Boy EXPELLED for his sausage roll and scotch egg habit

reply to post by MadHatter364



Funny thing is though, the kid had a multi-national corporation manufactured lunch of prepacked processed rubbish. Instead Schools over here typically suggest foods that are home made and fresh.

Good for the school. And it was the breakdown in relationship with the brain dead parents who feed their kids that crap that put the kids in an impossible position and resulted in them leaving the School. Perhaps there are ways the School could have handled things better, but this problem began and ended with the parents poor choices and wish to stir the pot rather than packing a healthy lunch. Selfish berks.

crazyewok
reply to post by buster2010

 

Expulsion is like the most severe form of punnishment a school can inflict.


That like introducing the death penatly for parking violation and saying o well that ok you dont want the lethal injections then dont park badly.

If the person constantly parks wrong even though they know what the punishment will be for parking wrong then they must not care about their life. Don't blame the school for the parents breaking the rules.

reply to post by buster2010


What happend to teh concept of punishment fitting the crime?

MadHatter364

buster2010

crazyewok

funbox
reply to post by crazyewok

 

you wouldn't say that if you knew how much semtex , can be packed into a scotch egg, let alone a sausage roll... hmmm I take it he wasn't of Islamic or jewish faith (please excuse if ive left out you're non eating of pork religion)

after skim reading the article I see its not even because of religion. although they mention a C.E school , their should be no reason not to take in a sausage roll or too then,, yum yum. stupid school.

funBOx

edit on 5-2-2014 by funbox because: because wolves forced me to rad the article five times

It just stupid. That kids education will now be adversly affected over a scotch egg?

He wasnt disrupting a class or teaching no need to expell.

He was suspended for constantly breaking the "eat healthy" policy of the school. The kids parents knew the rules but chose to break them anyway if they didn't want to follow the rules then they should take the kids out and place them in another school.

Yeah, and force the poor kid to leave all his friends behind?
Accepting the fact that schools or, well, ANYONE can coerce you to feed YOUR kid as THEY please is simply UNACCEPTABLE.

Believe me when I say that if we continue down this path, pretty soon once you'll have a child a governement agent is going to take him to a "Growing Facility" where they'll TAKE GOOD CARE OF HIM for you, and release him into society at age 18: brain-dead, apathetic and ready to work.

Like I said don't want to follow the rules then take the kid out of there. The parents agreed to these rules then thought they could break them at will. Blame the parents not the school because they are the ones that failed their child. Also they are doing no good for the child when they want to feed him nothing but packaged chemicals disguised as food.

crazyewok
reply to post by buster2010

 

What happend to teh concept of punishment fitting the crime?

Read the article, dude

It said the school took the decision to permanently exclude a pupil yesterday because of 'persistent breaches of school policies' and because '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 school also said the decision was taken because of: '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.'

It not about the lunch-box - it's about abusive, publicity seeking idiot parents who still don't get it and go crying to Britain's worst tabloid who then misrepresent the issue on an even grander scale.

reply to post by skalla


Surely that between the school and the Parent.

The Child is still a victim in this.

If the school think it was misreprsented then it should take the parents to court for slander. Not take it out on the child.

crazyewok
reply to post by buster2010

 

What happend to teh concept of punishment fitting the crime?

You are the one that made up the death penalty for parking comment not me. If you willing break the law even though you know the punishment no matter how ridiculous it is then you deserve the punishment.

crazyewok
reply to post by skalla

 

Surely that between the school and the Parent.

The Child is still a victim in this.

If the school think it was misreprsented then it should take the parents to court for slander. Not take it out on the child.

Sure, they could go to court and ruin the parent's financial position and possibly push them into poverty due to their persistent abusive behaviour and rule-breaking. Or he could find a fresh start at a new school with his parents hopefully having realised that they are freaking idiots and just need to pack a decent lunch as requested for their little darling. I'm sure he'll survive without a pack of mini cheddars at lunchtime.

reply to post by skalla

the kid had a multi-national corporation manufactured lunch of prepacked processed rubbish. Instead Schools over here typically suggest foods that are home made and fresh.

