blogger Martha Payne 'banned' from taking school dinner photos

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Unfortunately a lot of British and American parents don't care about their children's well being and would rather spend their benefits on cigarettes and alcohol. They are also incapable of making healthy meals and use poverty or unemployment as an excuse It makes me ashamed to be British. There are a lot of good families out there too but it is way to common.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with poverty. Its a scam. YOUR government take money of you via taxes to pay for things such as school dinners. They give that money to PRIVATE companys who feed the children small amounts of poor quality food. Profits are huge, the meals are not.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 


9 year old children are not allowed to leave school for lunch and go to the shops..

It's not until the 'secondary' school (12 to16) that they are able to do this.
It may be slightly different from school to school givenlocation etc. but it wasn't like that in my day or in many other schools right now..

Parents would flip their lid to learn the school let the kids run wild at lunch time.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I can guaranty you that when I was in 6th grad (12years old) we were allowed to leave school because when you had your last lesson 12:55 o clock and the next would start at 13:25 or 13:30 only the pupils from town could go home to eat something warm. The others (like me), who would have to take a bus would only have 5 minutes to eat and then have to run to the bus. The bus station was beneath my home.

The butcher, bakery and a small local "restaurant" were on the other side of the street.
This is how it is managed until today. There never was one single incident that I know of.


Edit:
Ground school: Grade 1 to 4
From 6-7 year old to 10-11 year old

2. school: grade 5 to 10/12/13
From 10-11 year old to ....

You did not had that situation until physics joined in in the 6. or 7. grade here. Only 5 lessons in the morning if you had afternoon school. So we were at least 12-14 years old, not 9.


Second edit:
Where I live, most towns with its own mayor have their own ground school with a small bus collecting the kids from other surrounding towns that belonged to that town. So we did not have that problem with the younger grades ranging from 1-4. Only when you attended to second school you had that problem, and then not until 6. or 7. grade.
edit on 15-6-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The sad thing is thta the school is not only starving this 9 year old girl but that it is also starving her passion. She has the makings of being a really great investigative reporter one day. Too bad all the networks would squash her stories before they could be released though.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
@Citybig, why are you so opposed to children being fed at school? When you were a child, did you go from 7am until after 3.30pm without eating? Children are not self sufficient and a balanced nutritious diet is essential for a child's development and being malnourished at school will have a big impact on their ability to perform and their results.


Why should the taxpayer pay for your kid to be fed? Why does that have to be our job? We already pay for most of these families housing and monthly dole payments.


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
My wife is a primary school teacher and it's incredible, the stories I hear of what the kids eat at home. For some of the kids with parents who don't give a crap, school is the only place they can get a full proper meal.


Her job is to TEACH, not speculate on the home lifes of her pupils. A school's job is to TEACH, not provide a place to eat off of the backs of the taxpayer. Not too difficult to understand, is it?


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
I would much rather the tax I pay go to feeding our own children properly at school than wars that we have no business in and overseas affairs.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)


And I would rather the money not get spent on substandard food, but on books, modern computers, better facilities, better quality teachers, more pleasant environs.

What is the point of subsidising food when the quality is so low anyway that they aren't really getting nourished at all?


Just to say... I am a taxpayer, my wife is a taxpayer. We don't have kids. You are obviously self obsessed and greedy with little to no regard for future generations. I feel sorry for you.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Unfortunately a lot of British and American parents don't care about their children's well being and would rather spend their benefits on cigarettes and alcohol. They are also incapable of making healthy meals and use poverty or unemployment as an excuse It makes me ashamed to be British. There are a lot of good families out there too but it is way to common.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with poverty. Its a scam. YOUR government take money of you via taxes to pay for things such as school dinners. They give that money to PRIVATE companys who feed the children small amounts of poor quality food. Profits are huge, the meals are not.


MY government and YOUR government are the same. I'm also from the UK. Many schools do offer great school meals but there are also many in need of improvement. School dinners are as a rule, a lot better now than when I was at school just over a decade ago. The government is heavily to blame for cutting funding from schools. You cannot blame the schools themselves.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BMorris
reply to post by buster2010
 


You are misunderstanding, the kids ARE buying these meals, or rather, their parents are. They pay a weekly fee, directly to the school, to provide these meals. Only a small percentage of them get the meals totally free.

School dinners ARE NOT FREE DINNERS, and as such, should meat basic standards (typo intended, since its a discussion about food).

The weekly cost of school dinners is set by each scholastic district, and 20 years ago up here in Manchester it was £5.50 a week. I will grant thats not a huge amount, but it still is not free. So in essence, a school canteen is a pre-paid restauraunt.



Do you think these kids are getting their monies worth? I fully understand the dinners aren't free but a school should be able to provide a better dinner than this.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Citybig
 


I'm not getting into a petty argument and apologise if I insulted you. I get annoyed when people act as though they know everything when they have clearly not been in or around the ACTUAL situation. Don't try and guess at my occupation, I am not a civil servant and as for me as a person, you know nothing. Let's leave it there and let the thread continue...



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
reply to post by Citybig
 


I'm not getting into a petty argument and apologise if I insulted you. I get annoyed when people act as though they know everything when they have clearly not been in or around the ACTUAL situation. Don't try and guess at my occupation, I am not a civil servant and as for me as a person, you know nothing. Let's leave it there and let the thread continue...


Damn straight you apologise.


Ha arrogant child. Don't worry, I'm not offended by your lack of information.
edit on 6-15-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


I know you've got the maturity to stay on topic


I rememver my school meals very well...
Soggy, limp, pale green cabbage floating in its own stench.. tiny sausages wrapped in a scrap of bacon.
Gravy that tried to run off the plate and far away.
Liver riddled with arteries and tough stuff I never knew the name for..
Sheppards pie with chopped carrots the size of bricks. and baked just as hard.
That sickly smell of rice pudding or semolina (frogs spawn) with what looked like a drop of zombie blood splattered in the middle as if from some way-out-west ninja movie of the damned..

How I remember it..



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   


must really suck being married to a lowly civil servant too.


Pot, kettle...?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
@Citybig, why are you so opposed to children being fed at school? When you were a child, did you go from 7am until after 3.30pm without eating? Children are not self sufficient and a balanced nutritious diet is essential for a child's development and being malnourished at school will have a big impact on their ability to perform and their results.


Why should the taxpayer pay for your kid to be fed? Why does that have to be our job? We already pay for most of these families housing and monthly dole payments.


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
My wife is a primary school teacher and it's incredible, the stories I hear of what the kids eat at home. For some of the kids with parents who don't give a crap, school is the only place they can get a full proper meal.


Her job is to TEACH, not speculate on the home lifes of her pupils. A school's job is to TEACH, not provide a place to eat off of the backs of the taxpayer. Not too difficult to understand, is it?


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
I would much rather the tax I pay go to feeding our own children properly at school than wars that we have no business in and overseas affairs.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)


And I would rather the money not get spent on substandard food, but on books, modern computers, better facilities, better quality teachers, more pleasant environs.

What is the point of subsidising food when the quality is so low anyway that they aren't really getting nourished at all?


God forbid she actually gave a damn about the kid's welfare. You are suggesting a robot for a teacher then??? Maybe a higher quality of food might be in order. Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to stay civilised in an uncivilised environment


Exactly my point, School dinners have improved massively and it is an important meal for the day regardless of some opinions in here. Maybe it's the poor school dinners of the recent past that have contributed to the devolution of society and the return of the cave man in many areas! I know that when I have kids, I will want them to have the best dinner at school as possible, especially since as a parent, I will be paying for it!



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


I know you've got the maturity to stay on topic


I rememver my school meals very well...
Soggy, limp, pale green cabbage floating in its own stench.. tiny sausages wrapped in a scrap of bacon.
Gravy that tried to run off the plate and far away.
Liver riddled with arteries and tough stuff I never knew the name for..
Sheppards pie with chopped carrots the size of bricks. and baked just as hard.
That sickly smell of rice pudding or semolina (frogs spawn) with what looked like a drop of zombie blood splattered in the middle as if from some way-out-west ninja movie of the damned..

How I remember it..


You lucky dog you. Geez, all I got was cardboard.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
@Citybig, why are you so opposed to children being fed at school? When you were a child, did you go from 7am until after 3.30pm without eating? Children are not self sufficient and a balanced nutritious diet is essential for a child's development and being malnourished at school will have a big impact on their ability to perform and their results.


Why should the taxpayer pay for your kid to be fed? Why does that have to be our job? We already pay for most of these families housing and monthly dole payments.


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
My wife is a primary school teacher and it's incredible, the stories I hear of what the kids eat at home. For some of the kids with parents who don't give a crap, school is the only place they can get a full proper meal.


Her job is to TEACH, not speculate on the home lifes of her pupils. A school's job is to TEACH, not provide a place to eat off of the backs of the taxpayer. Not too difficult to understand, is it?


Originally posted by fiftyfifty
I would much rather the tax I pay go to feeding our own children properly at school than wars that we have no business in and overseas affairs.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)


And I would rather the money not get spent on substandard food, but on books, modern computers, better facilities, better quality teachers, more pleasant environs.

What is the point of subsidising food when the quality is so low anyway that they aren't really getting nourished at all?


God forbid she actually gave a damn about the kid's welfare. You are suggesting a robot for a teacher then??? Maybe a higher quality of food might be in order. Just a thought.


I want a teacher to teach, not be a teacher plus a social worker and a daytime parent. If that means teachers are robot like, so be it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Citybig
 






Her job is to TEACH, not speculate on the home lifes of her pupils. A school's job is to TEACH, not provide a place to eat off of the backs of the taxpayer. Not too difficult to understand, is it?


On this point by the way, your are completely wrong. Her job is NOT just to teach. It is to teach them academically, help to grow them emotionally and socially and prepare them for the next step in life. The amount of people out there that ignorantly give teachers bad press are either naive or ignorant. Until you have tried to teach a class of 30 children with many different needs, please do not judge. Most teachers want the best for their pupils and that includes getting involved if they think something is wrong at home. Kids spend more time at school than they do at home (awake) and if something is not right at home, be it abuse, neglect or anything else; it is up to the teacher to spot it and inform the authorities.

EDIT: Please never have kids.
edit on 15-6-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join