[indianwells]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/5349392.stm

Totally irresponsible?I think so.

[Helicon]

That's parents nowadays......

[MJ]

Not if your child won't eat any of the choices. Why should they be dictated to in this way? They may have the children's health in mind but a child that is hungry because they don't like what's on offer is likely to cause even more problems.

I'm fed up with this nanny state interfering. However I do think a packed lunch would be a better way than leaning over the cemetary gate with fish and chips

[overkill]

Originally Posted by MJ

Not if your child won't eat any of the choices. Why should they be dictated to in this way? They may have the children's health in mind but a child that is hungry because they don't like what's on offer is likely to cause even more problems.

I'm fed up with this nanny state interfering. However I do think a packed lunch would be a better way than leaning over the cemetary gate with fish and chips

Didn't Jamie Oliver just get praised for campaigning (and putting pressure on govt) to end junk food (like that being passed over the fence) in schools?

Why must everyone repeat (ad neasueam) 'nanny state interfering' whenever govt tries to advise on what is, quite clearly, a better lifestyle choice. Yes govt is being motivated by cash reasons as poor diet potentialy means you being a greater NHS burden, but govt is not saying you cannot eat these foods. If you want a real nanny state then try the Scandanavian countries or Germany where you really are told what you can eat, how to learn etc.

There is no such thing as a 'child will not eat' certain foods. If they are brought up from an early age to eat decent food, they will continue to do so. If not, well.......................

It has more to do with parents attitudes than 'forcing their children to eat poor food'.

[indianwells]

It's the message these women are sending out that's wrong.They are encouraging the pupils to undermine the schools authority.We all know the kids like to thumb their noses at authority and will do so at every opportunity.These parents are foolish and irresponsible.If they really want to shovel crap food down their childrens throats they can do it at breakfast and after school.

In case people have forgotten,school is about education and this new initiative includes teaching young people the benefits of eating healthily.I cannot abide the "Nanny State" and am certainly no fan of New Labour but in this instance I think they have this policy spot on.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by indianwells

It's the message these women are sending out that's wrong.They are encouraging the pupils to undermine the schools authority.We all know the kids like to thumb their noses at authority and will do so at every opportunity.These parents are foolish and irresponsible.If they really want to shovel crap food down their childrens throats they can do it at breakfast and after school.

In case people have forgotten,school is about education and this new initiative includes teaching young people the benefits of eating healthily.I cannot abide the "Nanny State" and am certainly no fan of New Labour but in this instance I think they have this policy spot on.

Agreed, someone has to give children advise about healthy eating and it sure looks like those parents haven't got a clus so it has to be the school. I still suffer from the habits of childhood I reckon when we were always told that if we were still hungry after a meal we should fill up on bread (as bread was cheap). I eat far too much bread and will make a sandwich out of just about anything and my weight suffers for it.
Get them into good eating habits early and it will stay with them for the rest of their lives

[Mep]

Originally Posted by indianwells

It's the message these women are sending out that's wrong.They are encouraging the pupils to undermine the schools authority.We all know the kids like to thumb their noses at authority and will do so at every opportunity.These parents are foolish and irresponsible.If they really want to shovel crap food down their childrens throats they can do it at breakfast and after school.

In case people have forgotten,school is about education and this new initiative includes teaching young people the benefits of eating healthily.I cannot abide the "Nanny State" and am certainly no fan of New Labour but in this instance I think they have this policy spot on.

well said, these parents are particularly 'hard of thinking'. In their defence yesterday they quoted from a letter written by one of the children and supporting their actions.....it went something along the lines of "this food we have to eat is really gay"......well that powerful argument really swayed me and I can see why they feel totally justified.(NOT)

They then went on to say..."if the food from chubbies (which I assume is the name of the chip shop) is bad for you how come some of the teachers go there"......well at this point I was laughing out loud

[braiden]

I have two children, two girls aged 4 and 3. This in my view is completely the wrong message for these parents to be sending out to their children.

If children are that hungry then they WILL EAT whats on offer(in this case probably a lot more nutritous for them than fish and chips), so the argument that what the school is offering is not what the children want is pretty redundant and rather pathetic in my view. After all what the children want and what they need are two different things.

Just another case of parents being to scared to say NO to their children or to let them feel that they are hard done by for a while, for fear of a possible backlash/tantrum when they get home.

I not saying that fish and chips isn't ok now and then but the actions of these parents is just plainly illogical, furthermore, IMO these type of actions cause more problems than they solve later on in life, both for the parents and children and in some cases the wider community

[Reign-Mack]

Adults have seriously let mankind down

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]A polish girl i met was saying how appalled she was to see 10 and 11 year old girls walk the streets and malls in belt mini skirts in this country. she has the opinion that parents that let there darlings out like this are irresponsible bringing them to the eyes and attention to all sorts of undesirables.. she said in reality what parents have done with there daughters is turn them into Lolita's. [/FONT]

[MJ]

Originally Posted by overkill

There is no such thing as a 'child will not eat' certain foods. If they are brought up from an early age to eat decent food, they will continue to do so. If not, well.......................

It has more to do with parents attitudes than 'forcing their children to eat poor food'.

I have no problem with JO. The problem I have is with the Govt (local or otherwise) telling me it is for my children's own good.

From your statement above I assume you either do not have any children or have the perfect children. I have one child that will eat everything and two who were simply impossible from birth. They (fortunately) do not like KFC, McD and many other fast foods either as neither do we (the parents). We have yet to see any school that provides quality food either.

[krish]

Thats Thatcher's yob generation for you
- now breeding what we currently term Chavs

[indianwells]

Saw one of the mothers interviewed.They should have told the pug-ugly munter that if she goes back she'll be shot in her fat arse.

[pixelpixel]

I belive that it also has to do with overprice food and the fact that the SAME food can be found outside the school for less the price. Have read reports that the teachers eat outside of the school. One rule, one rule for ALL.

I dont think there is anything wrong with it, like on many of these forums people posting about getting a wii from the states or a hd-dvd drive ect because they belive they are getting ripped off. Just like the school kids a bargin is a bargin whatever your age. Eatting school food did not harm or effect me in any way the only thing that I dont like about todays schools is that prices have not stayed the same yet the core subjects and teachings have.

Horses for courses!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by MJ

I have no problem with JO. The problem I have is with the Govt (local or otherwise) telling me it is for my children's own good.

From your statement above I assume you either do not have any children or have the perfect children. I have one child that will eat everything and two who were simply impossible from birth. They (fortunately) do not like KFC, McD and many other fast foods either as neither do we (the parents). We have yet to see any school that provides quality food either.

Why? Do you not think they might being doing it to help?

I have three children, no, they are not perfect, and therefore if I am given advice I do not automaticaly dismiss it as 'nanny state'. It's always difficult to find the right balance for a child, but, unless you persist with 'if you don't eat what's in front of you then go without', you make a massive rod for your own back. A friend of mine has his two older kids (4 and 2) already trained to do just that. If they don't eat it, tough, it's taken away. Surprise, they eat what they are given.

Our local schools provide fairly decent food, and if they don't then packed lunches are the answer. There's always a better (and healthier) way then feeding kids chips through the school fence. No?

[GingerTez]

What annoys me about the whole thing is that the issue shouldn't be about the food being passed over the gates... the school wanted to reduce lateness after lunch and truancy so they now keep the school gates locked at break times. That sounds reasonable to me. But... only having 30 minutes to get from your classroom to the lunch hall, then quueu for your lunch, then eat it, and then get to your next class is the unreasonable bit for me - and that's what should be targeted.

Still... when I was a boy I got 40 minutes for lunch and managed to get to the chippy under my own steam just fine - of course now I'm a fat old git but I'm sure there's no connection ;-)

Cheers,
Tez.

[Carl Stock]

I think the issue with this particular school was that their lunchtime had been cut to just 30 minutes, I believe, which is far too short.

At the school I help with (from home now due to health reasons), lunchtime runs for well over an hour, and each year group gets to go in first at least once a week on a particular day, so it’s all fair. Normally, pupils are not allowed offsite for lunch – pupils are expected to eat school lunches or their own packed lunches. However, unlike many schools, my school – I was a pupil there, too, from 1990 onwards – has its own catering staff without any contractors! Even as a pupil, no contractors were used.

I think the parents in the school mentioned on the BBC’s website are silly, and I still have a perhaps old-fashioned idea that pupils should have no contact with their parents – not even via their mobiles – during school time. It may not seem this way to modern parents and children, but the idea is that the school and its staff look after the pupils – they effectively become your ‘guardians’ for the day and decide how to look after you. If you have a problem with that, you speak to your parents once you get home.

I can understand some getting annoyed at Jamie Oliver’s approach and that of the Government – I cannot stand the Nanny State. However, I really do think this is different because school meals – and good food in general in this country – have suffered from being, quite simply, rubbish for a long time. Sometimes we have to take a step back because it is easy with the hectic lives we lead to forget what makes ‘good food’. Much of the food that we and our children eat day to day is rubbish, although there’s nothing wrong with the odd treat in moderation.

I am a centre right-leaning small ‘c’ conservative type that doesn’t like State interference, but this is an important issue. Our basic food standards in terms of what we must eat seem to have been forgotten by a generation, and they do need to be educated.

Any doctor will tell you there’s nothing wrong with some chips, or indeed a whole chips and pizza meal, as long as you do not have it every day or every other day as your daily foodstuff!

In any case, without being old-fashioned again, children must eat certain foods or else their health will suffer. Saying that they do not like certain essential foods and giving up eating them is going to cause problems. Even just mashing certain unpalatable (to children) foods into something else – disguising it – can help. I can’t eat a plateful of salad, but I can eat some if some of it is mashed up (don’t laugh! LOL) into something else. There are allsorts of ways of getting children to eat good food without making them eat a plateful of salad.

Also, what I cannot understand, particularly amongst those on low incomes, is the idea that good food is expensive. It isn’t. In fact, good food – potatoes, pasta, meat and other vegetables – is often cheaper than what they may normally buy. The problem is that many adults cannot cook foods from scratch, preferring instead to throw a ready meal into the microwave.

Anyway, I’m not having a go at parents who have a hectic life and cannot cook a full course meal twice a day– there’s no harm in the odd prepacked meal or chips, etc.

[MJ]

Originally Posted by overkill

Why? Do you not think they might being doing it to help?

I have three children, no, they are not perfect, and therefore if I am given advice I do not automaticaly dismiss it as 'nanny state'. It's always difficult to find the right balance for a child, but, unless you persist with 'if you don't eat what's in front of you then go without', you make a massive rod for your own back. A friend of mine has his two older kids (4 and 2) already trained to do just that. If they don't eat it, tough, it's taken away. Surprise, they eat what they are given.

Our local schools provide fairly decent food, and if they don't then packed lunches are the answer. There's always a better (and healthier) way then feeding kids chips through the school fence. No?

You've missed my point a little. Totally adverse to the idea of chips every day. It's the blanket treatment that a few (a lot, I don't know?) chavs have "caused" a nanny state to impose ideals on everyone or at least try. We have generally given packed lunches throughout their schooling. Contracted out catering in my area has produced very poor results.

[tom_piano_man]

My aunt is an emergency NHS dental surgeon. She frequently sees 4-5 year olds with completely rotten teeth. She often ends up removing every single tooth.
The parent says: "oh but they wont drink anything but coca-cola" and "they dont like brushing their teeth".
Just goes to show that some parents are either:

a) Too stupid to realise that if you don't have coca cola (or fatty foods in the other case) in the house the kids will eat/drink other, healthier stuff. They WILL drink other things than coke if there is no coke to drink.

b) Too stupid to realise that by giving in to the kids' demands they are massively damaging their own childrens' health.

c) Too weak to say no to their children, and get them to do stuff they will thank their parents for later i.e. no McDonalds every day, make them brush their teeth etc.

Rant over.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by MJ

You've missed my point a little. Totally adverse to the idea of chips every day. It's the blanket treatment that a few (a lot, I don't know?) chavs have "caused" a nanny state to impose ideals on everyone or at least try. We have generally given packed lunches throughout their schooling. Contracted out catering in my area has produced very poor results.

There is no 'few'. The levels of obesity in children is now at extremely high levels. It is also a myth that it's just 'chavs'. There are plenty of overweight kids coming out of grammar (and public) schools to dispell that notion. The 'nanny' state has imposed nothing. There was a public outcry generated by JO campaign, which in itself was a reaction to the levels of child obesity.

If you want to blame someone try those who campaign to get these guidelines introduced. It's lazy thinking to keep simply shouting 'nanny state' at this, or to be fair, the last govt for introducing measures to improve our lives through health and safety changes. I notice as well, that despite that fact, the last govt wasn't labelled 'nanny' yet there were hundreds of what you would see as 'nanny' restrictions and guidelines put in place, in particular during the period 88-97'.

Perhaps it's time to question the DM's accusations of 'nannying' rather than just accept them? Or perhaps the DM's motivation in campaigning to force govt to improve school meals and schoolchildrens diet, then in the next breath scream nanny state over the same issue. Some contradiction here?

[unique]

Originally Posted by lisa burrell

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]A polish girl i met was saying how appalled she was to see 10 and 11 year old girls walk the streets and malls in belt mini skirts in this country. she has the opinion that parents that let there darlings out like this are irresponsible bringing them to the eyes and attention to all sorts of undesirables.. she said in reality what parents have done with there daughters is turn them into Lolita's. [/FONT]

but don't polish parents beat thier children and force them to clean chimneys and work in mines and stuff? and you get your hands chopped off if your caught stealing food to survive?