Six-year-old schoolboy suspended for having Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox...

I'm all for promoting a healthy lifestyle but not at the expense of education and definitely not when the people in question are probably too young to understand why they should be eating healthy in the first place. Try and educate the parents but don't punish the children for their actions.
 
Whole thing with school meals seems to be getting beyond ludicrous.

EDIT:

"According to government guidelines, school meals must be balanced and have fruit, vegetables, bread, cereal and meat, poultry or oily fish. Fizzy drinks, crisps, chocolate or sweets in school meals are ruled out."
Click to expand...

Key with most diet things are moderation, I'd be very reluctant to give any developing child more than very limited amounts of oily fish as potentially the heavy metals can be more of a health hazard than any amount of chocolate.
 
Last edited:
I don't see what right the school has to dictate lunch choices. The kid is clearly not obease even if he were the parents should have been spoken to not remove his education.

Bored of the nanny state where everyone looks after the kids but the parents. (Minority I know but affects the majority).
 
Well the mother makes the point very clear.
The child is six, he has no control over his lunchbox.
She controls his lunchbox, she has stated publically she is going to change nothing.
So best she findss a new school that can tolerate her.
Not the child as it is beyond hiss control, but tolerate her.

Good decision school, if the relationship is utterly. Broken, then is should be severed.
 
Mynight said:
I don't see what right the school has to dictate lunch choices. The kid is clearly not obease even if he were the parents should have been spoken to not remove his education.

Bored of the nanny state where everyone looks after the kids but the parents. (Minority I know but affects the majority).
Click to expand...

Thats is the issue.
There is a school rule.
It doesnt matter how wako it is.
It is a rule, you enforce it.
School can do what it likes, if enough parenst dislike it, then school policy will change.
In this case one gob****e of a mother went to the daily mail.
No doubt the school will otherwise survive.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Well the mother makes the point very clear.
The child is six, he has no control over his lunchbox.
She controls his lunchbox, she has stated publically she is going to change nothing.
So best she findss a new school that can tolerate her.
Not the child as it is beyond hiss control, but tolerate her.

Good decision school, if the relationship is utterly. Broken, then is should be severed.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be suprised if theres more to it but honestly if the meal she described is what he normally gets it sounds completely reasonable and I'd be up in arms to if a school was arguing with that.

Hikari Kisugi said:
Thats is the issue.
There is a school rule.
It doesnt matter how wako it is.
It is a rule, you enforce it.
School can do what it likes, if enough parenst dislike it, then school policy will change.
In this case one gob****e of a mother went to the daily mail.
No doubt the school will otherwise survive.
Click to expand...


Its a school - its purpose is to teach kids not burden their lives with wako rules.
 
See I do agree that rules should be followed but I can't see the huge benefit of enforcing boring lunches haha. I agree healthy and everything in moderation but to out rightly ban it is just going to push the problem home where the kids pig out after school when they're not as active and therefore not expending energy.

There must be more to it.
 
Mynight said:
See I do agree that rules should be followed but I can't see the huge benefit of enforcing boring lunches haha. I agree healthy and everything in moderation but to out rightly ban it is just going to push the problem home where the kids pig out after school when they're not as active and therefore not expending energy.

There must be more to it.
Click to expand...

They started regulating lunches in my school when I was in my last year there (almost 20 years ago) - the kids would just sneak out buy stuff from the nearby chippy.
 
Rroff said:
I wouldn't be suprised if theres more to it but honestly if the meal she described is what he normally gets it sounds completely reasonable and I'd be up in arms to if a school was arguing with that.
Click to expand...

It's probably quite telling that they seem to be the only family with such a problem with it that they feel the need to try and tarnish the name of the school in the press and had such a fallout with the school that both of their children have been excluded.

If the school was really being unnecessarily hardline with it's lunch rules and dishing out week suspensions for every packet of crisps found, you'd expect a bit more of a group of disgruntled parents and hordes of suspended pupils.
 
