My daughters school has banned crisps !!

[Cyclone]

It could be argued that the school is the childs guardian whilst at school; and primary school children need clear rules. But once they are teenagers they should be allowed more freedom.

 

If the food has been sent by the parent, then it could be argued that the school does not have permission to stop them eating that food. And much more convincingly than any other argument.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 14:10 ----------

 

The state is not interfering, its the school.

It's a state school

[Danny_Boy]

How does the school know that, though? Because you or your daughter tell the school?

 

Is the school supposed to accept the same claim from the grossly overweight 9-year old or from his/her parents at the same face value?

 

If not, what level of resources out of its budget is the school supposed to devote to investigating these claims, before it can reach an objective 'means tested' decision to allow your daughter her crisps but not the grossly overweight 9-year old?

 

The state is not interfering, its the school.

 

Also, you're not happy with the school dictating that children should not consume unhealthy snakes on the premises but you are happy for the state to provide free of charge food if its healthy.

 

You appear to want to eat your cake and have it.

 

I'm saying if they're going to tell us what our children can and cannot eat they may as well do it properly.

[Berberis]

It's a state school

 

You are so prodantic its unbelievable

 

Schools are not monolithic homogeneous organisations.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 14:52 ----------

 

I'm saying if they're going to tell us what our children can and cannot eat they may as well do it properly.

 

Danny_Boy I'm not attacking you by the way. Don't you think that there is a problem brewing in children's health that is in part caused by bad diet?

[Cyclone]

It's not pEdantic to note that schools are state run and state governed. In fact, you were being obtuse to say it's not the state that is imposing the ban, when the school is doing so because of rules that the government created. If the school interferes, then the state is interfering.

[truman]

It's not pEdantic to note that schools are state run and state governed. In fact, you were being obtuse to say it's not the state that is imposing the ban, when the school is doing so because of rules that the government created. If the school interferes, then the state is interfering.

 

I think schools have quite a bit of autonomy...has the government banned crisps in all schools for example?

[Berberis]

It's not pEdantic to note that schools are state run and state governed. In fact, you were being obtuse to say it's not the state that is imposing the ban, when the school is doing so because of rules that the government created. If the school interferes, then the state is interfering.

 

Case and point. :hihi:

[L00b]

I just don't like the state interfering with how I live my life and bring up my children.

Do you homeschool?

 

Reason I ask, is because the state 'interferes' every day, massively so, as your kids attend school and are educated according to the national curriculum.

 

Same way it 'interferes' with how you and 70-odd million others live their life every day.

 

Do you tax and insure your car? Do your respect speed limits?

 

Do you pay any tax on your earnings? Any NI contributions?

 

Have you killed or maimed anyone recently?

 

<etc.>

I honestly think a better idea would be for all schools (maybe start with junior) to provide a free of charge healthy hot cooked dinner for all students.

Feed all the kids for 'free' (well, paid for by you and me of course, as all good taxpayers do) instead of banning unhealthy foods? That's one strange logic, if you don't mind me saying.

 

I'd sooner my taxes go and feed kids whose parents can't, that's a no-brainer. But then I'd sooner feed my own at my own expense and nutritional criteria, and not pay more tax trying to feed everyone else's after the food suppliers, service providers and other agencies have finished creaming their profits off the contracts.

 

Financial cost of banning unhealthy foods: zero (alright, maybe a small loss for tuck shops, where these are still around)

 

Opportunity cost of banning unhealthy foods: put a few liberal noises out of joint, maybe up to a few strongly worded letter costing a bit of admin time for filing and replies.

 

Benefit of banning unhealthy foods: mitigate an obesity vector within relevant classes of age for 8 hours or so a day, 5 days a week.

 

Win all around, from where I'm looking

 

To be sure: I'm not having a go at you Danny, I just find this notion of "sticking it up to the Man" over a school banning unhealthy snacks (in the face of an averred obesity problem amongst very young classes of age) bemusing.

 

Anyone with their nose firmly out of joint over this, feel free to stuff your kid's face with crisps and chocolate before or after school, there's a fair few hours free for the purpose either side of schooling hours.

 

In the meantime, maybe be glad the Government and the educational system is at least trying to do a little something proactively, rather than just throw ever more taxpayer's money at the NHS budget to take care of the ballooning problem (pun intended) after it's too late.

Edited September 22, 2015 by L00b

[donotremove]

lol.. Takes me back. We also had a big leather belt and got hit two straps on each hand. They should bring it back!

 

Whatever do they want to bring that back for? It sounds barbaric and utterly pointless.

[Danny_Boy]

Do you homeschool?

 

Reason I ask, is because the state 'interferes' every day, massively so, as your kids attend school and are educated according to the national curriculum.

 

Same way it 'interferes' with how you and 70-odd million others live their life every day.

 

Do you tax and insure your car? Do your respect speed limits?

 

Do you pay any tax on your earnings? Any NI contributions?

 

Have you killed or maimed anyone recently?

 

<etc.>

Feed all the kids for 'free' (well, paid for by you and me of course, as all good taxpayers do) instead of banning unhealthy foods? That's one strange logic, if you don't mind me saying.

 

I'd sooner my taxes go and feed kids whose parents can't, that's a no-brainer. But then I'd sooner feed my own at my own expense and nutritional criteria, and not pay more tax trying to feed everyone else's after the food suppliers, service providers and other agencies have finished creaming their profits off the contracts.

 

Financial cost of banning unhealthy foods: zero (alright, maybe a small loss for tuck shops, where these are still around)

 

Opportunity cost of banning unhealthy foods: put a few liberal noises out of joint, maybe up to a few strongly worded letter costing a bit of admin time for filing and replies.

 

Benefit of banning unhealthy foods: mitigate an obesity vector within relevant classes of age for 8 hours or so a day, 5 days a week.

 

Win all around, from where I'm looking

 

To be sure: I'm not having a go at you Danny, I just find this notion of "sticking it up to the Man" over a school banning unhealthy snacks (in the face of an averred obesity problem amongst very young classes of age) bemusing.

 

Anyone with their nose firmly out of joint over this, feel free to stuff your kid's face with crisps and chocolate before or after school, there's a fair few hours free for the purpose either side of schooling hours.

 

In the meantime, maybe be glad the Government and the educational system is at least trying to do a little something proactively, rather than just throw ever more taxpayer's money at the NHS budget to take care of the ballooning problem (pun intended) after it's too late.

 

Take your point re state control in other areas of mine and my families life but we do need to draw a line somewhere.

 

Does anyone really think banning crisps in school is going to make any difference at all to the childhood obesity issue? That's why I thought instead of banning certain items would it not be better to make school dinners mandatory, poorer families continue to get free school dinners so the more at risk children are at least getting one proper meal a day.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 18:40 ----------

 

You are so prodantic its unbelievable

 

Schools are not monolithic homogeneous organisations.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 14:52 ----------

 

 

Danny_Boy I'm not attacking you by the way. Don't you think that there is a problem brewing in children's health that is in part caused by bad diet?

 

I never thought you were Berberis. There is an issue with childhood health and obesity but as I've said above do you honestly believe banning crisps will make a difference?

[El Cid]

I think schools have quite a bit of autonomy...has the government banned crisps in all schools for example?

 

The Government has banned most schools selling crisps, chocolate and sugary fizzy drinks, but where my daughters school is concerned, they have also banned children bringing them into school.