Can school force my child to stay in during lunchtime

iamana1ias

achtunglady wrote: »

Your first post was about another posters children, but the first quote above referred to the original poster as it was his rights contravened to which you put "not the right to chips with every meal", the OP is NOT asking for him to have chips with his meal, perhaps the CHIP on your shoulder is giving you tunnel vision where all you see is chips.

You're just rambling now.

I don't care what the op's son's gran feeds him. It does not in any way contravene his human rights to be told to eat food from elsewhere.

tamlem

Sorry I haven't read all the pages of this thread so forgive my ignorance but is someone seriously saying that a secondary school will not allow children packed lunches or home lunches (with the proper consent completed of course)?

I totally understand not letting kids wander out of school at lunch time randomly but if consent is given correctly and the pupil is going home for lunch then I find it most bizarre?

adouglasmhor

iamana1ias wrote: »

:

Note that that's the right to food, not the right to chips with every meal :rolleyes:

Best laugh I've had all day though, so thanks for that! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

So if OP can't afford the school meals as she has stated? The convention means that the school pays for his meals then - I think you just shot your supercillious attitude in the foot

minxtress

ben500 wrote: »

Something doesn't sit right here, a child cannot legally give consent to having their fingerprints taken, the school would need to seek this from the parent beforehand, surely the question of his needing his fingerprints recorded would have resulted in the obvious, "my child will not be using the facility therefore no need for his prints to be taken response"? I can't see any school just marching all the children off and printing them without some kind of consultation.

The fingerprint system is used in all 3 of my childrens schools and we havent been asked in any case for permission for them to be fingerprinted.
This is being rolled out nationally through newly built schools to create a cashless system.

I am in a meeting with the Head Teacher at 2.30pm this afternoon so will have some more answers to all my questions to report back.
Another parent who's son was with mine when they were threatened to be impalled has made a formal complaint and is also being seen after myself.

iamana1ias

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So if OP can't afford the school meals as she has stated? The convention means that the school pays for his meals then - I think you just shot your supercillious attitude in the foot

For the record I disagree entirely that the school should demand all food is bought from them. I don't see why a packed lunch shouldn't be allowed. They clearly know that many would take that
option

you and achtung are like two sides of the same coin. She can't make links and you make them where they aren't there! :rotfl:

ariarnia

silvercar wrote: »

You cannot seriously equate having a limited choice for lunch and therefore not eating a full meal and so possibly being a bit hungry later in the day with a "basic right to food".

I'm sure the mothers of starving kids in Africa would support your right to lunch with granny.

The op said she could not afford for her kid (the third and eldest) to have a paid for meal. If that is the case it's not about him having a limited choice, or a smaller meal and being hungry later, it's about her not being able to afford for him to have a meal.

She can afford to provide him a packed meal, and her mother (assume) can afford to provide him with a hot meal if he goes there.

The school will accept neither of this options and she cannot afford their option.

This means she is being put in the position of not being able to provide her son with food.

She is being put in this position by a body that has just been told to ensure kids get a healthy meal at lunchtime as it's vitally important to their level of education, concentration and behaviour (I believe the op's kid is going to be taking his gcse's soon so concentration and emotional/behavioural stability is going to be important in the next few months.)

Yes, I will agree it's a matter of degree, but I feel your example of starving kids in Africa to be somewhat dramatic. If you believed my nan, if I didn't eat my last sprout those mothers in Africa would be crying.

iamana1ias

ariarnia wrote: »

She can afford to provide him a packed meal, and her mother (assume) can afford to provide him with a hot meal if he goes there.

I think you might be assuming that gran gives a hot meal. Could gran perhaps subsidise the school meals?

BeenieCat

Why should they have to? A packed lunch could be provided for less than £2 a day (or whatever the school meals are), and doubtful his gran's meals cost anywhere near that too.

So the parents are having to spend more regardless, gran shouldn't have to subsidise.

iamana1ias

BeenieCat wrote: »

Why should they have to? A packed lunch could be provided for less than £2 a day (or whatever the school meals are), and doubtful his gran's meals cost anywhere near that too.

So the parents are having to spend more regardless, gran shouldn't have to subsidise.

I agree, I agree! Just looking at options in case the school don't allow a packed lunch.

achtunglady

iamana1ias wrote: »

I think you might be assuming that gran gives a hot meal. Could gran perhaps subsidise the school meals?

At last a sensible suggestion from you instead of being insulting, judgemental, sarcastic, rude and condascending.