Ban on pork in Islington’s primary schools

[longdogs]

So what's the problem?

There probably won't be a problem. That's why I put 'having said all that.'

But, there could be a problem if there is just one non-muslim child in the school who does not have the right to eat what he or she wants. Due to a religion that they don't even follow they would not be able to eat pork, It's like a muslim in a predominantly Christian school not being allowed to eat halal.

 

[noseall]

(.....contains nutters)

And there's anothing to be avoided. Lots of people are alergic to....er...I'll get me coat.

 

[RNReindeer]

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.

I don't particularly want to maintain stupidity, but if it's hamless, and they believe it's important, why not let them carry on?
So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc

Need I go on?

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.

Of course you can object agianst stupidity. I've been doing enough of it.
On these particular issues, which are relatively harmless, (Except FGM, circumcision, abortion, contraception, etc.) I wish you luck but I'm out.

Before anyone suggests that I have supported FGM, that would be a complete, blatant and utter lie.
Any previous discussion has been about whether it's an Islamic practice or not. No-one on this forum has ever supported or defended it.

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?

Is it sesnsible to introduce another layer of administration, or to remove a layer of monitoring?
I'd prefer the latter.
The non-believers can eat as many bacon sandwhiches as they like. They're just not available at school.
If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu? Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.

[
I suspect you may reply that they should not.
Eating by democracy?

No eating by what's available, otherwise we'd all be insisting on our right to eat what we like even though it's not available/out-of-season/too expensive/not practical/not healthy, etc.

 

[longdogs]

So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc

Yes, they are all stupid but only those who Choose to practice them are affected by them.

 

[RNReindeer]

But, there could be a problem if there is just one non-muslim child in the school who does not have the right to eat what he or she wants. Due to a religion that they don't even follow they would not be able to eat pork, It's like a muslim in a predominantly Christian school not being allowed to eat halal.

Next time I'm on the train and they deny me the right to have a sausage and tomato sandwhich ('cos it's not on the menu) I'll accuse them of pandering to other religions.
Be sensible!

Ask SS if his rights to eat what he wants have been violated while he's been in hospital, 'cos the menu is limited?

The non-mulsim child will just have to wait until they get home for that bacon sandwhich.
And, if the muslim child does not have a Halal option on the menu, they'll have to wait until they get home, or eat vegetarian, or take sarnies.

 

[RNReindeer]

So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc

Yes, they are all stupid but only those who Choose to practice them are affected by them.

Well that's not strictly true. Does the child have a choice about circumcision, or FGM?
Does the unborn child have a choice about abortion or contraception?
Does the child, who's mother was denied an abortion, have a choice.
Does the pregnant woman who is denied an abortion have a choice?

But wowee take pork off the menu in infant and junior schools and there's a furore.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't particularly want to maintain stupidity, but if it's hamless, and they believe it's important, why not let them carry on?

We all know why religion is maintained.

So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc

Need I go on?

You need not but enlightenment wood be good.

of course you can object agianst stupidity. I've been doing enough of it.
On these particular issues, which are relatively harmless, (Except FGM, circumcision, abortion, contraception, etc.) I wish you luck but I'm out

So, some beliefs should be abolished but the harmless ones may be left.
Can I make the choices, please?

Is it sesnsible to introduce another layer of administration, or to remove a layer of monitoring?
I'd prefer the latter.

Neither, it is up to the customer.

If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu?

I am sure you would if they were all based on beliefs you found distasteful - in both senses.

Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.

Not the same, is it?

No eating by what's available, otherwise we'd all be insisting on our right to eat what we like even though it's not available/out-of-season/too expensive/not practical/not healthy, etc.

But we are talking about unavailability because of others' doctrine.

 

[longdogs]

If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu? Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.

That is down to the individual company and is acceptable but the pork thing is all part of the gradual take over of Britain. The constant bending over backwards for muslims.

Has the council considered not serving beef for fear of offending Hindus? What about garlic and onions?

 

[RNReindeer]

Is it sesnsible to introduce another layer of administration, or to remove a layer of monitoring?
I'd prefer the latter.

Neither, it is up to the customer.

Who is the customer, the pupils, the LA, the govenment, the rate payer, the parents?

If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu?

I am sure you would if they were all based on beliefs you found distasteful - in both senses.

But the lack of pork can hardly be descibed as distasteful.

Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.

Not the same, is it?

That's hardly an argument against. Please elucidate.
Next time Dex presents a bit of homework for his pupils and they respond with a "no" or a "yes", or "not the same" I suspect he'll be giving them minimal marks.

No eating by what's available, otherwise we'd all be insisting on our right to eat what we like even though it's not available/out-of-season/too expensive/not practical/not healthy, etc.

But we are talking about unavailability because of others' doctrine.

No, we are talking about unavailability based on economics.
It was an economical decision not to put pork on the menu.

 

[RNReindeer]

If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu? Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.

That is down to the individual company and is acceptable but the pork thing is all part of the gradual take over of Britain. The constant bending over backwards for muslims.

That's just you objecting to losing any advantages that you may have enjoyed. You obviously don't like multi-cultural Britain so you object to the pork issue.
Isn't that the same as exploiting issues to further your agenda?

Has the council considered not serving beef for fear of offending Hindus? What about garlic and onions?

I don't know. Maybe they don't serve beef and no-one has complained.
Or maybe they don't have any Hindu students so it's not a problem.

Which religion objects to garlic or onions? (Please don't say vampires!)

 

[JohnD]

We all know why religion is maintained.

No we don't but it seems that you have an opinion.

Tell us what YOUR opinion is.

 

[JohnD]

the pork thing is all part of the gradual take over of Britain. The constant bending over backwards for muslims

It seems like squeaky didn't read, or is deliberately ignoring, the original post

"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."

Do tell us, squeaky, why are you doing that?

 

[JBR]

So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc

Yes, they are all stupid but only those who Choose to practice them are affected by them.

I think he missed one out:

Atheists -

 

[handyjack]

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"

The banning story came first so that was the title, you can't have two titles. I did however place a link to both articles.

You are not very good at twisting things but for some reason you do it at every opportunity. Everyone knows you do it but like a child who won't be told you just carry on twisting.

Do you not get dizzy, or is it that you like being dizzy, some children do you know.

Did Islington ban pork, effectively they did.

Can you imagine what would happen to any head teacher who phoned the Council asking for pork to be put back on the menu in there school?

Inquisition, followed by all sorts of allegations followed by the sack most probably.

Nothing in either article to suggest any parents requested a ban on pork.

Some daft excuse about cost when in fact pork is one of the cheaper meats.

On meat dishes schools could put little pictures of what animal (educational) each meat being served comes from. Or would a picture of a porker be offensive?

 

[Whitespirit66]

If some parents want their kids to eat veggie because eating meat offends them, does this mean that the school should ban all meat?

If some parents want their kids to eat non halal because unnecessary animal cruelty offends them, does this mean that the school should ban halal?

Where will it all end? Surely it's up to the parents and kids to avoid foods that they don't want to eat.