More Vile Lunchbox Snooping In Yorkshire

Some cynical types hinted in the comments under my last article about a Bradford School's ban on sausage rolls - which really ground my gears if you hadn't noticed - may have had more to do with the pork than health.

Sadly, it seems it's not that simple, there appears to be something very rotten in the county of Yorkshire.

A fed-up mother of four, whose children attend Westgate Primary, in Otley, says she is considering launching a petition urging the school to review its strict packed lunch policy 

The mother, who does not wish to be named, said: “The teaching assistants take at least half-an-hour inspecting children’s packed lunches in the morning while wearing rubber gloves.  

“Kids as young as eight are being given the responsibility to ‘advise’ and tell on their friends if they have inappropriate items in their lunch. 

“If an item is removed it is bagged-up with the child’s name and given to parents at the end of the day.

Teaching assistants acting like prison guards; young kids egged on to become snitches; confiscating perfectly legal and benign products? It's quite staggering and shows just what a cancer the rent-seeking 'public health' industry is to have driven our public sector institutions to such insanity over fripperies.

As I said last week, a child's lunchbox is firmly in control of the parent and - as such - is a private space between the child and home and therefore out of bounds to teaching assistants, so I really struggle to understand how any school can believe this is acceptable behaviour.

Incredibly, the school head seems to think it is, though.

Helen Carpenter, headteacher at the school, said: “Encouraging healthy eating amongst our pupils is really important to us here at Westgate Primary School, therefore we have adopted a packed lunch policy, like many other schools, with a view to ensuring our pupils have a healthy, balanced and nutritious lunch."

And there's that word 'encouraging' again. Mandatory lunchbox inspections, the use of informers and forced confiscation is not encouragement' by any definition of the fucking word. It is hardline coercion. You'd think a teacher - even a hellbeast as vile and gullible as this one - would know that.

You'd also expect her to be using school resources better. There is no point her, or any other teacher, squealing about how their budgets are squeezed while they are wasting time and money on such vacuous and sinister nonsense.

Still plenty more to cut in her school's budget, of that there is absolutely no doubt. 

Psst! Come Here Little Boy, Lemme Look In Your Lunchbox

A Bradford teacher, pictured today

Considering the habit that the 'public health' movement has of dressing their puritannical snobbery up as some kind of concern for kids (which it isn't, kids are just a tool they use to further their rent-seeking agenda), there is nothing more vile than when their policies actively contribute to detracting from the enjoyment of childrens' lives.

Here is one such example, via the BBC.

Bradford school bans sausage rolls from packed lunches

The new policy at Shirley Manor Primary Academy in Bradford states parents will be called if banned foods are found in packed lunches.

By "banned foods", they mean things that are readily available from every supermarket in the country, some of which - like sausage rolls - that have been in the British diet for hundreds of years.

[The policy] states pork pies, sausage rolls and pepperoni sticks should not be included and neither should fruit squash or flavoured water.

I'm wondering if these educators are aware of how brilliantly they have mirrored the antics of Mr Bumble, the "cruel, pompous beadle of the poorhouse" which Dickens used to "characterise the meddlesome self-importance of the petty bureaucrat".

Because that's exactly what these odious teaching professionals are. This part - carefully worded to mask their bullying - is particularly vile.

The policy says pupils are encouraged to show their packed lunches to staff before and after they have eaten.

Encouraged? What if they say no? Are they left alone to go about the rest of their day? I think we all know the answer.

The reason these bansturbating teachers use the weasel word "encouraged" is because they know that a kid's lunchbox is a private place between the parent and their child. It has always been a little piece of home brought into the school. How many Mums have packed their kid's food along with a little note to their loved one to keep the parental link during the day? By wanting to peer inside what should be between parent and child, this Bradford school is forcing its way into private family life.

They know this, or else they would have used the word "ordered" instead, because that is precisely what they mean and it is exactly what it will be in practice.

Yes, teachers are bestowed the role of in loco parentis while kids are at school, but it is only a role given by consent, and only in areas where the parents can have no control themselves due to their being absent. The lunchbox does not fall into that category because, well, parents know what their kids like to eat far better than a teacher, they give their permission for that food to be eaten, and they also paid for the fucking contents. They are very much parents in that space and teachers have no right whatsoever to interfere with that. None. Whatsoever!

You should go read the policy, it's a work of art. It kindly says that "parents and carers will receive a letter detailing healthy choices that are permitted in a packed lunch". If I was a parent at that school, I'd be writing back to say that what is "permitted" in my kids' lunch is what I fucking choose to put in it.

In a decent educational establishment this policy would be pinned to a wall as an example of what not to do if you want to avoid being seen as a seedy, heartless curtain-twitching cunt. What's more, it has taken man hours to produce, which is odd considering today the BBC also tells us that there is a teacher complaining about school funding, saying "the system is under massive duress" due to "not enough money, not enough teachers".

Well, considering this Bradford school is fannying around with obnoxious and sinister shit like peering into kids' lunchboxes to see what they can take away to make the kids cry, it tends to suggest they have ample resources. If not, they'd be using their time more efficiently by focussing on teaching rather than what Mum put in a Disney lunchbox they shouldn't be snooping into anyway.

What with Jamie Oliver being the modern equivalent of the dinner lady serving up gruel, and teachers confiscating sausage rolls, Club bars and Fruit Shoots, I bet it's a real blast being a kid these days. Wouldn't it be nice if, occasionally, these bollock-chinned prodnoses actually thought of the things that children enjoy rather than their own lofty self-importance?

Smokers, Vapers, You're All Dogs Now

Via Nanny Beeb, we learn that the demonisation of e-cigs is well underway and is proving incredibly successful.

E-cigarettes should be banned from school premises to stop children assuming they are safe, heads say. 

Head teachers' union NAHT is worried pupils may want to copy parents they see using them in the playground.

Personally, I'd always assumed products were safe until conclusively proven otherwise in this modern huge state world we have to suffer - especially those regulated by 21 different EU directives - but it's clear that the recent BBC-led barrage of tobacco control industry misinformation has done its job, with e-cigs now considered evil and not fit for use in some public areas.

