I would be extremely surprised if she has not exceeded her authority.
I looked up the national school food standards and learned that schools are required to provide meat in meals at least a few times a week. If I have understood the guidance correctly then she absolutely overstepped her authority.
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Incidentally, I found that out almost as easily as I found out the Daily Mail's headline was misrepresenting the facts. The guidance is easily found through Google.
Most people in this thread are reaching conclusions based on misrepresented facts and conjecture, for no reason other than laziness and gullibility.
Unsurprisingly, the resulting discussion is a mix of right, wrong, kind of right, right about something but missing the point. What could be more pointless?
And I don't know what point you are trying to make by pasting the contents of a Metro article here. It doesn't appear to add any new information.
I would be extremely surprised if she has not exceeded her authority.
I looked up the national school food standards and learned that schools are required to provide meat in meals at least a few times a week. If I have understood the guidance correctly then she absolutely overstepped her authority.
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Incidentally, I found that out almost as easily as I found out the Daily Mail's headline was misrepresenting the facts. The guidance is easily found through Google.
Most people in this thread are reaching conclusions based on misrepresented facts and conjecture, for no reason other than laziness and gullibility.
Unsurprisingly, the resulting discussion is a mix of right, wrong, kind of right, right about something but missing the point. What could be more pointless?
And I don't know what point you are trying to make by pasting the contents of a Metro article here. It doesn't appear to add any new information.
I would agree that the Mail headline was misleading. The Metro article was more accurate. I think the Mail headline was stupid, as many people would get just as wound up with the fact she banned meat from the school canteen. I think The Mail headline was designed to exaggerate what happened and increase the outrage. She claimed that none of the parents complained, which is unbelievable. If you forget the lunchboxes, it was still an extremely stupid thing to do, which I am sure will be overturned before very long. Had I initially posted The Metro article, I dont think that the comments would have changed very much.
I would be extremely surprised if she has not exceeded her authority.
I looked up the national school food standards and learned that schools are required to provide meat in meals at least a few times a week. If I have understood the guidance correctly then she absolutely overstepped her authority.
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Incidentally, I found that out almost as easily as I found out the Daily Mail's headline was misrepresenting the facts. The guidance is easily found through Google.
Most people in this thread are reaching conclusions based on misrepresented facts and conjecture, for no reason other than laziness and gullibility.
Unsurprisingly, the resulting discussion is a mix of right, wrong, kind of right, right about something but missing the point. What could be more pointless?
And I don't know what point you are trying to make by pasting the contents of a Metro article here. It doesn't appear to add any new information.
The Metro article did include other aspects of her leadership that some people may find peculiar, that werent included in my original post.
It was a sarcastic reply to nostris post calling person(s) div and moron after you replied with more facts i thought you may have understood It was no slant on you so apologies if you thought so
It was a sarcastic reply to nostris post calling person(s) div and moron after you replied with more facts i thought you may have understood It was no slant on you so apologies if you thought so
Comments
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Incidentally, I found that out almost as easily as I found out the Daily Mail's headline was misrepresenting the facts. The guidance is easily found through Google.
Most people in this thread are reaching conclusions based on misrepresented facts and conjecture, for no reason other than laziness and gullibility.
Unsurprisingly, the resulting discussion is a mix of right, wrong, kind of right, right about something but missing the point. What could be more pointless?
And I don't know what point you are trying to make by pasting the contents of a Metro article here. It doesn't appear to add any new information.
The Metro article was more accurate.
I think the Mail headline was stupid, as many people would get just as wound up with the fact she banned meat from the school canteen.
I think The Mail headline was designed to exaggerate what happened and increase the outrage.
She claimed that none of the parents complained, which is unbelievable.
If you forget the lunchboxes, it was still an extremely stupid thing to do, which I am sure will be overturned before very long.
Had I initially posted The Metro article, I dont think that the comments would have changed very much.
It was no slant on you so apologies if you thought so
Nadim Zahawi has given his backing to the Countryside Alliance after the campaign group called for guidance to stop 'vegetarian activism' in some schools across the UK.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10531503/Education-Secretary-Nadim-Zahawi-slams-schools-banning-meat-lunch-menus.html