[Liam-]

Bread and butter isn’t enough to sustain a child through a 6 hour school day they were given a subpar ‘meal’ because there was an issue with their mother, yes it’s their job to teach kids, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taking care of their students, a school allowing children to not have a proper meal through the school day, because of a small debt, is in my eyes barbaric and lacks any compassion that a school should show

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Bread and butter isn’t enough to sustain a child through a 6 hour school day they were given a subpar ‘meal’ because there was an issue with their mother, yes it’s their job to teach kids, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taking care of their students, a school allowing children to not have a proper meal through the school day, because of a small debt, is in my eyes barbaric and lacks any compassion that a school should show

Oh please Liam... I do feel a bit sorry for the kids, but women like their mother rely on soft touches to get them through life, let them off a debt, provide stuff for free.... The one and only person responsible for those kids eating only bread and butter is their mother.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oh please Liam... I do feel a bit sorry for the kids, but women like their mother rely on soft touches to get them through life, let them off a debt, provide stuff for free.... The one and only person responsible for those kids eating only bread and butter is their mother.

No-one is saying to let the woman off of her debt, but to take her debt out on her children was morally wrong imo, is £17 really worth allowing kids to go without a proper meal? This school clearly cares more about money than their students

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No-one is saying to let the woman off of her debt, but to take her debt out on her children was morally wrong imo, is £17 really worth allowing kids to go without a proper meal? This school clearly cares more about money than their students

If they didnt charge people they wouldnt afford ingredients and would have to make the dinner staff redundant not everything in life comes for free and everything had consequences

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No-one is saying to let the woman off of her debt, but to take her debt out on her children was morally wrong imo, is £17 really worth allowing kids to go without a proper meal? This school clearly cares more about money than their students

If they didnt charge people they wouldnt afford ingredients and would have to make the dinner staff redundant not everything in life comes for free and everything had consequences

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oh please Liam... I do feel a bit sorry for the kids, but women like their mother rely on soft touches to get them through life, let them off a debt, provide stuff for free.... The one and only person responsible for those kids eating only bread and butter is their mother.

...the people responsible for a child eating Livia is everyone, I’m sorry...and while those children were at school...?...the responsibility for them to have a healthy and adequate meal belonged with the school staff...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the people responsible for a child eating Livia is everyone, I’m sorry...and while those children were at school...?...the responsibility for them to have a healthy and adequate meal belonged with the school staff...

You think that the parent should be able to take those kids to a restaurant and have them eat for free? No, neither should they expect to at school. We already provide free meals for eligible children, if these children were eligible then they would presumably be getting free meals.

You're quite wrong about everyone being responsible. If the mother can't take responsibility for feeding her own children, then maybe Social Services should be looking into it.

[Ammi]

...she lives with her partner btw according to the article...so I’m not sure why it would only be the mother who had a responsibility...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...she lives with her partner btw according to the article...so I’m not sure why it would only be the mother who had a responsibility...

Maybe he isn't their father.

[Ammi]

...he lives with her and the children so is just as able and capable of either making the children a packed lunch or making the payment for their outstanding meals......

[chuff me dizzy]

If the school had given them a free meal, and she had told other mums in playground what would have happened then ? Kylie and Sandra would have thought chuff paying for our 10 kids dinners they can get a freebie leaves us more for wine and spray tans and the honest, decent parents would have been subsidising them

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

You think that the parent should be able to take those kids to a restaurant and have them eat for free? No, neither should they expect to at school. We already provide free meals for eligible children, if these children were eligible then they would presumably be getting free meals.

You're quite wrong about everyone being responsible. If the mother can't take responsibility for feeding her own children, then maybe Social Services should be looking into it.

..a restaurant and restaurant staff don’t have a duty of care over a child...a school and school staff do...they have a duty of care, which is why they gave the children bread and butter...but I refuse to believe they didn’t throw food out...perfectly fine food that those two boys could have had some of...absolutely awful and a policy that should be thrown out of the window...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..a restaurant and restaurant staff don’t have a duty of care over a child...a school and school staff do...they have a duty of care, which is why they gave the children bread and butter...but I refuse to believe they didn’t throw food out...perfectly fine food that those two boys could have had some of...absolutely awful and a policy that should be thrown out of the window...

This is all conjecture. All we have is the mother's story, after she went to the press with it. I'm sure every school is caring, why would they be working in a school if they weren't? I'm sure they weren't at Dotheboys Hall... they got something to eat, and presumably their mother fed them when they got home.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

This is all conjecture. All we have is the mother's story, after she went to the press with it. I'm sure every school is caring, why would they be working in a school if they weren't? I'm sure they weren't at Dotheboys Hall... they got something to eat, and presumably their mother fed them when they got home.

...no actually you’re wrong, Livia...not every school is caring...schools are very much money making businesses now so they vary a lot but they do all have a duty of care ...which is not the same as ‘being caring’...and tbh ‘conjecture’ is not really relevant to this as that school will have had some food left over unless they’re a unique school like no other in the country...

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..a restaurant and restaurant staff don’t have a duty of care over a child...a school and school staff do...they have a duty of care, which is why they gave the children bread and butter...but I refuse to believe they didn’t throw food out...perfectly fine food that those two boys could have had some of...absolutely awful and a policy that should be thrown out of the window...