Indeed. I still think this is a matter of principle though.

I wonder how many posters here go on other threads screaming that parents who let their children get obese should be charged with child neglect and abuse?

You go to school to learn and one of the things you learn is how to eat correctly. At this age you develop habits for life.

So if the parents allow the kid to smoke and drink, should the schools be forced to allow him to do that too, since by the logic on this thread, no one has the right to tell the kid what he can ingest?

BTW, wth is a scotch egg?

nixie_nox
I wonder how many posters here go on other threads screaming that parents who let their children get obese should be charged with child neglect and abuse?

Nope I think the state has no right to tell the people what to eat.

nixie_nox
and one of the things you learn is how to eat correctly.

when did this happen? Last I checked school wre for the 3 R's Or dam well should be.

nixie_nox
So if the parents allow the kid to smoke and drink, should the schools be forced to allow him to do that too, since by the logic on this thread, no one has the right to tell the kid what he can ingest?

Rubbish both smokeing and drinking are diffrent. Smokeing is illegal for under 16's and the secoudn hand smoke can har others and drinking is illegal for under 18's and a drunk kid will be disruptive. Eating a scothed egg neither harms other nor does it cause intoxication.

nixie_nox
BTW, wth is a scotch egg?

Its a boiled egg, rolled in a sausage meat style meat into a ball and then bread crumbed and baked.

Its a savory meat and egg snack essentially, conveniently packaged

reply to post by Biigs


Nonsense. It's what grows on your face after you receive a Glasgow Kiss.

nixie_nox
BTW, wth is a scotch egg?

Kind of a deep fried heart attack, but tasty

This school is a privately owned school, not a public school.
It is apparently a small school where the headmaster is also the owner of the school.
They offer schooling for children with SEN (special educational needs)
They provide education in a Christian environment.
It appears to be a very small school.
Their admission policies are restrictive.

This information, I picked up in the last 5 minutes. It leads me to these observations.

The school is not open to just anyone. From this I expect that they have not only a waiting list of potential students but policies which the parents must agree to before admission.

As Christianity is an authoritarian religion, we may expect that this school is also authoritarian.
As children with SEN are often children who also have behavioral difficulties, the school, it would seem, needs to be rigorous in promoting adherence to school policy.

Apparently the parents of this child were not "on board" with following the standards of the school and were the cause for their child's expulsion.

This is not a simple case of the over reach of school systems in this increasingly authoritarian world, but rather an extension of "my way or the highway" exclusive educational institutions of the past.

It is also not far fetched to think that this being a small school, catering to children with SEN, that there is a staunch standard for food. As it is clear now that the food we eat is of paramount importance to learning abilities and behavioral problems. As part of the schools "mission" disallowing certain foods which might affect the learning and behavior of students is understandable. For instance, allowing children who "act out" due to sugar to go around drinking Coke would not be in the interests of the children or the school.

So I have no more information on this school or the student or the parents. These are only suppositions on my part.

skalla
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It is over the top to expel a boy over a lunch box, but that is not what happened. His parents consistently broke School rules, which they agreed to abide to when their son was offered a place there. Then they became abusive over the issue and misrepresented the situation to local media. Upon the boy's return to school after a suspension/cooling off period the parents stated that they would still not be following the rules.

How could they, as parents, jeopardise their child's education and settling in a school by their devotion to sausage rolls, crisps and mini cheddars?

When they had already contracted to follow the rules as well.

Crappy self interested parents is what they are. They have put their kid through this.

Yeah, but this is like the case in North Carolina where they had an FDA or USDA inspector come through and inspect all the kids' lunches and throw out any that were deemed unacceptable. Then they fed the kids the school lunch and charged the parents for it.

The one mother was outraged. She has taken great pains to feed her child a healthy lunch, but it was deemed unacceptable because it had no vegetable. She explained that her child was very picky about eating vegetables and only ate them when prepared in certain ways and monitored, so she didn't bother sending them in the school lunch because they'd only be thrown out. She saved them for supper, less waste.

So, her kid's nice turkey wrap and fruit was thrown out for district rubber chicken nuggets, and she was charged for the privilege of having her daughter fed crap.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Colnbrooke C of E is not a private school. It is a Church of England school meaning it is funded by the local authority education department and must therefore deliver the national curriculum.

The school brags about being the only village primary school in the Borough of Slough.

Incidently, the headmaster would not have been able to expel the boy without the agreement of the board of governors.

Scotch eggs, pork pies and sausage rolls hey? All very traditional English grub. Wonder if the boy ever had a Cornish pasty for lunch. You know, traditional English grub designed to be used for packed lunches.

reply to post by teapot


Thank you for the correction teapot. When I checked the pdf for behavior on their website I found that Mr Meek (also headmaster) was listed as owner. I found no mention of the Church of England.

Being a Yank, I assumed that when a school has an owner, it is a private school rather than a public school. I guess the structure in England is different from here.

Thanks again for correcting my ill informed assumption.

ketsuko

skalla
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It is over the top to expel a boy over a lunch box, but that is not what happened. His parents consistently broke School rules, which they agreed to abide to when their son was offered a place there. Then they became abusive over the issue and misrepresented the situation to local media. Upon the boy's return to school after a suspension/cooling off period the parents stated that they would still not be following the rules.

How could they, as parents, jeopardise their child's education and settling in a school by their devotion to sausage rolls, crisps and mini cheddars?

When they had already contracted to follow the rules as well.

Crappy self interested parents is what they are. They have put their kid through this.

Yeah, but this is like the case in North Carolina where they had an FDA or USDA inspector come through and inspect all the kids' lunches and throw out any that were deemed unacceptable. Then they fed the kids the school lunch and charged the parents for it.

The one mother was outraged. She has taken great pains to feed her child a healthy lunch, but it was deemed unacceptable because it had no vegetable. She explained that her child was very picky about eating vegetables and only ate them when prepared in certain ways and monitored, so she didn't bother sending them in the school lunch because they'd only be thrown out. She saved them for supper, less waste.

So, her kid's nice turkey wrap and fruit was thrown out for district rubber chicken nuggets, and she was charged for the privilege of having her daughter fed crap.

It's quite different. This School had a clear policy/rule on the nature of lunches which will have been defined in the School handbook and no doubt upon application for a place there - such rules are very common in the UK. This did not require a government inspector to visit and get all babylon on everyone's lunch but seems to have been flagged by staff who are of course present at the kid's lunch-breaks.

The kid was given processed crap to eat by the parents who kicked up a stink that they were supposed to pack a healthy lunch in line with what they agreed with when they applied for and subsequently accepted a placed for their child at this school. Repeated contact was clearly made over this issue and the parents became abusive and made it clear that they would not follow rules that they were aware of and agreed to by accepting the place at the School.

As an earlier poster pointed out, it is an SEN school apparently.. this means Special Educational Needs and usually entails a learning or behavioural/emotional difficulty on the child's part. I spent ten years working with teens in that field, and the additives/poor nutrition provided in processed food has a direct effect on the behaviour, mood and focus of students - usually with a very quickly noticeable effect. Their policy is clearly in the best interests of all children at the school to ensure their ability to learn.

As pointed out many times earlier, the lunch was not the reason for the child leaving school, it was the abusive and obstructive behaviour of the parents and their insistence on not following the rules and then lying about the situation to the media, thereby destroying any chance of a working relationship with the school and putting their child in an impossible position. It's highly disingenuous and selfish of them, and now their kid needs to find a new school which ordinarily is easy enough, but a decent SEN school nearby may be harder to find

Then they plaster him all over the Daily Mail, and people here who should know a heck of a lot better go and fall for their outrage-bait. Which the Daily Mail has been world renowned for, for oooh a century or so.