blogger Martha Payne 'banned' from taking school dinner photos

I applaud Ms Payne and her father. Not only were they trying to raise awareness about the poor quality of food given to our school children, but to raise money for a charitable organization that helps to fight hunger!

The site has definitely gone viral (2.68 million hits when I visited and climbing dramatically).

More importantly than the politics behind this,Martha Payne (Veg) and her father also have a "sister site" designed to promote a charity that feeds kids. That site is here.

The banning of her taking pictures has made people take notice, and now because of it "Mary's Meals" (the charity) can build 3 kitchens instead of just the one that Martha was trying to raise money for.

As far as I am concerned that's the best "middle finger" that can be given to the school district that banned her from taking photos.

WOOT!!!!!

Good news people.. Good breaking news...

The ban has been lifted..

The ban on a nine-year-old girl taking photographs of her school meals has been lifted.

Martha Payne, from Argyll, got more than two million hits on her NeverSeconds blog in just a few weeks.

Argyll and Bute Council said press coverage of the blog had led catering staff to fear for their jobs.

But council leader Roddy McCuish later told the BBC that he had instructed senior officials to lift the ban immediately.

www.bbc.co.uk...

They say it was due to twitter activity.. I'd like to think it was due to ATS being brought into the fray.. well, you can only hope so

But at least the blind have now seen the light.. they might wake up soon too..

Even more good news is that the girl has gone way beyond the amount of money she was trying to raise for charity...

Martha had been raising money through a Justgiving page for the Mary's Meals charity, which helps feed some of the poorest children in the world.

Publicity caused by the ban helped her smash through her £7,000 target - with total pledges of more than £16,000 being made by Friday lunchtime.

The total stood at only about £2,000 on Thursday evening.

A Mary's Meals spokesman said: "Martha's support for Mary's Meals has been amazing and we are extremely grateful for everything that she has done to help us reach some of the hungriest children in the world.

"We are overwhelmed by the huge response to her efforts today which has led to so many more people donating to her online donation page.

"Thanks to this fantastic support, Martha has now raised enough money to build a kitchen in Malawi for children receiving Mary's Meals as part of our Sponsor A School initiative and has broken the record for hitting a Sponsor A School online fundraising target in the quickest amount of time".

www.bbc.co.uk...

I like the way the council are trying to cover their butts by saying the canteen staff were fearful of losing their jobs.. not too worried about the health and wellness of kids then..

reply to post by Citybig


I don't know why everyone keeps saying this? Where I went to school, and I am pretty sure this goes for most everywhere in America and in a lot of other countries, kids pay for their lunches at public schools.

The schools are providing a lunch in case children don't have the means to have on there or forget. The kids pay for the lunch so it's not coming from the tax payers or anything. It makes the school day go easier and makes sure kids aren't at school hungry.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with schools providing cafeterias. Nothing.

reply to post by Extralien


I looked through and many of the lunches were fine looking lunches. The hamburger looked pretty meek, but I think there was also a salad with it.

Most of the lunches look completely fine. I have seen people complaining about the size, but they also forget that in the US we way over feed our children and ourselves.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
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)

Her job IS just to teach, I will not debate this with you.

Teachers should teach and leave parenting to parents, schools should be a place where children learn, not eat.

This is exactly what I mean, their job should absolutely never be to "help grow them emotionally and socially and prepare them for the next step in life" as you put it, it should be to teach. Nothing more. Helping to grow them emotionally is a parents job.

Something wrong at home? Not her problem. Why can't teachers just teach and leave parenting to parents?

reply to post by Extralien


Great! The ones that plan and buy the meals should be fired, not the one´s that process them into something they call food. The whole school should be revisited. Drag every dark secret out.


I also have to agree with fiftyfifty on his last post. Teachers should not look away and they´re indeed supposed to teach the children social skills.
But you forget something fiftyfifty. If they provide food for the kids, at least it should be healthy. Because that way they grow up with that kind of fast food and later they become mothers and fathers who think nutella is actually the healthiest thing on earth.

If they provide food, it should be healthy. If they cant manage to do that, they should stop serving that food.

Explanation: S&F!

Hmmmm?

Ok I must admit I became rather concerned then outraged then sickend ... then I read the bbc article and that all GOT WORSE ... here is why!

Mr Payne later told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme his daughter was not happy about the council's decision.

He added: "I can see that the photographs at the start didn't look the most appetising, but Martha marked the last school meal 10 out of 10.

"I understand that it's brought pressure from around the world and media interest, but that is really out of our control.

"But we are very supportive of the school - the fact that she has been encouraged to blog and she got permission to do this is testament to them.

"Everyone in the kitchens has been wonderful to Martha and she enjoys going into lunch every day."

Now to show ONLY the 2 out of 10 picture is a HUGE SHAME on bbc's part and is clearly designed to be provocative in a biased manner!

Kind of a beat up story!

In my days at school the canteen was run by the local MOTHERS who incorporated and ran the school cafeteria.

Think about that for a god damned second or two ok!

Then think about society in general and HOW THINGS WORK [poorly so IMO]!

In todays day and age with all kinds of food allergies etc there is NO WAY IN HELL you can allow the parents to decide what the kids bring to school foodwise as its a health and safety issue!

Personal Disclosure: Kudo's to the kid ... she has done mighty fine! A Deed Well Done!

reply to post by Citybig


Because a lot of parents don't or are incapable of 'parenting'! Therefore it is unfortuntely the job of the next in line - teachers. If they didn't, there would be a lot more unruly kids out in the street, higher unemployment, more befefits claimants and more crime. If this is you opinion, then fine, you're entitled to it but I could not disagree more with you.

You are living in an idealistic fantasy. What kind of world would this be if children were just taught without any humanistic or social interaction.. and no lunch!? Do some research into teaching practices (maybe a 2yr degree followed by a 1yr GTP/ PGCE) and then come back here and continue your argument. I think you would see things in a different light.

Originally posted by rcanem
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.

Isn't this the ultimate truth, this 9-year-old is showing signs of "awareness" and although her intent is not to harm the school the school feels threatened by her ability to step outside of their curriculum; she is literally threatening their internal security set up by them for them. How dare this child think and behave to her own rationalizations!!!

Good Lord come save us from ourselves!

This child has great potential and is utilizing her "down time" constructively. If there were some fault they are trying to hide then they are exposing themselves for it without revealing the nature of it; in other words they are idiots.

Sadly, the next meal will likely be green cubes of compressed something-or-other!

reply to post by fiftyfifty


Don't forget that it is optional for a school dinner. Packed lunches are optional too really..

The main point of a meal at lunch time is so that the kids don't fry their brains through tiredness and lack of energy.
No food/drink leads to lack of concentration.
It is in the schools interest to keep kids alert.

If a school fails in the rankings, then it loses out on things, then the next generation of kids lose out on being brainwashed in a particular manner and just turn ferral.

I'm all for an education.. but sometimes I wonder just what we teach our kids.. mostly the stuff that'll get them through the grinding machine of the corporate world we know.

There's so much more to life though and some of these 'alternative' things should/could be taught, IMO.

No matter what you teach or what we learn, we need food to keep going.

I know that some schools in the Philippines will cost you $1000 a year per child.. no school dinners..you take your own food, usually rice. You miss a day or a lesson, that's your fault, you wont get through and end up scavanging through rubbish for the rest of your life.

We are lucky (to an extent) to have what we have here in the UK.
We do have a choice not to go to school, but we a re legaly required to do so, as are parents legaly required to ensure kids go to school.. no win situation really.

Home schooling is an idea, but who has the time for that and a full time job to pay the bills and put food on the table..

School dinners are a bonus, even if it is all mechanicaly reclaimed and processed junk..
Packed lunches can be just as bad with pesticides and genetically modified fruit/vegetables added together with artificial cancer causing sweeteners in drinks and sweets.

We cannot win at this time.

I can only praise this girl for doing the blog she has been doing.. she's brought a world of schools and school kids together along with a lot of parents at a time when awareness about food in general is increasing. I seriously hope she carries on and becomes some world changing figure in years to come.

The internets win again

Glad the ban has been reversed, funny as ya like, but also very sad and highlights some major problems in the workings of goverment. I'm sure we've all figured out that the council thought that this blog showed them in a bad light. (from feeding kids food which is not too healthy, thought that is changing if I remember rightly, nation wide, not just this school) And the council banned it to save face. if a council can do this, then it sets a very dangerous precidentto what else than can get away with. This is small scale, local stuff. Imagine what goes on in the upper echelons if this is the attitude of the lower levels.

reply to post by Citybig

Eat it or go hungry, simple really.

Schools should not even be providing food, they are where you go to get an education, not fed.

So you do not think that food is an educational process?

Food is of massive importance to any Childs development and also, depending on the type of food they eat, can affect their concentration levels and behaviour, not to mention their personal wellbeing.

When my children go to school they are no longer in my care and i am handing them over to a state run system that my tax money has paid for. As such i would like them to take full responsibility for ALL of my Childs requirements. Not just educational. but also security, well being, medical care (should they need it), and yes, nourishment!

Now you may argue that it’s unfair that people without kids have to pay tax to feed my kids... well tough! I have to pay tax for people who consume too much alcohol and need medical attention while I rarely drink! Many of us pay for things that we may never use... non-swimmers pay for swimming pools, people who don’t like reading pay for libraries, agoraphobic people pay for parks etc...

It’s all swings and roundabouts... like it or not that’s the way it is and, in my opinion, it works. The only other option is to privatise everything but that hasn’t worked out so great for us with regards to energy/water suppliers and transport. Prices go up while service comes down.

I like it just the way it is... and if that means a few people, who choose not to have children, helping to sustain other people’s children, then so be it... The child, who you resent paying for now, could be your nurse, doctor or elderly carer in a few years time.

The way we care for and nurture, not just our own, but ALL children, is what shapes our future world and our own personal well being!

To resent helping children is nothing more than short-sightedness.

Peace

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Yep. That's why I actually went to her blog and scoped out more pictures. The picture they used was the measliestlooking lunch she had up and I think there was a side listed outside of the picture. The lunches posted are all fine and with the exception of that one picture, all plenty of food for a gradeschooler.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Some of those pictures on her blog are actually from other schools around the world as previously mentioned in this thread by someone else.

Would be wonderful to have similar here in the UK, but that wont happen for a while.

The pic of the measly dinner, as you say, is verysimilar to meals I used to have in secondary school many years ago, but with chips and baked beans. Not much has changed.

Originally posted by Eirian
Did you never read the original story? She was taking photos of the food because it was so crap. It would hardly feed a bird what they were feeding those kids every day.

The reason the council has banned her is because it doesn't want the world knowing how poorly they are feeding the kids in their schools. When you consider the government pays for kids from families on benefits and low incomes to have a school meal, and some parents are paying for their kids to have school meals, the last thing they want is anyone asking where that money is actually going.

Here is a link to the original story www.dailymail.co.uk...

Thats a fair amount of food for a 9 year old.

Compared to the low cost sandwiches I took to school from home, I would have been happy to eat what was on that plate, and I think millions of children all over this world, would consider that a feast.

I agree it isn't ideal , and maybe schools should not be providing food. But there may come a time when many will be happy to be served what is on that plate.

If the schools are just providing lunches for those who wish to pay, do they really have right to complain?

They have choices, correct?

I'm confused as to the policies about school lunches, maybe someone could fill me in the rules, and do they change from state to state,etc?

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by Citybig

So you do not think that food is an educational process?

Nope. Food should be provided by the parents, if the parents do not wish to do this, then they go hungry. It's quite simple really..

Originally posted by Muckster
Food is of massive importance to any Childs development and also, depending on the type of food they eat, can affect their concentration levels and behaviour, not to mention their personal wellbeing.

Absolutely, that is why allowing parents to decide what is best for their children to consume is the way forward. If every child went into school with a healthy, balanced packed lunch, you would see the benefits instantly, as opposed to feeding them some sort of gratuity meal that is barely even edible.

Originally posted by Muckster
When my children go to school they are no longer in my care and i am handing them over to a state run system that my tax money has paid for. As such i would like them to take full responsibility for ALL of my Childs requirements. Not just educational. but also security, well being, medical care (should they need it), and yes, nourishment!