I'm very surprised, though, that this kind of attitude has been so easy to cultivate in such a short space of time. You see, even tobacco smoking is only now - after decades of denormalisation - being treated as a pastime which kids should be prevented from seeing.

For example, Chippenham Council recently installed a 'voluntary ban' on smoking in parks where children might see and also plans to bring it in for their High Street. We're way beyond the passive smoking excuse now, and beyond the looking glass into what smoking bans were always all about (hint: it's not health).

BBC Wiltshire held a discussion about this subject which I think you'll enjoy. The whole piece can be heard here, but below is the meat of a debate between Fiona Andrews of Smokefree South West and Dave Atherton of Freedom 2 Choose.

You see, Dave asked if Fiona thought e-cigs should also be included in this "think of the chiiildren" ban, to which she had no answer except to mutter her industry's weak and corrupt weasel words. She did think, though, that the initiative was perfectly acceptable because, I kid you not, we already ban dogs in case they shit in the play area. Seriously, it's less than five minutes long, do have a listen.



Note also that kids seeing a beer can is now considered unacceptable, but anyone suggesting that a similar principle might be applied to fizzy drinks - you know, containing "sugar, the new tobacco" - is being an alarmist. Like worrying about kids merely seeing smokers or vapers isn't, of course. Perish the thought!

Now, I can understand a bovine public falling for this after being bombarded by fake charities, trouser-filling state-funded hysterics and daft cranks bearing junk studies and lie-ridden sound bites for years. But with e-cigs, we're talking a matter of months between most people not having a clue as to what they are to now buying into an urgent situation whereby kids should never even see one.

The one thread running through all this is the state. Because, as we see from the BBC article yesterday, our fuckwitted overlords in Westminster seem to have made their minds up already.

The Department for Education said: "The government plans to introduce legislation that will ban the sale of e-cigarettes to children under 18 and make it illegal for adults to buy cigarettes for them. This will help parents protect their children from the dangers of smoking."

The wording in these releases is pored over by civil servants so that each utterance is crystal clear in its intention. If they wanted to differentiate their crusade against smoking with the approach to e-cigs, they would have done so. But they didn't. They were both lumped together in an all-encompassing comment which implied that banning sales of e-cigs to kids was part of helping "parents protect their children from the dangers of smoking".

The mythical gateway theory - for which there is no evidence and which isn't worrisome anyway - has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the state.

And when the state has made its mind up, those they fund will parrot likewise. Because vapers are just smokers who haven't fallen into line yet, according to ASH's latest accounts (page 6).

Fiona Andrews (see more of her nonsense here) was no more able to deny e-cigs are to be included in a vindictive, pointless, evidence-free voluntary outdoor smoking ban than she would be to tell her NHS funders to withhold her wages for the good of the country's debt problems. Preferable that she finance her new kitchen and bill the public than exhibit honesty and integrity, eh? She's not in the game for her health you know nor, it would seem, anyone else's.

Likewise, it's little wonder that state-adoring unionised teachers have been terrorised into calling for bans on harmless e-cigs being used by parents - parents, for chrissakes, the employers of fucking teachers - in front of children.

Smoker, vaper, it matters not. Shut the gate on your way out, won't you doggies? Just remember to leave your taxes behind, they're needed to kick you harder the next time you try to exercise your freedom of choice.

H/T to Tony W for the recording

A Good Man Is In Court Today

I've written about this before, so am encouraged to see someone standing up to a new law applied in an unnecessarily heavy-handed fashion.

A couple who took their children out of school so they could have their first family holiday in five years risk being jailed after refusing to pay fines introduced under controversial new laws. 

Stewart and Natasha Sutherland will appear before Telford Magistrates' Court tomorrow after they took their three children to the Greek island of Rhodes during the school term. 

The couple were given an initial fine of £360 after the family of five went away for seven days at the end of September, but were unwilling to pay. 

The penalty then doubled to £720 because they did not pay the fee within 21 days.

Now, I'm sure there are parents who require, ahem, encouragement to send their kids to school. Maybe some sanctions for repeated frivolous or neglectful attendance might be required under such circumstances. But this ain't one of those cases.

On the contrary, Stewart Sutherland seems erudite and makes a very good case.

The couple are arguing that the education authority has no appeal process and they have no choice but to go to court to have their say. 

‘We are their parents; it should be up to us. I have no concerns over any of my children or their level of education. They are all in the top sets, and we believe quality family time is just as important as schooling. 

‘We are bringing our children up to value their education, we know how important it is, but we are being punished for three things, because we work full-time, the fines are double because we are married, and finally because we were honest enough to tell the school the truth about the holiday instead of simply saying the kids were ill.’

Natural justice should surely mean opportunity for appeal should be mandatory in education just as it is in every other area - he is 100% correct in that. It's also disturbing that this should be imposed when some level of courteous understanding should have come into play.

The family booked the holiday in October 2012, before the new guidelines were put into force on September 1 least year.

In 2012, I also tackled the point about getting around the rules by citing illness.

What is Gove planning to do when 'sickness' absences rise dramatically, which is the only fully predictable outcome, especially since mobile phones now mean a parent can call a child in sick from bloody Goa if they choose? 

Monitoring of movement? Mandatory child check ups to prove the sickness has occurred? Home visits by state inspectors to ensure the family hasn't done a moonlight flit? Investigations into where calls are made from? You know, the sort of thing Conservatives used to accuse Labour of.

Because these new tough rules are, after all, a Tory policy having been installed during their tenure.

When you boil it all down, this is the end destination for Gove's policy. The state's inalienable right to educating kids over and above any ability of parents to decide marginal benefits/drawbacks of missing out on a week or two - or even more if they see fit - for themselves.

I might add that when teachers strike there is no talk of fines for desecrating the sanctity of education. The same state employees who enforce fines for the crime of missing a week, for one family here or there, seem to value that precious time far less when they are depriving every child in the school and, with it, an exponentially larger count of lost education days. Not to mention the time off work and commensurate lost wages/payments to childcare that go with it for parents.

I suppose it wouldn't matter so much if there wasn't such a huge amount of flabbiness in the curriculum anyway, as I've mentioned in the past when told we are supposed to 'respect' schools and teachers (from 2011 and do click through the links for more).

