Ban on pork in Islington’s primary schools

Joined
12 Feb 2014
Messages
1,347
Reaction score
428
Country
United Kingdom
The Great British banger is off the menu for Islington children as pork has been banned in all the borough’s primary schools.

Islington Council has been criticised by the pork industry for refusing to dish up chops, sausages and bacon to youngsters, although the meat is served in secondary schools.
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/n...pork_in_islington_s_primary_schools_1_3952909

And the U-Turn (Sort of)
Islington Council denies school pork ban

An earlier statement from the council said pork was not served due to the cost monitoring what every child ate - some of whom may not realise they should avoid the meat due to their religious or cultural background.

But now Islington Council has said pork is not banned, and if schools want to serve it they just have to call up the town hall and they will make it happen.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/islington_council_denies_school_pork_ban_1_3953843
 
Sponsored Links
So "Islington Council has said pork is not banned, and if schools want to serve it they just have to call up the town hall and they will make it happen."

Obviously the title of this thread is incorrect. It should say
"There is no Ban on pork in Islington’s primary schools"



or perhaps
"Handyjack starts another untrue and inflammatory thread"
 
Sponsored Links
Handyjack is still scrabbling for any, even the slightest whiff, of a story to justify his views.

There is a world of difference between a particular type of food not being served because it incurs additional cost, and banning it.
The council quite clearly explain that pork incurs additional cost because additional resources are required to prevent young children, who are too young to differentiate, from eating that food.
Whereas, older childen can differentiate and pork is available for those that want it.
Even if infant and junior schools think they can afford the additional cost of serving pork, they are free to do so.

A local butcher says: "we should not pander to other religions."
A comment fom a reader says: "Ridiculous statement, the loopy left pandering, again, too everybody but the indigenous people of this country."

That's about the nub of it in handjack's view. Exploitation of an issue to further his agenda.
The narrow-minded bigots concerned about having their advantages removed.

A simple analogy:
Gobstoppers are a popular sweet, but due to the potential dangers of choking they are not available to young children in school due to the additional cost incurred in monitoring childen who request them.
Is that sensible? Of course it is.

Perhaps handjack would like a gobstopper or two? ;)
 
I think this must be what they mean by 'integration': our integration into their society! :mrgreen:

Seriously, I think it's difficult to work out what the end result of this will be but, as far as I'm concerned, there is a very simple answer: schools should provide pork and other meats and allow the children (or their parents) to choose which to eat. To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
 
I think this must be what they mean by 'integration': our integration into their society! :mrgreen:

Seriously, I think it's difficult to work out what the end result of this will be but, as far as I'm concerned, there is a very simple answer: schools should provide pork and other meats and allow the children (or their parents) to choose which to eat. To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
So you are suggesting parents should be available at dinner times to supervise their children because the children are too young to differentiate?
 
As regulars will know, I am not a racist and believe people are just people. (every group contains nutters) but I am against the ludicrous rules enforced by religions.

Could we perhaps try to persuade muslims and jews that their ban on pork is not necessary these days and it is up to them to choose or reject whatever foods and practices they wish.
Much like this Pope has decided that homosexuality is not quite as bad as it used to be.

It is not up to councils nor schools to decide or be offended on others' behalf.
 
I think this must be what they mean by 'integration': our integration into their society! :mrgreen:

Seriously, I think it's difficult to work out what the end result of this will be but, as far as I'm concerned, there is a very simple answer: schools should provide pork and other meats and allow the children (or their parents) to choose which to eat. To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
So you are suggesting parents should be available at dinner times to supervise their children because the children are too young to differentiate?

No because the children would have had it 'drummed into them' from an early age so they would know not to eat pork.

How can a school, either by opting in or opting out keep every child happy and unoffended. It should be an individual thing through choice.

Having said all that, I would imagine that most of the schools in Islington have a majority of muslim children anyway so there will not be too many phone calls to the council.
 
So you are suggesting parents should be available at dinner times to supervise their children because the children are too young to differentiate?

If they want to impose their own irrational prejudices upon their children, yes.
All prejudice is irrational, including that held by some forum members, and passed on to their children.
However, there is a subtle difference in tradition (cultural or religious) and irrational prejudice.
To you and I, it appears irrational not to eat pork. However, no-one is offended by the refusal to eat pork.
Similarly, no-one is offended by catholics attending confessional, etc. But it might appear irrational to us, but we've never complained about religious tradition before.
All of a sudden, some want to start complaining about religious traditions, but only some religious traditions.
That's racism.
 
As regulars will know, I am not a racist and believe people are just people. (every group contains nutters) but I am against the ludicrous rules enforced by religions.
If they harm no-one, why?

Could we perhaps try to persuade muslims and jews that their ban on pork is not necessary these days and it is up to them to choose or reject whatever foods and practices they wish.
Much like this Pope has decided that homosexuality is not quite as bad as it used to be.
Or suggest to christians that baptism is not neccessary, or to catholics that confession is not neccessary, or to pagans that stonehenge is just a bunch of stones, or to jews that mitzvah is an expensive waste?
It is not up to councils nor schools to decide or be offended on others' behalf.
They made a decision based on economics. No-one was offended or potentially offended, except those that want to make racially motivated comments.
 
I think this must be what they mean by 'integration': our integration into their society! :mrgreen:

Seriously, I think it's difficult to work out what the end result of this will be but, as far as I'm concerned, there is a very simple answer: schools should provide pork and other meats and allow the children (or their parents) to choose which to eat. To me, that sounds fair and equitable.
So you are suggesting parents should be available at dinner times to supervise their children because the children are too young to differentiate?

No because the children would have had it 'drummed into them' from an early age so they would know not to eat pork.
Can you rely on young children to differentiate between chicken bangers, beef bangers and pork bangers?

How can a school, either by opting in or opting out keep every child happy and unoffended. It should be an individual thing through choice.
Who's been offended?
Having said all that, I would imagine that most of the schools in Islington have a majority of muslim children anyway so there will not be too many phone calls to the council.
So what's the problem?
 
If they harm no-one, why?
Purely because they are stupid. Why would you want to maintain stupidity?
As for the pork ban; it may have had a basis in the past because of climate and storage, but no longer.

Or suggest to christians that baptism is not neccessary, or to catholics that confession is not neccessary, or to pagans that stonehenge is just a bunch of stones.
Yes. Why is stupidity not allowed to be contradicted merely because we must "respect the belief of others" no matter how ridiculous.

They made a decision based on economics. No-one was offended or potentially offended, except those that want to make racially motivated comments.
Then charge more for the speciality - either way round.
What about a school with a muslim or jewish majority? Should the non-believers not be allowed a bacon sandwich?

I suspect you may reply that they should not.
Eating by democracy?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top