So what you are really saying is, for those hours you don't feel that you should really have any say, because you can foist the responsibility onto someone else. And we wonder why generations coming up are completely apathetic and lazy when this is the attitude the parents have.

Originally posted by Muckster
Now you may argue that it’s unfair that people without kids have to pay tax to feed my kids... well tough! I have to pay tax for people who consume too much alcohol and need medical attention while I rarely drink! Many of us pay for things that we may never use... non-swimmers pay for swimming pools, people who don’t like reading pay for libraries, agoraphobic people pay for parks etc...


It’s all swings and roundabouts... like it or not that’s the way it is and, in my opinion, it works. The only other option is to privatise everything but that hasn’t worked out so great for us with regards to energy/water suppliers and transport. Prices go up while service comes down.

And we wonder why the next generations have such disgusting attitude problems. The fact is, the future is in privatisation, and if you think some big company is going to give a toss about something so insignificant as food, you are deeply mistaken. You'll be making packed lunches wether you like it or not.

Originally posted by Muckster
I like it just the way it is... and if that means a few people, who choose not to have children, helping to sustain other people’s children, then so be it... The child, who you resent paying for now, could be your nurse, doctor or elderly carer in a few years time.

No they won't, the child who will be my nurse, doctor or carer is at school somewhere in India or Africa. Our kids don't go onto these roles because the education system in this country places more emphasis on the student's happiness over the actual education.

Originally posted by Muckster
The way we care for and nurture, not just our own, but ALL children, is what shapes our future world and our own personal well being!

To resent helping children is nothing more than short-sightedness.

Peace

edit on 15-6-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)

The biggest lesson in life to learn is "Self responsibility", if that means that your kid has to make their own sandwiches, or that the state will not hold them from cradle to grave, then to me that is the best outcome.

We have a generation where people expect things just to be given to them, wouldn't you rather the next generations had the mentality that they will have to work for things and sometimes they won't get what they'd like?

The fact the people don't read is more telling than anything else. But it would to be asking to much

As stated before many photos posted in this thread are from people around the world that sent pics to Martha.

Originally posted by Citybig

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Holy crap, you need to ask why???

Just look at it!!!

Source

Eat it or go hungry, simple really.

Schools should not even be providing food, they are where you go to get an education, not fed.

I was going to go through the whole thread before considering a reply, then just a few posts in on the first page there is this. As a long time ATS user I'm used to seeing idiotic comments but I have a tendency to give the poster of said comment the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they're having a bad day, maybe the post is a little close to the bone, maybe the post hits a note in their persona that they must respond without thinking. Then posts like this one come along that make me think, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the poster is actually an idiot." There's a difference between being "idiotic" and stone cold being an "idiot."

Where do we start? Let's start with experiences in the "grown up" world (look it up). Where I work, and I'm sure a few will say the same thing, there is a cafeteria where I can go to grab something to eat for lunch at a "for cost" expense, they don't make a profit, they simply charge me for the food on my plate. If I choose a healthy option it is subsidised. Why? Because they have had the startling realisation that seems to have escaped you, a well fed healthy worker is productive and happy which is good for the morale of other workers. See where I'm going yet? A well fed, healthy student will be more able and willing to learn. THIS is why we feed our children at school rather than the weird world you live in where we incarcerate them for 8 hours with no food.

Going on topic a little more now. This young lady is exposing the diabolical state of school meals in the UK. The suppliers, who are inevitably government subsidised are providing food barely fit for human consumption. If people think the decision to ban her photographs was purely a decision by the local council they are sorely mistaken. This would have embarrassed the government right to the top, and we can't be having that now can we?

Originally posted by PW229

This young lady is exposing the diabolical state of school meals in the UK. The suppliers, who are inevitably government subsidised are providing food barely fit for human consumption. If people think the decision to ban her photographs was purely a decision by the local council they are sorely mistaken. This would have embarrassed the government right to the top, and we can't be having that now can we?

And that is very possibly the proverbial nail head meeting the hammer in some form..

I bet that some councilor is, or has, been getting a right royal roasting over this.

Kinda hoping that if it's true, that he/she has gone home with a banging headache due to stress..

Very nice point you've made there. Very possible. Especially considering the global exposure this has gained.