Well, let's talk about some of the activities undertaken recently by the little Puddlecotes at school, shall we? 

Today, the boy has spent the entire day at a nearby theatre rehearsing for an evening choir performance - it's a culmination of weeks of in-class training in the vital skill of singing pop songs. This follows two fund-raising mufti days in the past couple of weeks, the focus of one being a full programme of having a right laugh and being 'educated' about Comic Relief. The other was less - for want of a better word - intense, but was capped with finishing at lunch in favour of a cake and book sale for visiting parents, with the kids as stall holders. 

The girl has also been fully educated (for this year, at least) in X-Factor appreciation after weeks of preparing for a celebrity-studded concert at the O2 with thousands of others. The obligatory charity days were also observed. 

Now, that may seem part of a well-rounded education, except that there isn't much meaningful education being added to the rounding, as regular readers will ably recall. 

The boy most recently regaled me with how he had been instructed to write a rap song about the environment, whilst the girl was tasked with producing a poster advising on the dangers of smoking and drugs. 

All of which makes me wonder what, exactly, we should be asking our kids to respect here.

Or, put another way.

Schools have a total of 38 weeks with our children, much of which is taken up by execrably useless subjects such as PSHE and nagging about lifestyle choices, sex education, and bloody environmentalism. This is without mentioning mufti days at the behest of professional charity fund-raisers, childhood damaging health and safety hysteria, politically-correct nonsense, and other fripperies that have no place whatsoever being taught by the government.

So good luck to Mr Sutherland. I expect a week with someone as switched on as him - in a horizon-broadening environment for kids - was equally as useful as the week his youngsters missed in the state's care ... but will have caught up on just as anyone in work catches up with their backlog after the compulsory EU 5.6 weeks of annual paid leave.

All power to your elbow today in court, Sir.

No Really, Think Of The Children

And you thought education left a lot to be desired now? Wait till you see what Labour have planned.

Teachers would have to be licensed every few years in order to work in England's state schools under a future Labour government, the BBC has learned. 

Shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt said regular re-licensing of teachers would allow the worst ones to be sacked whilst helping others to receive more training and development.

Now, regular readers will remember posts here about the perils of Puddlecote Inc, so let me tell you how this idea worked out for a private sector company. Because our employees were "helped" to receive more "training and development" too, not that a single one of them asked for it.

A few years ago, there was this brilliant idea - emanating from the EU - to insist that all currently licensed HGV and PSV drivers must take on 35 hours of training every five years. You could do so by taking 7 hours per year, or do it all in an intensive week long course. You'd have to pay, of course. Around £400 plus VAT at the very cheapest if you stored it up for the week long stuff.

Who pays for this is dependent on the company, some say that it is the driver's responsibility to keep their licence up to scratch, others felt pity and decided they'd shoulder the cost, but either way it was costly (all passed on to the customer) but had to be done or else the driver is off the road.

Our experience - and we offered to pay for the courses - was that our best drivers said "enough of this shit" and quit the game. Not just any old drivers either, it was mostly the most experienced older drivers who decided that it was a ridiculous idea, and that there was no way they were letting some snotty-nosed professional training adviser tell them how to do a job they'd performed brilliantly for decades.

The courses involved such vital skills modules such as vehicle security and crime prevention, economic driving, and customer care. You know, the kind of thing that employers used to be in charge of for free. As well as instruction on drivers' hours, defect reporting and safe loading ... which they have already learned in order to be licensed in the first place, and sessions in environmental sustainability and health and safety, natch.

Talking to trade associations and others, this stupid, pointless exercise in box-ticking by clipboard-wielding inspectors who've never done a day's work in our industry in their lives led to a loss of around 20% of drivers across the board. And this despite the courses being attendance only, meaning they could turn up - after paying by cash, cheque or credit card, of course - and read a book or fall asleep if they liked, there is no exam, no assessment, they get a certificate just for being there and wasting 35 hours of their lives and annual leave.

How Labour's plan would work is anyone's guess, but I expect it won't be attendance only so the effect will be amplified exponentially. It's going to be the best teachers who decide they are financially secure enough to throw their hands in the air and retire early rather than suffer such pathetically-imagined ignominy. And, as in our business, these are the ones who teach the younger - more readily indoctrinated - professionals their trade.

A more stupid policy for education is hard to imagine, especially since you can just imagine that the politically-correct crap the teaching profession is already subjected to will be magnified, and that - whichever way you cut it - it is the taxpayer who will pay for the course fees.

Unions criticised it as "pointless".

For once, the unions are absolutely spot on, but then it is specifically designed to be pointless. It's very point is pointlessness. Licensing and inspections of professionals already trained for the job, and/or accepted by the school as competent, is simply a political exercise in pretending politicians have a useful role in society, in this case because the EU has largely usurped Labour's ability to do anything useful.

But here is one time when we should be pleading with them to properly think of the children. Do we want kids to be trained by experienced older professionals with decades of knowledge and skills to be passed on to colleagues, or should Labour be allowed to drive them out of the job by way of death by a thousand insults to their intelligence?

Four more years and my kids are out of it, God help those of you with younger ones.

How Times Change

Behind the bike sheds; in the copse at the far end of the playing field; in the outside toilet block. They were the archetypal hiding places when kids surreptitiously smoked at school (or still do).

If you got caught, it was detention, 100 lines, a couple of sides on your least favourite subject. Maybe a letter to your parents if you were really unlucky.

So, consider this real life conversation, overheard by one of the little Ps at her school today.

B: So why did you get an e-cig?
A: Mr Jackson (the head teacher) caught me smoking in the school grounds.
B: {gasp}Where?
A: Behind the sports hall where I thought no-one could see.
B: What did he say?
A: That I'm lucky not to be kicked out already, but if I'm caught again, that's it!

So, what's your position? Appalling evidence that kids are using e-cigs? Or great that kids are reducing harm by using e-cigs?

Neither. The conversation was between two teachers.

Under 18s In The UK Are All Stupid

Longrider has rightly had a sound swipe at this recent talk of banning face coverings.

He pretty much nailed it, but this part jumped out at me when reading the article on the BBC.

[Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said:] "I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice. 

"But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married."

Making out anyone under 18 to be nothing more than unthinking drones opens up so many ban possibilities, doesn't it?

Personally, I try to guide the little Ps to be able to make their own decisions well before that age. It should, I suggest, be a national ambition that we want every teen to know enough about the world to possess wherewithal for self-reliance as early as possible.

That we have a government minister tacitly admitting that our teenagers are so astoundingly incompetent that they're not able to decide for themselves what they do - or do not do - with their own lives, is a shocking admittance that politicians have fucked up the education system, I'd say.

Yet we still have some calling for the voting age to be reduced to 16. Perhaps in the belief that under 18s are so very stupid that they're the only ones who actually respect politicians these days, I dunno.

Education For Life, Not Just For Christmas

I do hope Christmas is going down as well with you as it is in Puddlecoteville.

Yesterday, a dozen of us descended on one of those licensed restaurants - which used to be called pubs - for a meal where we could just leave the plates and bugger off when we'd had our fill of turkey and Sancerre. On returning home (via a few hours at a house containing a Wii machine to knacker the little Ps with Just Dance), Mrs P and I enjoyed a joyous but intangible Christmas present.

I'm not sure exactly when the practice started, but we've taken to pinching small portions of the little uns' bits and bobs every now and then. For example, a few chips from a Maccy D's meal, a spoonful of their after dinner dessert, a couple of sour sweets from the pick'n'mix. You know, that sort of thing.

We call it 'tax'.

They've reluctantly become accustomed to it, and it was helpful in explaining the concept of taxation in their younger years. You should have seen the look on their faces when we first described how many things the government applies this to. They were particularly amazed at road tax, fuel duty and VAT on top of it with relation to transport ... and that was before going on to explain toll roads, insurance duty and fees for some to park outside their own home.

They each received a Galaxy selection box, amongst other things, yesterday morning and we - with tongues firmly in cheek - announced that the tax would be a Ripple bar from one and a bag of Minstrels from the other. It was heartening to find out later that the very sweets in question had, without our noticing, been spirited away into hiding places in their rooms.

Oh joy! They already know about tax, but now they have developed a practical understanding of tax avoidance too.

Now that's something they won't learn in the state education system, eh?

Minds Like A Sponge, So Get 'Em Young

After a few months respite, I was beginning to think that state educational silliness had been left behind now my two have left primary school. It has come thick and fast in the past couple of days, though.

If you follow on Twitter, you may have seen these tweets yesterday afternoon.

Little P (the girl) has year 8 science homework 2nite - task is to design a poster about smoking. Hawking, you're so last century #GoodGrief
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) December 12, 2012

Dear God, it gets worse - Geography homework is to design snakes and ladders grid on climate change in different countries #NotMakingThisUp
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) December 12, 2012

Then today I had this conversation with the boy.

DP: How was school?
Little P: We went to some temples.
DP: Temples?
Little P: Yes, we, err ... oh never mind.

At this point, I think he must have noticed some of my heavy sighs in the past and was trying to save me the pain. Bless.

DP: No, carry on, you've started now.
Little P: Well, we went to a Jewish temple.
DP: You mean a synagogue.
Little P: Yes. The other half of the year went to a Sikh temple.
DP: OK.
Little P: Then we all went to that mosque we see from the bus on the way to cricket.
DP: Great. So when are you going to look around a church?
Little P: I dunno.
DP: Are you doing a carol service in one, or anything?
Little P: Don't be silly.

Now, there's nothing wrong with learning about other religions - I remember having to put on a skull cap to tour a synagogue myself at school, albeit only for one lesson and not taking up the entire day - but shouldn't it be in the context of making it implicitly clear that this country is predominantly Christian? Because this certainly doesn't appear to be the case any more.

After the above exchange, I described my visit to the magnificent Muhammad Ali mosque in Cairo a few years ago. Perhaps mischievously, I asked if he knew which country Cairo was in. He didn't. In fact, he knew little about any capital cities at all, which I would have thought should be high on the list of basics for state teaching. Apparently not, all the right-on shite above is obviously far more important.

After this evening though, they do both now understand the word 'propaganda' and how it differs from the word 'education', so there's always a silver lining.

Don't Mention Religion!

I understand that it's usually considered inadvisable to discuss religion, but on a day like this ... *

Long-standing readers will know that my respect for state education is pretty low. I've written extensively - from experience - about how poor some of its priorities appear to be. I'm not going to bore you again, just go click the education tag for back story.

But this week presented a very ugly deja vue experience, which I first described in 2010.

Arrived back home and the boy (9), who has just decided to get into football, was watching the England match. After a few minutes the crowd started singing the national anthem so I hummed along. A mad thought entered my head ...  

Did he know the words? No. 

Did he know what the tune was? No. 

Did he know it was the anthem of our country? Well, he had heard it before matches during the World Cup but ... err, that's it. 

Asking downstairs, the same responses from the girl (10). 

How fucking shit is that? 

A tip for new or prospective parents. Don't expect state education to teach your kids anything. Instead, assume the worst and do it yourself.

My point back then was that you would expect them to be taught the basics, Lord knows we pay enough for it.

I've left it mostly alone since, but - in the week following Remembrance Sunday - they have both been given homework (from two different schools) related to some guy who they instantly know as being called Siddartha Gutama.

I had a very good education, and am the go-to guy when things get a bit tough for their (pretty paltry, it has to be said) homework. But I don't know the guy.

Turns out he's an icon of the Buddhist faith.

So I asked a very simple question, you would think, of a 13 and nearly 12 year old in Britain. Do they know the words of the Lord's Prayer which was said during last Sunday's ceremony?

Blank looks.

I even gave them the first three lines.

Blank looks.

They not only didn't know the words, they had never even heard of it.

But they are both intimately knowledgeable about some guy who lived two and a half thousand years ago and is followed by just about no-one in this country.

Listen, I'm not religious in the slightest, despite Irish ancestry, but surely the Lord's Prayer should be at the forefront of religious education in a state which is supposed to be a little bit CofE? You know, having a Queen which is the head of state and the church, and all? How in buggery have they not been taught of the Lord's Prayer's existence after 8 or 9 years of state education, yet they know all about Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam and even the primary Buddha as if they're chums?

I despair sometimes, I really do.

* If you came here thinking I'd be discussing this irrelevance, then my changing the title from "Our Father, Who Art In Asia" wasn't a complete waste of time, after all.

Get 'Em While They're Young

On Twitter yesterday, an example of 21st century school spelling test words was posted. You may find a subliminal message in there somewhere.


Now, far be it for me to say that the government is inflicting its politicised view of the world on kids - which would be an abuse of power if true - but if this is not a hoax it's pretty pathetic of the school involved.

Coincidentally, one of the little Ps (the girl) came home from her secondary school yesterday with a much-anticipated - seeing as we had bought the ingredients at the weekend - and almost delicious ratatouille which she cooked in 'food tech'.

Mrs P took some to her office and shared it amongst her co-workers. They said, generously, that it was very well made but had to add that it could have benefited with "a bit more salt and pepper". The little P was chuffed that they enjoyed it, especially since the faults were not of her making.

"We're not allowed to use salt in our cooking", she stated, "it's a school rule".

Kids being taught that salt is not to be used at all for cooking? I reckon even fat-faced Oliver would cringe at that. The modern world seems to have forgotten that salt is better than gold.

When politicians inculcate kids against long-held, time-proven food preparation methods on the say-so of self-promoters based on century old flawed science, it really is time to flex the piano wire.

Safety First - Fun Is Only For The Fully-Trained

Following swiftly on from the campaign to criminalise cartoon dinosaurs, an Australian branch of the 'over-thinking danger' profession have decided that their wages, irrational fears and inflated egos are far more important than kids having time-honoured fun.

THE fun is over for Sydney schoolchildren who dare to do cartwheels and handstands in the playground.

Drummoyne Public School has banned handstands, cartwheels and somersaults during lunch and recess unless "under the supervision of a trained gymnastics teacher and with correct equipment."

I sometimes weep for the world these poor tykes are being forced to live in. Doing what has come naturally to kids for time immemorial - or, according to the definition in English Law, a lot longer than that - is now apparently too dangerous unless overseen by a paid expert. The dull-minded arrogance behind such a policy is truly staggering, isn't it? Self-centred adults inflicting their own set of values and fears onto minds which should be blissfully ignorant of all of them.

I'd like to say it's a small bit of Aussie lunacy, but we've seen the same in this country and in Canada.

Sorry, but I'm not buying any 'health and safety' bullshit on this issue. Nor do I believe it is any kind of excuse that they feel they might be sued by over-zealous parents. Both of those, if employed as excuses, are pure cowardice and reason for the idiots involved to be drummed out of childcare professions for good.

Safety should be a concern, yes, but the moment it usurps innocent childish fun it becomes quite evil. Kids have always enjoyed playing and, indeed, learn vital life skills by doing so. To deprive them of this and fill their minds with exaggerated fear is almost an abuse in itself.

Still, I suppose once kids have been taught that it is natural for pleasure to be curtailed in pursuit of overbearing security, they'll be far easier to control in the future, won't they?

Well done Australia, you continue to keep Ben Franklin spinning in his box.

H/T Aussie jewel thief, Cherie.

Voices We Should Safely Ignore

I've counted to ten so many times with this guy recently. Lord knows I've tried but, Jamie Oliver, please stop with this stuff already.

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has criticised sports stars David Beckham and Gary Lineker for promoting junk food.

The television presenter, who forced the Government to introduce nutrition rules in schools after highlighting the unhealthy meals served to pupils, has added his name to a letter which condemns the use of athletes in commercials.

Look, guys and gals, "television presenter" are the operative words here. Say it was "London Black Cab driver", what would be your reaction? Shut your trap? Couldn't agree with you more.

Especially since the country won't even listen to them on the subject of transport in London, yes. Perish the thought, eh?

So why is anyone listening to someone who has such a loose link with his subject matter, and seriously believes that the young will die before their parents because of a few cans of coke or a Big Mac here and there. The man is quite insane, or at the very least a bit of an easily-conned dick.

The letter, published in the Times, reads: 'On the eve of the London Olympics we, a group with a vested interest in improving the health and wellbeing of young people, express our grave concern about this trend.'

Well, we know what Jamie's vested interest is, don't we? It's shifted thousands of books via a TV series, and got him over to the US for another version ... where they told him to poke his mockney nose where the sun don't shine.

And why not? Because as others have mentioned, Jamie's brand of holier-than-thou is nothing more than self-aggrandising snobbery.

I mean, let's talk about Oliver's pristine credentials, shall we? This is the guy who is absolutely certain that he doesn't want things banned. Oh no, billy-oh.

A spokesman for Jamie Oliver, who has championed improved nutrition in schools, said: 'He is completely against a ban on butter. He uses butter in his recipes, for example for roasting potatoes in his Christmas programme.

'He doesn't like the whole kind of food police, we must ban everything, point of view.'

Course not, except when ... err, hold on, did that say "a spokesman for Jamie Oliver"? Good grief with bells on, that our sad bovine world has come to this.

I digress.

Course not, except when he is advocating a ban on butter ... for others who don't earn millions for their point of view, like he does.

School cooks are being told to stop using butter in sandwiches to help tackle childhood obesity.

They are being urged to use a reduced-fat spread or none at all as part of a tough nutrition regime coming into force today.

However, the directive – part of the school meals revolution demanded by Jamie Oliver – was greeted with shock and bemusement last night.

Nothing from the 'spokesman', but then it doesn't hurt Jamie's income, that one.

Other signatories to the letter are [...] and London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.

Dr Malhotra, who has called for a ban on junk food sponsorship of the Olympics, said: 'It is totally perverse that some of the main sponsors of the greatest sporting spectacle in the world are McDonald’s and Coca-Cola.

It's also quite perverse that anyone takes an agenda-driven crank like Malhotra with any degree of seriousness.

This is the company Oliver keeps these days. The guy appears to be so malleable and credulous that I truly think he would believe that Screw Fix Direct is a dating agency if someone pranked him.

'The very lucrative financial gain for these athletes is sadly at the expense of our children’s health and we should not allow this to continue.'

Much of the very lucrative financial gain for Jamie Oliver is also sadly at the expense of everyone else except Jamie bastard Oliver!

'With celebrity status comes responsibility. So rather than helping to fuel this nation’s growing obesity crisis, these stars can play a key role in helping stem it.'

Hey, Jamie! With celebrity status also comes the responsibility to not be an over-bearing bore who forces one's opinions on the public who are very happy with Pepsi, McDonald's and other consumer products, thank you very much. It might not be the view in Hoxton where they name their kids after fairies, flowers and teddy bears, but in the real world your cash-trousering should have no effect on anyone else whatsoever. How arrogant that you think it should.

Yet one more example of how the public is sucked into a position where they feel it perfectly acceptable to interfere in the lives and choices of others. The producers being promoted are rich simply through the massive support they receive from the public. The celebrities advertising their products are entirely in keeping with the proper order of the world.

A letter from a collection of state-funded career prohibitionists, self-described vested interests, utter lunatics, and profit-chasing hypocrites like Jamie Oliver should be discarded as irrelevant, but you just know some airhead in Westminster will think it the most important thing he's ever seen.

Sadly, Oliver is one of the 1% of irritating dickheads that incessantly use their ill-gained influence to negatively affect the lives of the other 99% of us.

Hmmm. 1% controlling 99% for self-interest? I reckon there's a publicity angle there.

Short On Inspiration

Content may be sparse for a few days due to my having far too many hats to wear at the moment.

Mrs and Mrs P Snr have just moved house which has been a burden on my time, while I've also just signed a contract which could increase Puddlecote Inc's turnover by 10%-20% with any luck.

There's also the not inconsiderable amount of time being spent getting the little Ps to cricket training and matches, martial arts events, netball training and other such stuff, all out of school time.

The reason for outside clubs being necessary for their activities is illustrated by the girl's school experience with athletics this month. Due to a scarcity of entrants, she was press ganged into taking part in the sports day's high jump competition. Never having done the event before, it was quite a surprise when she not only won it, but also narrowly failed at a height which would have broken the school record for her year.

We asked her what award she received for her achievement and she replied that there wasn't one. Not a cup, medal, certificate or even a sticker. She just took part, won, and then it is all forgotten about. I was surprised they even know what the school record is since they attach so little importance to it.

To make matters worse, as champion she was naturally chosen to represent her school in the high jump event at the district school sports day. Warming to the task, she asked if she could practice after school for a couple of days before the event to ensure a good performance. The reply was that no, she couldn't, and that the teachers thought the best approach was to "rest" (laziness or health & safety, you decide).

In the year when the Olympics come to our country - with much fanfare and the slogan "Inspire a Generation" hanging from lamp posts up and down the torch relay route - here we have a member of the younger generation receiving barely a pat on the back for performing well, and then being stopped from enjoying sport more when she was 'inspired' to do so.

And don't get me started on the boy being told he can't bowl overarm at a very rare inter-school cricket competition because "other children don't go to out-of-school clubs so aren't as good as you".

For all the talk of inspiration, I don't see much seizing of the Olympics opportunity where it actually matters, sadly.

John Prescott Condemns Labour School Meals Policy

On Tuesday, John Prescott constructed a tweet that was quite amusing.


Y'see, I think he was trying to imply that this government has had a detrimental effect on school meals.

He was referring to this article in the Indy.

School meal portions are being shrunk, leaving children to go hungry, teachers and parents have warned. Smaller portion sizes caused by cost-cutting are reported in schools across the country and are of particular concern, given the increase in the number of impoverished pupils who rely on school lunches as their only hot meal of the day.

"Children are going hungry in schools and we all know what hunger does to your ability to learn," said Mary Bousted, the ATL's general-secretary.

In the ATL survey, teachers warned that private providers, who are often hired to supply school meals, were cutting portion sizes to make their budgets go further and win new contracts.

Very interesting John, because I remember an article in The Times - now sadly behind the paywall but quoted for posterity here - which might explain part of the problem schools now find themselves in.

The future of school meals is in jeopardy because only half of secondary schools are on course to comply with stringent government standards, catering leaders will say today.

This could bring about the demise of hot meals in secondary schools, as caterers struggle to cope with the expensive and time-consuming restrictions. From September they will have to buy costly computer equipment to calculate the nutritional content of every meal. Each dish must meet 14 standards, including calorie content, fat, proteins and vitamins.

Caterers say that the obsession with raising the quality of school food, begun by the TV chef Jamie Oliver, has been taken too far by ministers.

Ministers who, in March 2009, were ones who rubbed shoulders with a certain John Prescott.

This may come as a bit of a stab in the dark, but could it be that the laughable over-reaction by his own side, after prompting by that self-absorbed idiot Jamie Oliver, has led to this - consequentially unintended, some might say - state of affairs?

Back in 2009, when Prescott's lot were in charge remember, things looked so rosy with fake charities positively gushing at how brilliant they were.

A spokeswoman for the School Food Trust, which devised the nutrient standards, said: “They are challenging but there is a very valid reason for them. It is important that they are in place to ensure we promote the health, wellbeing and achievements of children. The School Food Trust has worked with caterers from a number of different school settings. All have proved that through hard work and engagement with students they have been able to produce a compliant, appealing, tasty and varied menu.”

They're playing a different violin now, though.

A spokesman for the School Food Trust said: "Our research proves that school food is particularly sensitive to changes in price. In these tough financial times, access to decent food for children has never been so important."

Very true.

Perhaps, then, you shouldn't have connived with Labour and that Oliver twerp to burden school meal provision with so much cost that - surprise, surprise - they are reducing portions to fit in with your ridiculous pronouncements.

Good grief.

Time To Remove School Fingerprinting Machines, Then?

Mark Wadsworth performed one of his trademark amusing skits last week, very well-constructed it was too.

I couldn't help but be reminded, however, that the referred article at the Standard seems to have destroyed the prime justification for fingerprint technology in schools.

A girl of six was given bread and jam instead of a hot school dinner because her mother was £4 in arrears.

Hazel Lebby, 37, says she was shocked to discover her daughter Hannah had been denied a lunch after she fell behind with her payments to St Thomas of Canterbury RC Primary in Commonside East, Mitcham.

Now, presumably, other kids would have seen this and - as is the case being presented - have been laughing at how her parents couldn't afford to provide her with funds necessary for her lunch.

We're told that bullying is the result of such inability to pay, hence one of the most quoted reasons for using biometrics.

Most commonly, in schools where children still pay with cash for their dinners, pupils eligible for free meals are given tickets.

The AM believes this makes it easy for such children to be identified and put at risk of bullying.

She recommends rolling out a system by which children have accounts to pay for school dinners which can be topped up either by their parents or by the local authority if they qualify for school meals.

All pupils would then pay for their meals by a biometric reading of their fingerprint at the till without anyone knowing how their account was funded.

If the response by schools to someone who has been a bit late with payments is their child being visibly singled out - highlighting what might be taken as poor parental finances - doesn't that completely obliterate the stigmatisation argument?

I think we're being lied to again.

Gove And School Absence - More Merging Of Party Ideologies

Now, I quite like Michael Gove, he seems to be a Tory not afraid of getting his hands dirty. This monstering of Harriet Harman on Newsnight was particularly delightful, for example.

However, his stance on 'authorised absence' from schools during term time is - to be brutally honest - utter crap.

It's taken me a while to get all frothy over this, except on Twitter, but it's so wrong-headed that it's an impossibility to ignore.

Playing to the Mail gallery, he cites truancy rates and - absurdly - prison and young offender stats. Err, is there anything less likely to increase truancy/absence than state banning of something parents feel is perfectly manageable? The kids will just mysteriously become 'ill'.

As for the the likelihood of kids being taken on holiday contributing to the prison population, we're into the strange realm of government statistical analysis being twisted to suit policy. Yes, I'm sure there is a correlation between high rates of truancy and future offending. How much of that is down to the annual family holiday as opposed to persistent non-attendance though is, I expect, negligible. Gove is pulling the old political trick of comparing apples with oranges.

He seems to be wandering firmly into Guardian territory, as referred to here last March.

Once again, we see two supposedly diverse political viewpoints coming together to view state education as some utopian ideal which can't ever be replaced. Even for a couple of weeks.

Schools have a total of 38 weeks with our children, much of which is taken up by execrably useless subjects such as PSHE and nagging about lifestyle choices, sex education, and bloody environmentalism. This is without mentioning mufti days at the behest of professional charity fund-raisers, childhood damaging health and safety hysteria, politically-correct nonsense, and other fripperies that have no place whatsoever being taught by the government.

I'd fully expect a socialist - wedded to the idea that the state is all-knowing with regards teaching kids, and that the parent shouldn't be allowed to interfere - to advance such a policy. But this is a Tory.

It's yet another example of a creep to the left from Cameron's drones. Whether he realises it or not, Gove is advocating the state to be the sole arbiter of children's education; that they are the only ones who are able to supply it; that parents are universally incompetent; and that kids are incapable of 'catching up' like adults are expected to after taking the EU mandated 5.6 weeks paid holiday time (which I'd personally much prefer his government devote its time investigating).

It's nonsense, of course. Firstly, state education simply isn't that good. There is ample leeway for catching up, simply for the fact that so much time is wasted on pet government idiocy which has no place in schools at all, as I've said before.

As I see it, they would learn almost as much with me on the flight to and from a week's holiday than they get from 5 days at school. Make the state school system better - or even fit for purpose if they're feeling saucy - and parents might consider it unmissable. Or, alternatively, give us the £3,780 per annum this 'service' costs; allow us to spend it with the school which competes and therefore educates most effectively; and watch how more valued the 190 school days become to parents.

You'd have thought a Tory would try to sort that out first, before pretending that the quality of 5% of a yearly education - which is taken up by at least 10% irrelevance - is indispensable.

That's the theoretical problems covered, so let's talk about the practicalities and unavoidable unintended consequences.

What is Gove planning to do when 'sickness' absences rise dramatically, which is the only fully predictable outcome, especially since mobile phones now mean a parent can call a child in sick from bloody Goa if they choose?

Monitoring of movement? Mandatory child check ups to prove the sickness has occurred? Home visits by state inspectors to ensure the family hasn't done a moonlight flit? Investigations into where calls are made from? You know, the sort of thing Conservatives used to accused Labour of.


Or, how about if this has nothing but a negative impact which he can't tackle even by illiberal means such as those above? What then? Well, the only other option is regulation to stop holiday companies from charging extra for school holiday times or, more likely for a Tory-led government, forcing them to charge more for trips taken during term time.

For a Tory to point to problems caused by the simple economic principle of supply and demand is pretty self-defeating, and for him to suggest installing illiberal legislation as a result just compounds it.

The end result of Gove's posturing as to the indispensability of state education - and the subtle assertion that parents are incapable of even a modicum of offering the same themselves - can be seen in Sweden, where the condemnation of parents who don't view state provision as perfect is so far advanced that families who home school are fleeing the country.

As the government intensifies its persecution of homeschoolers in Sweden, the president of the Swedish Association for Home Education (ROHUS) has finally been forced into exile with his family in neighboring Finland. The battle for human rights and homeschooling in the Scandinavian kingdom, however, is far from over.

The Swedish Parliament passed a draconian law in 2010 purporting to ban homeschooling, all school curriculums except the Swedish government’s, and all alternative education nationwide. Despite a global outcry, the prohibition went into effect last year. Dozens of families were left wondering what fate might await them. But so far, the official persecution campaign has backfired in a stunning way.

When you boil it all down, this is the end destination for Gove's policy. The state's inalienable right to educating kids over and above any ability of parents to decide marginal benefits/drawbacks of missing out on a week or two - or even more if they see fit - for themselves.

If he wants to tackle truancy, tackle truancy - not authorised absence which has little to do with it. If he wants parents to have more respect for state education (just like the left), then stop schools from filling the curriculum with state-mandated garbage which parents don't respect. It's arguable that government interference into how schools operate - and the pet projects they are obliged to teach - is far, far more damaging to the education of our kids than being taken on holiday for two weeks a year.

Sort that out first, Gove, and you might be onto something.

All Hail The Lunchbox Police

Forget Cameron's dunderheaded grandstanding over alcohol for a minute, as this struck a nerve at Puddlecote Towers today.

[Dr David Regis, of the Schools Health Education Unit said,] "Schools are serving better school dinners and they are also taking more of an interest in the contents of pupils' lunchboxes."

He says this as if it is a good thing.

A child's lunchbox has always been a place solely reserved for the parent and their kid, somewhere loving notes used to be left without fear of prying eyes. Has it really come to this? The state insisting on intruding on something as trivial and private as what the Mum hands to her little ones in the morning?

Well, of course. There's even a special 'police' unit assigned to the case.

"The packed lunch and tuck-shop police have been in action."

Now, it's obviously a metaphorical use of the term police, right? One hopes so, anyway. But how can one be sure when this sort of thing is happening, right now, over the pond (emphases mine).

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

Government regulations on lunchbox contents, enforced by state 'agents'? Isn't this a bit, I dunno, fascist? Or at the very least interfering outrageously in the parents' rights over their own child? Oh billy-o, yes.

What's worse is that they don't even know their own regulations.

"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all of the standard." The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

So, to compound the fact that they have the gall to inspect lunchboxes at all - something Dr Regis thinks is fine and dandy over here too - the ineptitude of the public sector ensures that it's not even done properly, which is probably why all lunchboxes were deemed unsatisfactory by the idiot 'agent'.

It is unclear whether the school was allowed to charge for the cafeteria lunches they gave to every preschooler in the class that day.

When you have some jumped up moron trumpeting the success of lunchbox police, along with a blithe ignorance of how special a place the inside of a kids' private space is, our government has surely lost all sense of proportion.

How stratospherically arrogant is it that any state claims to know what is best for each individual child - based on arbitrary and homogenous population-level criteria - over and above parents who are intimately involved with them, and have knowledge that detached computer-designed spreadsheets and algorithms will never have a hope of matching.

Dr Regis is a disgusting fool, as are irresponsibly pompous politicians who believe such appalling intrusion is acceptable.

Cameron swanning around, furrow-browed, interfering in the choices of adults is just the tip of a very rancid state-funded iceberg. They really do believe that the state owns you now. Mind, body, soul, and from cradle to grave.

May God rot them, every one.

Public Sector Says No

The little Ps just received another valuable life lesson, that being the rigid refusal of the public sector to embrace common sense. What's more, it has made yours truly seem like I possess the predictive powers of the Oracle at Delphi.

The girl has been rehearsing hard for a theatrical production to be performed next week, and the boy's school has been invited to watch it during the day, before evening performances for parents and others.

The girl's school is a 5 minute walk away from Puddlecote Towers, the boy's school a bus ride of a couple of miles and, to attend the show, he is expected to be there 20 minutes earlier than usual. This is to give enough time for the long walk ... back to where he has come from.

As such, the girl had a quite brilliant plan. She would ask her school if her brother could walk to where the show is being held that morning (her school) with her and her friends. You know, maybe wait in reception or somewhere like that. I mean, what's the point of all the otherwise unnecessary palaver, eh?

I said it was a brilliant idea, but confidently told her/them that at least one of the schools wouldn't allow it. "Why ever not?", they both cried! I simply replied that the public sector didn't understand common sense and would think up some way of avoiding employing it.

The girl returned home today with an incredulous look on her face. Yes, her school had flatly refused to consider it. Stifling my amusement and accompanying smug grin, I enquired as to which of the many public sector "more than my job's worth" excuses they had used.

"They said they have no-one to look after him", she spluttered.

A school. Designed to cope with 1,500 kids. With a payroll of over 100 staff. Unable to find somewhere for a 10 year old to sit quietly for 30 minutes.

As an example of statist Britain's pathetic administrative intransigence, you've got to admit that's a cracker.

That's Handy, Harry

Within Puddlecote Towers, there is nothing more preached to the little Ps than basic manners. So much so, that I sometimes catch myself employing hyperbole in making the case for their avoiding being irritating arseholes of the future.

A case in point occurred on Saturday when the boy had unthinkingly transgressed one of Mrs P's golden rules during the day. After dinner, while the kids tucked into a pudding which has probably terrorised Tam Fry in his nightmares, I forensically described an apocalyptic view of his life chances if he continued to treat others without respect.

I laid it on thick, too. He's a good kid generally but - to be frank - he 'lost it' for a while and was pretty rude. To peals of laughter from the 'girls' (and from him, to be fair), I went into a polemic about how he would end up unemployable and stuck in some cockroach infested slum if he didn't get his manners embedded.

Even though I say so myself, it was a work of art. Off the top of my head, I threw in references to rude people we knew, pointed out that even if they were employed, their jobs were dreary, involved exceptionally hard work (something I know kids to find abhorrent), and made the highly unscientific link between that and a future whereby living on a park bench would be a distinct possibility if he didn't buck his ideas up. All laced with a liberal sprinkling of over-the-top humour, a couple of caricatured voice impressions, and the odd funny walk around the table.

Anyway, he got the point but was perhaps sceptical about how manners were really that important. Well, I hope so, anyway, as I'd hate to think he would just believe me without looking for proof himself.

Fortunately in that regard, a life lesson materialised the very next day which could almost have been staged by me, it was so perfect. Equally unscientific, but not in the eyes of a 10 year old.

After finishing the last bits of Christmas shopping, we had treated ourselves to a KFC lunch {waves to Jamie bastard Oliver} before heading home. Despite empty tables around us being littered with finished meals which people couldn't be arsed to throw into the bins, we did exactly that and exited. Just by chance - or because he's the smallest, I dunno - the boy was last out and held the door open for four twenty-something girls who were leaving at the same time, and who I initially thought were together.

The first two breezed past him without even acknowledging he was there, to his visible annoyance. The third and fourth smiled, said thank you, and held the door so he could leave having done his duty.

The ignorants then turned right on exiting and wandered off towards the crappy end of town, effing and blinding as they went, before stopping for a conversation with two slack-jawed berks with their trousers halfway down their underpants.

By contrast, the other two turned left, stopped briefly to look in the First Choice shop next door, audibly talking about where they had booked for their respective summer holidays and - as was exhibited by the sleeve logos we hadn't noticed previously - headed back to gainful employment at the town's higher class department store after their lunch break.

I looked at him, he looked at me. I said "Y'see?". He nodded in silent understanding.

Parenting is easy when life throws you a biscuit like that.