Child Suspended for Crisp Dealing
- Thread starter Insanum
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All I have to say is EL OH EL.
Isn't it the parent's job to teach their kids to eat healthy and send them off to school with a good lunch or lunch money? The only reason this is even happening is because they banned them. What happend when your parents told you not to do something? You wanted to do it even more!
Isn't it the parent's job to teach their kids to eat healthy and send them off to school with a good lunch or lunch money? The only reason this is even happening is because they banned them. What happend when your parents told you not to do something? You wanted to do it even more!
We had a few dealers of foodstuffs in my year - one guy got a detention for it, another got nothing. Suspension is excessive, but if it's against school rules it's against school rules.
If it's not against the rules, they shouldn't punish him, but they could add it to the rules and tell him to stop because if he continues he will get punished.
If it's not against the rules, they shouldn't punish him, but they could add it to the rules and tell him to stop because if he continues he will get punished.
Wow I'm glad I didn't go to that school. Mostly because I sold gatoraide at my school. [There was this deal at wal mart a 6 pack of mini gatoraides for like $1.50 and I sold them for a $1.00 a bottle]. I stopped when the deal ended after a few weeks. Made a ton of money and never got my hands dirty in the crisp smuggling business. btw: get em hooked early!
So crisps are what the kids are calling it today?
That seems a bit extreme to first, ban the stuff, then to suspend the kid for using his intelligence to profit on the situation.
That seems a bit extreme to first, ban the stuff, then to suspend the kid for using his intelligence to profit on the situation.
My former high school attempted such however unfortunate for them, a restaurant across the street, in addition to a store up the road. Thus their rules were easliy circumvented, especially considering any food offered was vile.
Nevertheless the onus is upon parents to supply children with products their deem suitable for their child. Should this include chocolate bars, such is the decisions rendered and a school has no business underminding the parent. If the child's well being is in jeopardy, an authority figure is within their rights to attempt to intervene. Teach healthy dieting, do not enforce it.
Edit: My congratulations to the twelve year old. Upon such a young age he has exploited the situation and capitalized on market value. Perhaps a wise businessman in the distant future.
Nevertheless the onus is upon parents to supply children with products their deem suitable for their child. Should this include chocolate bars, such is the decisions rendered and a school has no business underminding the parent. If the child's well being is in jeopardy, an authority figure is within their rights to attempt to intervene. Teach healthy dieting, do not enforce it.
Edit: My congratulations to the twelve year old. Upon such a young age he has exploited the situation and capitalized on market value. Perhaps a wise businessman in the distant future.
And I disagree with you.MR T3D said:
Schools, private or public, are under no obligation to cater to the unhealthy whims of kids and teenagers. The schools did not entirely remove the option of crisps, fast food and such from the children, instead they simply make sure that if the child wants them it will be outside of school time. Nothing is stopping those kids from walking to a store right after school has ended to buy a chololate bar or a bag of chips.
The school simply decided that allowing such serves no goal and is in fact counter-productive to their purpose: kids on a sugar rush are hyperactive and harder to deal with, and once that sugar rush goes away they are tired and lethragic. Both hamper educating those children.
We do not hold children of the age twelve to be legally responsible for their actions, they are not mature and wise enough. The responsibility belongs to others. Why should we expect the children then eat normal, healthy foods if the option for eating something 'tastier' instead (but which we adults know are bad for them) remains? We shouldn't. And therefore, for the school hours, the choice is removed from them.
Yes, the kids has some entreprenurial spirit. But he blatantly broke the rules. And so was punished.
Same. Also, judging from the fact you said crisps not fries, you might live in Britain. In America, I'd say that ts our free right and stuff. But in Britain, I'd the same because no school board/system should have ruling power over anyone's personal choice. It's the decision of the parents and the child. The school has no right to infringing upon that.Ryuu Akamatsu said:
Why are they suspending the kid? He should be rewarded! Twelve years old and he already has an understanding of how the market works! I know in my school there's usually someone with a box of chocolates around selling them, our school doesn't really care though because mostly they're for fundraising.
This is stupid....they should make posters saying how bad the food is or wahtever. They can remove it from the school grounds. But hell whats the kids fault. Not to mention he only sells to kids who want to eat it...he aint forcing the other kids to buy. . . .
some schools are so stuck up!
some schools are so stuck up!
I prefered it when school dinners were unhealthy. None of this 'salad' mumbo jumbo.SakSak said:
I have to say it's good business sense, the market is there. Supply and demand, he supplies the crisps and then demands the money.