Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Posted

TBF some of the dinners don't look too bad, some look absolutely appalling and the portion size for an average price of £2... £2 in Scotland is a Sunday roast for all the family, or a sausage supper and a single fag. ;)

 

I personally blame Jamie Oliver. Ban all easy to cook foods and have untrained, close to retirement, minimum wage part timers trying to cook fancy food for hundreds of people using cheap ingredients... No wonder most of the kids in our school just get 2 cookies for their dinner. Yep, a diet of exclusively desert items is far healthier than chips, fish fingers, sausages, etc :rolleyes:

Posted
As someone pointed out in the comments section on the BBC the human rights act allows freedom of speech without interferance from public bodies.

 

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

 

We have to remember that this right is not absolute and does not cover all situations. If it were, schools would be violating it every day. Children would be entitled to voice obscenities at staff all day long without being reprimanded. They would be allowed to take photos of teachers on their phones and share them around unrestricted. Technically they would also be allowed to do nothing but watch TV in school all day because we could not interfere with them "receiving information".

 

I disagree with the council's decision, but trotting out the Human Rights Act like it overrides everything else is nonsense. I believe that legally they are within their rights to stop her using a camera. Ethically, it is very questionable indeed.

Posted
I've had a read through her blog, I really like it. Rather weirdly though, I had the exact same trays when I was at primary school, 18 years ago....
Posted
If the evidence presented caused staff to fear for their jobs surely it indicates that the situation is cause for concern and that the staff recognise that the situation is so bad that they should fear for their job. If, as the council maintain, the photos don't demonstrate the need for improvement then why are the staff worried. If the documented incidences of poor quality or unappealing food are accurate then they should be saying "thank you for bring this to our attention, we'll sort it out" not "you're causing our staff anxiety by highlighting their shortcoming which we don't recognise.

 

Exactly!

 

Maybe someone should sue the Council for causing Alarm, Harassment or Distress to an innocent nine year old?

 

...and sack the person who implemented the ban in the first place, as they are at least out of touch with reality and more likely not fit for purpose!

 

mb

Posted
TBH I am a little disconcerted by the idea of a primary school pupil wandering around with a camera...what else is she photographing...who is checking what other images she is collecting besides her "lovely" lunch?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...