and replaced the food with 'healthy' options that no one likes. No wonder the amount of people taking packed lunches has increased, instead of hot food we now have kids on sandwiches.

I see this as more Labour meddling. Trying to micro manage, trying to ban this and ban that instead of leaving schools to make their own rules. Did you know that Labour set up a £60 million school food trust?!? 60 bloody million.
 
maybe if these parents can't be trusted to feed their kids proper food they shouldn't be trusted with kids at all?
 
I think the main point of this is that the new headmaster changed the lunch to 30mins and a large amount of children were unable to queue and eat a dinner in the alloted time. Apparently the parents had approached the school and were told that nothing would change.

Personally if my child was constantly missing dinners like this i would also take them some hot food to eat if possible, though id probably cook it myself and reheat it at the lunchtime, but if i lived to far away then id probably get them to make packed lunches. Of course those who just feed them fish n chips every day are doing them no favours, but seem that the school isnt taking its responsibilities seriously and actually feeding the children correctly.
 
TommoUK said:
They should most definately have more than half an hour for their lunch, as well as a break of at least 15 minutes.

I would say it is equally important that children have the time and opportunity to socialise with others outside of lessons as having time learning in class. Break and lunch give school children a chance to eat their dinner, talk to their friends, be active. I remember we always used to play football at break/lunch in primary school.
Click to expand...

I would see a mealtime as an ideal opportunity to socialise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom