Argyll's online broadsheet.

I am clearly being a muppet as I …

Comment posted Lochgilphead primary pupil’s internet exposure of poor school meals goes viral by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll.

I am clearly being a muppet as I can only find the chat between Kaye Adams and Nick Nairn which kicks off off 3.54 mins in

Integrity? Not in the CondemAll also commented

  • I believe what FA said was that they very rarely remove posts, not ‘never remove’ and the experience of most on here would support that statement.

    No idea what the removed post said but if it was removed I would wager there was good reason.

  • OK found it and listened to it. Fair to say that there is little room for interpretation. Malcolm McFadyen is pretty clear that he blames the child for making that choice and that he is happy with the quality of the meals provided by the Council, that they meet standards and that they encourage discussions about meal choices in classrooms.

    Early on when he first puts the blame on Martha for making that choice Kaye Adams bluntly states ‘She is 9 years old’

    Pretty pathetic really. I guess if the school library was equally stacked with good quality books designed to help kids develop reading and English but also Japanese manga comics and all the kids ever read was the manga comics then the Council would wash its hands of any responsibility for that as well.

  • I am actually delighted that Malcolm McFadyen made remarks along those lines (I didn’t hear the broadcast so am wary of putting too many words in his mouth – would be very interested in hearing exactly what he said to avoid any accusations of paraphrasing o taking things out of context).

    The reason I am delighted is because if he has pretty much said ‘It’s the child’s fault for choosing that option’ then it blows this issue up into something that is far more significant than what could have been an issue isolated to one school. This delights me because it highlights a fundamental lack of understanding and intelligence at Head of Service level which really pinpoints the root cause of the problem (rather than there being a risk that people far lower down the food chain get scapegoated).

    It also highlights that the problem lies at a level where there is potential impact across Argyll rather than at unit level and this makes it far more important that it is tackled firmly, transparently and quickly.

    Finally it again shows that within the top branches of A&B there is a culture of ‘everyone’s fault but ours’

  • Does anyone else remember being told that having hot food prepared within the school was an educational benefit?

    In all seriousness though this is a very important issue however we should be wary of making any assumptions about the quality (and quantity) of school dinners across A&B based on this one story (not saying anyone is). Fingers crossed this is an issue that is not widespread and largely isolated to LJC and maybe a small number of other schools.

    This will make finding a solution far easier as lessons can be learned from other schools who are delivering a much better school meal ‘experience’ and they can be applied to those who are seemingly failing.

    Talk of kids being encouraged to rush their dinner is not great surprise when you see the size of the canteen and then the size of the school roll. It is symptomatic of ill thought strategy and poor planning. Just like in the proposal to merge Garelochhead, Rosneath an Kilcreggan primary schools where the Garelochhead canteen was painfully too small and there was talk of having as many as three staggered lunch hours plus an additional room being used for packed lunch kids.

Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Who is stating that it won’t go ahead, all be it in a revised form?
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    And they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids…

    (I’ll get my coat)

    The extent to which it is defective must be marginal if it got as far as appeals to the Supreme Court.

    Be interesting to see how much any revisions are actually material in terms of what is rolled out but my gut feeling is that they will be marginal and a lot of people happy at today’s ruling are going to be spitting blood.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    My personal view on this is that we are better without the thumbs up and down. They don’t mean anything and they just clutter the page. I think they are more of a trivial facebook/twitter thing than something for a forum.

    You also get people who simply use them just because they don’t like the poster regardless of what they say. I am pretty sure if Malcolm or NCH posted a story about a lovely old lady being recognised for her lifetime commitment to helping retired guide dogs there would be someone petty enough to give it a thumbs down!

    However I appreciate people might like them.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is probably worth being clear that this will not stop it being implemented – it just means there will be some amendments to it. Amendments which could have been got to without a stack of cash wasted on legal battles if politicians could be a little more grown up and a little less obsessed with never admitting they don’t know everything.
  • What now for Scotland?

    Like indy1 it was a campaign packed with untruths from both sides and it further demonstrated that our politicians will say anything to hoodwink the public to voting their way. We are already seeing the Remain camp back pedalling on two of the claims they pedalled relentlessly in order to get votes.

    I think you’re pessimistic in terms of the number of previous NO voters that this will swing. Hardly scientific I know but I have been very surprised at the number of friends of mine who have already said they will now vote yes, some of them who were staunch No voters before. However I’m not basing this view on what a few of my mates say! There is just an inherent logic that such an issue is bound to cause a degree of swing toward Yes and we know that swing doesn’t need to be substantial.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments