ad Colin: (…) … So you also think this is the nanny state … There is nothing mentioned in the article about state intervention, so maybe you have information I don’t. (…)
Ah, Colin, you should know me well enough by now to understand that even if I (sometimes) agree with what Jay says I hardly ever would put things the way he does
He is probably a Tory (not that they would be always wrong ;-)) and I probably would not vote for them in most instances. He also seems to enjoy using quite strong language, he is pretty well known for that. BUT he is one of the most interesting people I have come across here, he does have his limits (see his posts on some other threads) and as for the actual matter at hand I agree with him to the extent that I think the school improperly interfered with the life of the little boy (it is not as if he was taking drugs).
I was not paying enough attention to Jay’s suggestion that the “bullying government” is behind all that ;-). So, I guess I agree with him as to the interference but not as to who has interfered. And no, I would not use terms such as “bastards” etc. in this context.
I’ve never said anything about state intervention (but I agree that in supporting Jay’s statement where he suggests the state was behind these measures, I might have created the impression that I think so too. I took Jay’s comment more as a statement about a society at large trying to interfere with everybody’s life. My mistake).
I was just curious if the state indirectly supports such actions. Even if the school is run as some sort of private school I very much am against what they did.
So, if things are private anything goes? A private school does not have to adhere to certain rules or do you think, ok, if the parents don’t like it then they can just take their kids from these schools? This is actually true, but this does not mean that the school administration’s actions are ok. I don’t really care why they did what they did, I think it was wrong.
I read the part about the Ofset report in the article. They indeed got a bad rating there. So, they think they will become a more attractive school by actually forcing pupils not to eat “junk food” on their school premises? What about improving the curriculum, trying to reduce incidents of violence (in case that was a problem), offering more extra-curricular activities etc.?
Or actually trying to convince people of the importance of healthy food without forcing a 6 year old kid out of school because of his lunchbox. They really must fear for their authority if they think the “disobedience” of one couple of parents and a little boy acting as the “bad messenger” are going to undermine their great academic offer. Again, we are not talking about a violent, drug abusing teen here, the boy ate cheese crackers for heaven’s sake!
I am normally very much in favour of certain regulations. I have been known as somebody who supports state intervention more often than not (I’m sure you still remember the long thread on “freedom of speech” where I probably was the least liberal poster on the forum) but what this school did is simply ridiculous in my eyes.