[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...

[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......

[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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by 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......

Yes, but is it his responsibility to feed her children?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, but is it his responsibility to feed her children?

...we don’t know that they’re not his children though and he does live with them so could have made lunches or paid the outstanding amount...why would he not do that but she should have...I don’t understand that thought process, that it would only be her responsibility ...

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, but is it his responsibility to feed her children?

If he’s living with her and playing a part in raising her kids, then yes, it is partially his responsibility

[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

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...

[arista]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Schools have to make a meal for every child enrolled, whether they’re going to eat it or not, there were very clearly leftovers they could have given them, it wouldn’t have cost them anything, but no, they chose to make an example of the innocent party to get a point across to their mother, to me, that’s reprehensible for a school to do

She will now pay the debt
and get back to normal

[LeatherTrumpet]

Can you just imagine what kind of feral mother she is, those poor children

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...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...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the school has 360 children on roll so a huge amount of schools meals to cook each day..

360 children had rolls?! That's a lot of parents just letting their kids eat bread...

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Can you just imagine what kind of feral mother she is, those poor children

Publicly humiliated by their mother

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Can you just imagine what kind of feral mother she is, those poor children

At least she has a Part Time Job
as a care worker

[LeatherTrumpet]

"The headteacher said the 'bread and butter' rule was brought in so that children are denied a school lunch whenever a family owes more than £10."

So a stated rule was flouted by this "woman" and she has the audacity to contact the media??. What a piece of work, her poor kids


"She said she did not recall receiving any other text messages from the school prior to Monday."

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...the school has 360 children on roll so a huge amount of schools meals to cook each day...(...which apparently they take pride in, their lovely schools meals with a 3 choice menu...)...there is no way on this earth that there would be no surplus with those numbers, absolutely no way at all...but rather than give the left over food to the children at no cost to anyone...they chose not to ...and most probably it went into the bins...to make a point with their ‘£10 rule’...and with no thought for those children having a meal to sustain them through their afternoon...even grated cheese and some salad with the bread and butter which is reasonable sustenance for a child to work on...but no, it’s a £10 rule’...and that’s more important than the children...

If they are chucking food in the bin instead of giving it to kids who are short, then thats vile. Not sure how it should be assumed there is surplus though? Some other kids might have lost their dinner money or had their parents miss a payment or whatever.

Bread and butter and a piece of fruit..is not really that bad. not the best but surely better than nothing.

This mother took the piss. The school does need a policy, to stop people taking the piss (mind a tenner is a bit..harsh. Would think it would be higher but I guess, it depends how many parents try avoiding the costs regularly really). The school will only have the policy as people have tried to take the piss in the past. This mother needs to actually make sure her kids have dinner money paid. Or put them on packed lunches.

Normally am on the side of parents in these types of thing. but the fact that shes gone to the press moaning on, saying the social would be called had she sent them in with the same food despite her sending them in with no food and no money too, that shes claiming they are hugely unfair when its a blanket rule and that, and maybe the fact that I am running on no sleep at all.. may be making me harsher than usual. The mother shamed the kids though, and not the school, the school followed policy, and then the mother went crying to the papers to embarrass the kids and gain attention.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by arista

At least she has a Part Time Job
as a care worker

yes she works in a care home and haivng spent the last 6 years in and out of them

i know just the type....

[LukeB]

I don't know this mothers income situation but since she isn't entitled to free meals what is she spending her money on? surely you should make sure have money for lunches or she could do pack lunches.

She should stop whining to the papers and pay the bill and not risk her children from being hungry. Bread and Butter is better than nothing but if you want your child to have a bigger meal then pay.

[LeatherTrumpet]

She took them home from school early and bougtht them

A MEAL DEAL

because they "were hungry"

a bloody meal deal

I bet they had like coco pops for breakfast


just vile

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...they did actually Luke...have to give them something, there would have been very serious questions to answer had they given them nothing...they give them the minimum really...and would have thrown surplus food out because there is always an error margin...

Sorry should have read your next post to see where you are coming from. This is not entirely true surely. It might be, but the way my kids school does it is meals are actually prepared elsewhere, then brought in and given as made, so its not like it was when I was at school when there were dinner ladies say, giving an extra scoop of mash or whatever. Its literally like an airplane meal type deal.

And an error margin, might also have to sustain other kids whos parents have 'forgot' dinner money for a few days. Those kids might well have got there first. Its unfair to just assume the school is throwing meals away to spite kids, when theres not really any reason for them to do that? Wouldn't change the policy of bread and butter and fruit as a minimum, but would only be able to get actual meals if they were going spare., which I would think they usually aren't

[Alf]

Chucking food away? We used to have a thing called seconds, where you could get second helpings until it:s all gone. Do they not do seconds anymore?

[Cherie]

Schools are run as a business now, there is very little waste, when I worked in a school the portions were carefully controlled, this was a for two reasons ensuring that the company supplying the dinners made a profit and also that the kids weren't overeating, the school cannot continue to give food to parents who don't pay, they went over their 10.00 rule and nothing was still forthcoming, its not down to the staff, its all ruled by the business manager now. They gave what leeway they could

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Alf

Chucking food away? We used to have a thing called seconds, where you could get second helpings until it:s all gone. Do they not do seconds anymore?

No, seconds are a thing of the past, they are trying to control the kids weight now not add to it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Sorry should have read your next post to see where you are coming from. This is not entirely true surely. It might be, but the way my kids school does it is meals are actually prepared elsewhere, then brought in and given as made, so its not like it was when I was at school when there were dinner ladies say, giving an extra scoop of mash or whatever. Its literally like an airplane meal type deal.

And an error margin, might also have to sustain other kids whos parents have 'forgot' dinner money for a few days. Those kids might well have got there first. Its unfair to just assume the school is throwing meals away to spite kids, when theres not really any reason for them to do that? Wouldn't change the policy of bread and butter and fruit as a minimum, but would only be able to get actual meals if they were going spare., which I would think they usually aren't

Exactly Vicky, this is what it is like, portions are strictly controlled