If a parent has a disagreement with a school, and they take it to a national forum, blowing it out of all proportion, then frankly the school can do little but get rid of the child.
It is a complete breakdown in the relationship.
Best for both sites that they go elsewhere and move along.

If the parent then can't grasp that concept and goes back to the national forum with it, is reeks of gob****tery.
 
Ahhh, pizza + chips + coke was my average school dinner back in 1990, came to around 94p at the till. As long as my parents gave me something healthy in the evening with fruit and veg, I don't see the issue. Interfering gov't is interfering, stuck their oar in as always.
 
Rroff said:
They started regulating lunches in my school when I was in my last year there (almost 20 years ago) - the kids would just sneak out buy stuff from the nearby chippy.
Click to expand...

I remember Jamie Oliver's healthy eating campaign. My school started it removing the "unhealthy options" but the canteen was empty bar one or two everyone went down to waitrose or the chip shop. They soon brought back the hotdogs and burgers :D

We even had a sweet shop there :D heaven!

Despite all the junk I ate I destroyed my gcse and a levels and didnt get fat!
 
Rroff said:
Its a school - its purpose is to teach kids not burden their lives with wako rules.
Click to expand...

It's purpose is to teach kids good habits for life.

When I was at school we had fresh fruits, breads, soup, nuts, sultanas, honey, figs, dates and cheese for lunch. All there was to drink was milk or water. It fostered an excellent habit along with the exercise we had to do. No wonder I'm in my 30s, very healthy and in shape. Everyone who tries to guess my age thinks I'm in my early 20s.

But I do ****ing love Mini Cheddars.
 
Longbow said:
They even say that: "lunches should be healthy and balanced".

I wonder what they think balanced is? Because a packet of crisps doesn't make a diet unbalanced.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing - my parents were/are old school, we always had proper home made meals, my lunch box was pretty healthy overall but there would always be a kitkat or something in there also and they wouldn't have stood for it if the school started interfering with that. Don't think I'd have lasted long in a school these days my mum does not stand for nonsense.
 
Monserrat said:
Ahhh, pizza + chips + coke was my average school dinner back in 1990, came to around 94p at the till. As long as my parents gave me something healthy in the evening with fruit and veg, I don't see the issue. Interfering gov't is interfering, stuck their oar in as always.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point :confused:
One of the main reason healthy school dinners was introduced is because poor parents were/are feeding children junk 24/7!
A healthy school dinner means at least the children will receive one decent meal a day (5 days a week)
Having worked as a youth worker for 7 years I can vouch that many parents don't have a clue and feed their children utter rubbish all the time :rolleyes:

It's also unfair on the teachers as credible research suggest children are far more restless and disruptive when consuming unhealthy lunches!! (who would have thought pumping kids full of sugar / trans fat / e-numbers ..etc would cause this:rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
Parents were told: "Chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks are not allowed. If your child's lunchbox is unhealthy and unbalanced they will be provided with a school lunch for which you will be charged."
Click to expand...

I'll presume coded in that is also "the 'unhealthy' lunch is confiscated" which raises legal questions about theft and blackmail.

There other major problems here in that is only so much objectivity in what constitutes as healthy or unhealthy. I read numerous articles from well established dieticians that completely contradict each other, for example the debate over whether saturated fat is good or bad for you.

The premise of rules like this means you get one person's point of view (usually the head's) over what is healthy which will almost certainly be biased by their own dietary preferences.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Thats the thing - my parents were/are old school, we always had proper home made meals, my lunch box was pretty healthy overall but there would always be a kitkat or something in there also and they wouldn't have stood for it if the school started interfering with that. Don't think I'd have lasted long in a school these days my mum does not stand for nonsense.
Click to expand...

If we had a lunchbox and there were crisps or a Kit Kat in it, it was confiscated. We were taught that things like that were junk and never to be touched.

estebanrey said:
I'll presume coded in that is also "the 'unhealthy' lunch is confiscated which raises legal questions about theft.
Click to expand...

lolz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom