Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:When you look at the overall situation it has to be asked why schools need to have vending machines anyway.

We never did when I was at school, and my daughter's school doesn't have them now.

If there were no vending machines there would be no need to have a law to control their use.

Basically because schools are always looking for more money. That's just the nature of schools, there's always another program that could deliver more if it had a bit more money.

At the same time, parents are resentful and resistant to paying out more to schools. That's just the nature of people, they don't like being told to pay more fees, especially not for something they've been conditioned to think of as being very cheap.

Then you've got kids, who thanks to part time jobs and generous allowances have a fair whack of free cash. And of course, being kids, they've also got sweet tooths.

And lastly, you've got soft drink companies, who by their very nature look to increase the sale of soft drinks. They see a great market in schools, and being good at their jobs they know how to sell it to the schools (either direct payment to the school to put the vending machine in there, or a profit sharing arrangement).

The end result of all that is vending machines in schools, and fatter kids as a result.

And when people notice their kids are getting fat, in part due to having access to sugary drinks in their schools, they get their government representatives to pass legislation to stop it. But the schools and the soft drink companies have powerful vested interests in having those soft drink machines in schools, and so an outright ban becomes too hard. Instead you get some nonsense about vending machines being turned off for lunch, and even more nonsense when a school is fined a large amount of money for an administrative oversight.

All I remember from school meals were 'healthy meals' that tasted like paper and 'flavoured water', water or milk as the only options for a drink. I never ate in the cafeteria because of this.

More government intervention is a bad thing. People will leave the school grounds to get a decent meal if they have to.

When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

Yeah, when I was in school we weren't allowed to leave campus except for a few very specific reasons, and as far as I know that's still the same policy for all of the schools in my home county. Leaving campus without permission (which was rarely given) was punished pretty severely.

My school has a closed campus as well.

Shame they can't enforce the damned policy well, seeing as how the enforcer is usually down at the lower school gate, smoking with the punks.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

Why wouldn't you just pack a lunch?

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

Agreed actually.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

Bring it from home, buy from the cafeteria, etc, etc.

If you want some chip shop food, buy it and bring it in the next day.

Back in my day if you wanted to drink soda during lunch you brought your own can.

And nobody gave you gak about it.

Hordini wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

Why wouldn't you just pack a lunch?

Because if they are going to stop you from leaving campus grounds just to go to get something to eat, they'll probably dictate what is 'allowed' for lunch in school grounds.

Besides, Cafeteria food always sucks.

biccat wrote:Back in my day if you wanted to drink soda during lunch you brought your own can.

And nobody gave you gak about it.

Yeah, that's another reason why this whole thing is ridiculous. If you pack your lunch, you can bring whatever you want, junk food or not.

biccat wrote:Back in my day if you wanted to drink soda during lunch you brought your own can.

And nobody gave you gak about it.

Back in my day we just ate mastadon and were glad we had it!

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

Why wouldn't you just pack a lunch?

Because if they are going to stop you from leaving campus grounds just to go to get something to eat, they'll probably dictate what is 'allowed' for lunch in school grounds.

Besides, Cafeteria food always sucks.

No, they won't. At the high school I went to and most if not all of the schools I've subbed in, none of them allowed students to leave for lunch and students were allowed to bring whatever they wanted to if they packed their own lunch.

Why don't you pack lunch?

Because cafeteria food sucks!

Please do not circumvent our word filter. Thanks Manchu did I just read?

d-usa wrote:Why don't you pack lunch?

Because cafeteria food sucks!

Please do not circumvent our word filter. Thanks Manchu did I just read?

Logic. You read, flawless, well thought out logic that is irrefutable.

Wait a sec...

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

That's fine, too.

I used to refuse food I did not like, and went hungry.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was at school we simply weren't allowed out of bounds during the day, and pupils were punished when teachers found them at the local chip shop/pub, etc.

Good old fashioned values are still the best.

In those cases I'd simply just skip lunch. I will not be told what to eat.

That's fine, too.

I used to refuse food I did not like, and went hungry.

It's a tactic quite often used by 6 year old children, if I remember my nieces and nephews right.

I remember in high school the cafeteria used to put all the Tastycake brand stuff on sale for $0.25 a pack when it was coming up on its expiration date. So I'd wait, eating my french fries, and pounce on the sale like a pack of wolves on a three legged doe. I ate well for a few days after that...

Of course, that was back when my metabolism supported that and I was a scrawny almost sickly high school kid. Then I went to college...

d-usa wrote:Why don't you pack lunch?

Because cafeteria food sucks!

Please do not circumvent our word filter. Thanks Manchu did I just read?

Because of this mentality:

http://swns.com/mum-left-outraged-after-school-bans-penguin-chocolate-bars-081104.html

A packed lunch is a fine alternative as long as the school doesn't interfere.

In the two highschools I went too the machines were different. At my one school the machines were there for money reasons like Hordini said. Pepsi and Coke would offer us things and whoever offered better got there soda sold a school. But they were closed at lunch because the soda wasn't exactly healthy. At my current school they have vending machines open at all times, but they only sell natural sodas that are healthier.

take the stupid fething machine OUT of the school


no reason we need our kids drinking soda all day long

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:Screw that, they should take money from their sports programs, and focus on teaching the kids instead.

ROFL. Gov't enforces ridiculous food laws to fight obesity and you suggested cutting sports programs?

Yes. Sports programs are used for the intellectually lazy to allow them to ignore scholastic achievements.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:Screw that, they should take money from their sports programs, and focus on teaching the kids instead.

ROFL. Gov't enforces ridiculous food laws to fight obesity and you suggested cutting sports programs?

Yes. Sports programs are used for the intellectually lazy to allow them to ignore scholastic achievements.

I wouldn't cut PE programs.

But extracurricular sports are fair game. Of course the day that Texas takes a red pen to Football will be a cold day in hell.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:Screw that, they should take money from their sports programs, and focus on teaching the kids instead.

ROFL. Gov't enforces ridiculous food laws to fight obesity and you suggested cutting sports programs?

Yes. Sports programs are used for the intellectually lazy to allow them to ignore scholastic achievements.

Fine arts programs are used by the physically lazy to ignore their growing obesity.

AustonT wrote:Fine arts programs are used by the physically lazy to ignore their growing obesity.

School is there to encourage scholastic achievement. I have some problems with fine arts programs as well, but it has nothing to do with obesity. Attempting to solve obesity by cutting funding for scholastic programs is a bad idea and runs counter to the very purpose of schooling.

Is the anti-let-government-tell-us-how-to-live-our-lives advocating government control of how we eat and exercise?

Of course if after school sports program really exist to get rid of obesity, then everybody would make the team and get to play. It doesn't matter who wins as long as everybody gets to exercise!

The only reason it was from the fine arts was that sports make money. The majority of the money for the school probably comes from sports.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Fine arts programs are used by the physically lazy to ignore their growing obesity.

School is there to encourage scholastic achievement. I have some problems with fine arts programs as well, but it has nothing to do with obesity. Attempting to solve obesity by cutting funding for scholastic programs is a bad idea and runs counter to the very purpose of schooling.

I simply made and equally ridiculous sweeping statement using yours as a frame work. It was kinder and more illustrative than just saying bull gak.
I agree school is there to provide scholastic achievement; the fine arts are not essential to that achievement and are not part of the core curriculum as such. Between the two only one actively takes scheduled time away from scholastic endevours. That would be the arts, as I do not know of a public school that has a sports program that takes place during school hours, and if such a place exists it is the exception rather than the rule. Sports take roughly 1.5% of the average school's budget, they can rise higher but sports in public schools are funded by pay to play, athletic fees, concessions profits, and fundraisers. Which is basically the boosters. So while you are on your crusade against sports ask yourself if arts programs that are arguably as expendable could survive in the same climate. The only thing cutting sports funding in public schools does is reduce the opportunity for low income students to participate.

Now,
I have to stop my crusade agaisnt the fine arts on Dakka. While you sit there and try to think up another bilious comment about sports I'm going to give my full attention to the symphony.

Mr Hyena wrote:All I remember from school meals were 'healthy meals' that tasted like paper and 'flavoured water', water or milk as the only options for a drink. I never ate in the cafeteria because of this.

More government intervention is a bad thing. People will leave the school grounds to get a decent meal if they have to.

I can tell you our highschool tuckshop had lousy healthy options, and decent tasting junk food options. Then in my last year at the school the new principal increased the budget for the tuckshop, putting in vastly improved facilities, and bringing in a properly trained chef to oversee everything. As a result we got vastly improved food, tastier and healthier.

It's purely an issue of funding. Discarding it as 'government intervention' is just an excuse not to think about the issue, because if you have a cook with decent ingredients and decent facilities, then they'll make decent food, whether the ingredients and facilities are provided by a government employer or a private one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Fine arts programs are used by the physically lazy to ignore their growing obesity.

Having just recently left a job at a university where one of the faculties I looked after was the fine arts program, I can tell you there is almost no fat people in arts, let alone obese people. In fact, there's hardly any average weight people either. There'll all incredibly skinny, as they sit about smoking their clove cigarettes, wearing stupid outfits that they secretly hope will make the rest of us realise how artistic they are.

I mean, I seriously hate those people, but they aren't fat.

On the other hand, I went and watched my football team, the West Coast Eagles, beat St Kilda on the weekend. At least half the people in the stands were obese.