Back Off Cameron - Most Of Us Can Be Trusted Not To Dole Out Red Bull

Posted on

With all the sunshine this week I didn’t have most of a chance to catch up on the major news stories. Of course you’d have had to spent the entire week with your head in jug of Pimm’s to have missed the Katie Hopkin’s saga, the IPSA recommendations on MP’s pay, and the Republic of Ireland’s (most welcome in my opinion) relaxation in abortion laws, but I did miss the furore over school lunch boxes.

It seems restauranteurs Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent have produced a report to urge Government to make school dinners free for all, and ban school lunch boxes. In a move that is apt to make Jamie Oliver squeal with delight, parents UK-wide got the hump about yet another case of government meddling. Aside from the obvious question mark over the true nutritional value of our schools offerings, parents are also left once again having to defend their decisions to an increasingly out-of-touch and government.

David Cameron and Nick Cl 006 Back Off Cameron   Most Of Us Can Be Trusted Not To Dole Out Red Bull

In all seriousness, my memories of lunch boxes in the 80′s are hardly fond ones. Sandwiches wrapped in clingfilm and caged in Tupperware for 4 hours = sweaty cheese and borderline fresh chicken. I’d usually throw these in the bin before I got home from school in an attempt to evade a barrage of question from my well-meaning mummy. Satsumas and bananas went down well from what I can remember, but yoghurt lost its appeal when served luke-warm. Even Penguin bars and Club’s (that were used as currency in the playground in the winter) were messy and overrated in the summer.

The only thing that truly withstood any climate, length of time incarcerated in plastic, and over zealous swinging on the way to school were crisps and Mini Cheddars. But even these were subject to primary school scrutiny. If you were lucky enough to find Walker’s, Monster Munch or Pringles in your box it was thought that your parents could one day afford to take you to Disneyland, Salt n Shake, Wotsits or Frazzles meant to you stood a chance of getting on a plane come summer (perhaps for a camping holiday in France), and any supermarket own brand meant it was Butlin’s at Bognor for you. Of course these are sweeping generalisations but here are the primitive observations of the class divide as seen from the under-ten’s.

Add to this the lucky kids whose parents allowed them to drink Diet Coke outside of a restaurant setting, and the rest of us drinking Orange Squash from old Evian bottles, and it’s little wonder that school dinners were considered the Holy Grail. There wasn’t the serious debates about portion sizes and quality there are now. Burgers and chips were always on the menu and you had the option to decline vegetables. With ice cream and Angel Delight for afters, I’d often try to deliberately leave my lunch box at home so I could take an IOU slip to the food hall at lunch-time.

But things have changed. With brands falling over themselves to get into our trolleys and into our kids Ben 10 lunch box - there are a whole host of healthy and interesting things for parents to choose from. With the advent of the internet there’s also more advice than ever, and even competition among parents to make their childs mini picnic as creative as possible. From fruit skewers, to smiley-faced homemade pizza, to spicy wholegrain wraps - some parents deserve medals for their services to the humble school lunch box.

indexLunch Back Off Cameron   Most Of Us Can Be Trusted Not To Dole Out Red Bull

So why is the beloved lunch box under threat? Well apparently some of our schools have spotted William getting a bit too excited after a can of Red Bull and a mini packet of Haribo. William has then caused chaos and destruction during a routine spelling test and Ms Gorman has no doubt it’s because of mums lazy and uninspired lunch box. It doesn’t matter that Jennifer is sat quietly eating her carrot batons and homemade humus, or that Johnny is trying a passion fruit for the first time as mum spotted them on offer at Tesco’s. William’s mum has single-handedly ruined school lunch boxes for the rest of us. Yep according to our schools they’re all crammed with sugar and fat and cause our children to limp through to the end-of-school bell.

What’s my verdict? I might think Jamie Oliver is a massive prat, but I do think he’s done wonders for school dinners. Give it another five years and I’m sure that new legislation, greater budgets, and academy training for our dinner ladies will have led to the greatest school dinners we’ll have ever seen in this country. But I’m not convinced we’re there yet. In truth, it should be a matter of choice. Of course, there’ll be a few unfortunate children whose parents rely on a diet of saturated fat and nasties, but it’s not for our schools to intervene.

Stripping away lunch boxes for parents who prepare them thoughtfully and conscientiously is not only a massive over-reaction, it’s insulting. It would be far cheaper to send a simple guidance letter to all parents of primary school children, and ban carbonated soft drinks from primary schools. Schools could also ensure regular fruit tasting in class-times (think making pictures out of fruit pieces, making smoothies, or tasting fruits from around the world) to get kids excited about healthy choices and hopefully begging mum to pop some blueberries in their lunch boxes.

kids food 1 Back Off Cameron   Most Of Us Can Be Trusted Not To Dole Out Red Bull

What concerns me most is that our school dinners are generally hot meals choices. As parents cannot see what portion sizes are like they’re likely to give children another main meal at dinner-time. That’s 2 hot main meals per day, hopefully lots of meat and veg, but not so much fruit. I’d much rather have some control of what my child eats.

So butt out Cameron. Go and sort out the deficit and crumbling NHS and leave out lunch boxes alone.


Kids Need Bedtime Routines… No S£*t Sherlock!

Posted on

I can’t believe what makes the news nowadays.

Yes those whizz kids at University College London have been at it again and come up with some really insightful, powerful and compelling research that has found that lax bedtime routines and late nights can have a negative affect on a child’s capacity to learn.

As if this wasn’t obvious to any parent with half a brain cell. Please don’t tell me there are parents out there who are genuinely scratching their heads at why their seven-year-olds can’t add the price of a Twix and a Lion Bar together when they regularly fall asleep watching Jackpot247?

I’m beginning to think the University College of London is really just a pretty building with a fancy website. There aren’t really any students there, there aren’t any lecturers either - just a bearded man and a fax machine. In between switching lights on and off to maintain the illusion that serious work happens there, beardy will receive a fax with a number of mission statements to prettify - “Stop people smoking”, “Get all mothers breastfeeding”, “Don’t let children stay awake to watch Jersey Shore” - and other thinly disguised government / NHS objectives.

There’s certainly been enough staggeringly complementary ‘research’ to suggest the whole enterprise is just an extension of Cameron’s office ego. UCL seems to exist purely to provide ammunition to support Gove’s stern educational reforms, casual health advice to scale down on the number of avoidable hospital admissions, and the Conservative ideology of ‘Benefit Britain’.

Having received his fax-of-the-week, bearded man will then set about drafting something with enough stats and quotes in it to look convincing to the masses. Soundbites are then released into the media where the BBC, Daily Mail, and the Guardian fall over themselves to get it to print and air on a slow news day.

Overall, children who had never had regular bedtimes tended to fare worse than their peers in terms of test scores for reading, maths and spatial awareness.

As if this isn’t glaringly obvious! Kids that sit up on the XBOX until 1am are bound to be a little less alert during class time. Squinting and yawning your way through the school day is hardly likely to get you producing any kind of mental or physical agility.

The children with late and erratic bedtimes came from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds and were less likely to be read to each night and, generally, watched more TV - often on a set in their own bedroom.

Oh dear, yet more rhetoric to keep the class war alive. After all, every piece of scientific academia has to contain at least one attention-grabbing quote that can be rammed down the throats of the benefit scroungers. Of course the Government need to ensure that anyone seriously contemplating a life on welfare must be dissuaded, and benefit sympathisers must be handfed scraps of frighteningly generalised ‘evidence’ to prove that there is an alternative for the lazy and disaffected… “What’s that? A Council Estate? I bet their 5 year olds have Playstations in their rooms”… it’s exactly the low blow rubbish that Katie “media whore” Hopkin’s will spout from the relative safety of her Twitter account.

If you weren’t convinced enough, the author and spokesperson behind this groundbreaking research, Dr Robert Scott-Jupp of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, weighs in with this highly intelligent summary:

While it’s likely that social and biological brain development factors are inter-related in a complex way, in my opinion, for schoolchildren to perform their best, they should all, whatever their background, get a good night’s sleep.

Thanks Rob. I think we’ve all got it. If we want our kids to get into UCL, they must have their eyes closed by 9pm.

GUARDIAN LINK (be warned, it’s no more revelationary than the BBC’s offering)

If you enjoyed this, here’s my take on another absurd offering from the UCL.

 

 

 


Divorce made impossible for the poor

Posted on

It’s no secret that I’ve been an advocate of some of the welfare reforms that have come into force this month. One that escaped my notice however is the cutting of some key areas of legal aid. Whilst it’s predicted this will save the Government some £2bn annual in legal aid bills in England (and I’m a fervent supporter of saving money), this one seems to be altogether more complicated and I’m not sure the Government has this one right.

Which cases no longer qualify?

The Government is removing funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:

  • Private family law, such as divorce and custody battles
  • Personal injury and some clinical negligence cases
  • Some employment and education law
  • Immigration where the person is not detained
  • Some debt, housing and benefit issues

What cases will continue to be funded?

They include:

  • Family law cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction
  • Mental health cases
  • All asylum cases
  • Debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk

In respect of the removal of funding for custody battles and divorce, the Government states:

In cases like divorce, courts should more often be a last resort, not the first. Evidence shows that mediation is often more successful, cheaper and less acrimonious for all involved.” - See source citation

divorce460 Divorce made impossible for the poor

My thoughts

Whilst funding will still be available where domestic violence is involved, in care proceedings, and for mediation, there won’t be any legal aid for things such as funding a lawyer to argue about your children, claiming your share of the family property, or handling your divorce papers. So, if couples want to resolve their dispute through the Courts, they will need to fund their own legal action, or do it themselves.

In a generation where divorce is sadly part of everyday life (42% of UK marriages end in divorce) - it is a sad fact of life that many children bear witness to acrimonious family break-up’s and suffer as a result. Legal aid has provided a lifeline for the children of poorer families where custody disputes arise and are deemed by those involved to be unsatisfactorily resolved.

I’m sat here seething at the thought of poor single dads left to fight the mother’s of their children on self-depreciating shows like Jeremy Kyle just to score a few precious moments with their children. Watching them bare all to achieve ‘supervised contact orders’ just because the mother flings sometimes unfounded allegations is positively horrid and pure titillation for his 2 million audience everyday.

Of course every single case concerning divorce and child custody is a result of the parents actions. These cases are rarely black and white where one party is to solely blame. They’re tragic, sometimes selfish, and life-defining for the children concerned. They require sensitivity, time, and a lot of hard work. This time is expensive but it’s surely worth it to safeguard children against any potential venom that can be spat out by either party, a lack of contact with those who love them, and the psychological consequences of ‘not knowing’ their history.

Even when splits are amicable, there is still considerable problems when it comes to children. If either party has concerns that their child is not being cared for properly by the primary carer (and mediation has not worked), surely the next step would be to argue the case in court. In some instances, this is the responsible thing to do!

The Government cannot possibly solve the cultural dilemma of casual divorce and teenage pregnancy, nor can they stop well-intentioned couples falling out of love. This is a reality they know well - seeing the private lives of our politicians in the papers is a weekly occurence. They have affairs, divorce each other, and engage in custody battles just like the rest of us. They have the money to reach agreements with their estranged spouses, but seem to be saying that the same problems for the poorer sections of society will be ‘alright in the wash‘. It’s so ignorant that I can’t possibly put it into words.

Fair enough - I support the idea of the first stage in any dispute should be mediation. But sometimes feelings run too deep and marriages need to be dissolved quickly for the health and sanity of all person’s involved. Divorces are heartbreaking enough without adding a financial burden to the mix.

Fine. Cut out legal aid where children will not be affected. But every child deserves the best possible life. If legal aid is required to make this happen then make it available.

Whilst any like-minded person would agree we want a system that lends emergency support to those in need, and not a lifestyle choice, divorce and separation are not an everyday occurrence but the IMPACT ON CHILDREN WILL BE.

THE SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21668005

pixel Divorce made impossible for the poor