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

Of course, but what you eat directly affects your hormonal profile - that's the point that is being made. Though everybody has a choice to eat what they want. I just wish they'd focus more on fresh high quality produce and less on the mass produced cheap foods. Of course commercially speaking it's never going to be a good model to follow.
 
RDM said:
They did, with the help of the parents.
Click to expand...

6 year old children are not responsible for the contents of their lunchbox.

This child has now been deprived of an education because of the parents actions. How is that fair?
 
Woden said:
6 year old children are not responsible for the contents of their lunchbox.

This child has now been deprived of an education because of the parents actions. How is that fair?
Click to expand...

Sadly lots of kids have pretty poor parents and it has a significant impact on their education.
 
RDM said:
Sadly lots of kids have pretty poor parents and it has a significant impact on their education.
Click to expand...

Obviously that's true. But the school is making it worse by punishing the child for something he has no control over, and at the end of the day is a minor issue.
 
Woden said:
Obviously that's true. But the school is making it worse by punishing the child for something he has no control over, and at the end of the day is a minor issue.
Click to expand...

Minor issue? Not entirely sure that a complete breakdown of trust, including the parents going to the media, is a minor issue.

The child wasn't excluded because of mini cheddars after all.
 
Energize said:
Well the % is more significant when you consider the fat content of those food products.

Yes, that's what I said, eating too much food...

If they ate fruit or red meat instead of those snack foods they would still get fat.
Click to expand...

My point is, natural food is not the problem here. People have had the option to increase their intake in the past 20 years yet they haven't done so.

Overeating usually happens because our bodies are not adapted to process the snacks and sugars, the signals that tell us we've had enough meat, vegetables or fruit don't work properly for snacks and sugars. If we remove them from diets, we won't replace them with vegetables and fruit - have you ever heard of anyone who started a strict diet getting the sudden urge to stuff their face with broccoli?!

Forget the nanny state paranoia for a second and consider what I'm saying here, it's not hard to follow.
 
RDM said:
Minor issue? Not entirely sure that a complete breakdown of trust, including the parents going to the media, is a minor issue.

The child wasn't excluded because of mini cheddars after all.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust a school that takes away the right to decided what my child has for lunch either. And as pointed out above, they had no right to exclude the child because of the parents actions.

He was excluded because the parents wanted to keep that right and refused to back down on it. I have no issue with them going to media over it. They are publicly highlighting an issue with a state school.
 
Zethor said:
My point is, natural food is not the problem here. People have had the option to increase their intake in the past 20 years yet they haven't done so.

Overeating usually happens because our bodies are not adapted to process the snacks and sugars, the signals that tell us we've had enough meat, vegetables or fruit don't work properly for snacks and sugars. If we remove them from diets, we won't replace them with vegetables and fruit - have you ever heard of anyone who started a strict diet getting the sudden urge to stuff their face with broccoli?!

Forget the nanny state paranoia for a second and consider what I'm saying here, it's not hard to follow.
Click to expand...

Naturally people are going to want to eat snack food because it tastes nicer than vegetables, that's not the result of some sort of metabolic disregulation. What you're saying is not concordant with biology.
 
Last edited:
Woden said:
I wouldn't trust a school that takes away the right to decided what my child has for lunch either. And as pointed out above, they had no right to exclude the child because of the parents actions.
Click to expand...

So let the parents take the school to court and see if what they did was illegal. I am sure that will do wonders for the education of the child too...
 
Energize said:
No I don't agree with that. Even ignoring the fact that diet drinks don't contain any sugar, it's been demonstrated that sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity, high carbohydrate foods like bread have a similar glycemic load to snacks so if fizzy drinks have an effect then so would bread.
Click to expand...

So explain how Primary school teachers like Mrs Dimple have noticed a 100% difference in children now they don't have fizzy drinks.
 
Dimple said:
So explain how Primary school teachers like Mrs Dimple have noticed a 100% difference in children now they don't have fizzy drinks.
Click to expand...

really 100% difference?

given that's a pretty hard to understand statement and kinda meaningless, random stab with "observer bias" ?
 
Tefal said:
really 100% difference?

given that's a pretty hard to understand statement and kinda meaningless, random stab with "observer bias" ?
Click to expand...

100% difference means the child used to be uncontrollable but now aren't a problem now their drink has been changed.
Or you can call Mrs Dimple a liar.
 
Dimple said:
So explain how Primary school teachers like Mrs Dimple have noticed a 100% difference in children now they don't have fizzy drinks.
Click to expand...

There are several different effects at play including observer bias and it's why when studying the effects of these things that double blinding is required.

This explains it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

Valium doesn't even have the effect you describe.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
These are the reasons given for the explusion:

"Today [Tuesday] the school has taken the decision to permanently exclude a pupil for the following reasons:

- Persistent breaches of school policies.

- During the course of a recent four day exclusion, the pupil’s parents made it publicly clear that their child would not be following the school's policy on healthy eating upon their return.

- The parent school relationship suffering an irretrievable breakdown that would have put two pupils in an unacceptable position. This breakdown was due to misrepresentations in the local and national media that were both wholly inaccurate and grossly misleading, abusive language being used towards staff, and other inappropriate actions being taken that were designed to damage the school’s reputation."​

Note that no mention of a Home-School agreement is made. The abusive behaviour of the parents towards staff is mentioned as is the commitment to further rule breaches.
Click to expand...

Of course being abusive to staff is unacceptable..however, parents are not required to follow healthy eating policies and the school cannot punish, expel or exclude a child because a parent doesn't follow it. Neither is going to the press about their child's treatment a valid reason to exclude or expel the child either.

The school are walking a legal tightrope here.
 
One isn't allowed to take one's children out of school, for a holiday for example, for any length of time as it could have dramatic detrimental & irrecoverable effects on their education, but a school can suspend a child for the best part of a week because they have mini-cheddars in their lunchbox?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom