Allergy means fish is off school menu

Susan Smith, headteacher of Robert Le Kyng

Susan Smith, headteacher of Robert Le Kyng

First published in News
Last updated

FISH is off the menu at Robert Le Kyng primary school as staff look to protect a new child with a life-threatening allergy.

Letters sent to parents at the end of last month explained that a child due to join the school has extreme allergies to fish, and rather than risk a reaction, they have banned fish products from the school site – including in children’s lunchboxes.

Susan Smith, headteacher of Robert Le Kyng, said: “This decision was not reached without seeking advice from the relevant medical professionals involved with this child.

“In this case, the child in question will be joining us full-time in September, but is coming in part-time until then as part of an extended induction. “She has had severe reactions, not just to the smell of cooking fish, but also when her mother touched her after eating a tuna sandwich.

“This is about the life-threatening nature of the reaction. “The school nurse has said it is a balance between a dietary change and a life threatening issue, and we have to protect the children under our care. “That is why we have asked for lots more detail so we can make a more informed decision.

“We can’t completely avoid the risk, and that is why we have done additional training, and we are constantly reviewing the situation.

“We appreciate this is quite a large response but at the moment it is necessary. She has had quite severe reactions, and has been in hospital as a result. “The reactions so far have been to haddock, tuna and one other fish. It is very unusual.

“As a school with a Special Resource Provision for children with physical disability, we do have children with complex physical and medical needs in the school. This means that sometimes there are minor adaptations that need to be made.”

The ban means that all children must refrain from having fish in their lunchboxes and all fish will be off the menu for hot school dinners.

Mrs Smith said she hopes that in time, once investigations have been carried out, the school may be able to alter the ban.

“We do understand that this will have an impact on the choices and diet of some of the other children in our care and this decision was not taken lightly,” she said. “We hope that over time, as the child has more medical investigations, they will be able to pinpoint the allergies accurately and we will be able to be more specific about what we need to avoid.

“I fully understand that it will have an impact on what can go in children’s lunchboxes and if there were an alternative, I would not have taken such a drastic step.”

Lee East, 48, has a 10-year-old daughter at the school with a peanut allergy, and thought the measures were harsh.

“My daughter has her medication with her at school and with her friends they know she has an allergy and they are very careful around her. She doesn’t want her friends to suffer because of her allergy. I don’t see how this is grounds for banning it.

“If they are going to review it then that’s fine. We have been through the same thing. “My daughter has been into the hospital and had all the same challenges. It just seems that this is going over the top.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15am Tue 13 May 14

Robh says...

Just ban Children.
Just ban Children. Robh
  • Score: -7

8:27am Tue 13 May 14

swindonian1111 says...

How very sad for the new child and their parents. Small minded people complaining. It's 'life threatening' who in their right mind would want to expose a child to something life threatening. As for the parent who is quoted here I imagine if his child's allergy is as severe as he is suggesting then the school have measures in place. Also peanut allergy is normally ingested not by smell! The parents complaning need to take a step back and thank their lucky stars!
How very sad for the new child and their parents. Small minded people complaining. It's 'life threatening' who in their right mind would want to expose a child to something life threatening. As for the parent who is quoted here I imagine if his child's allergy is as severe as he is suggesting then the school have measures in place. Also peanut allergy is normally ingested not by smell! The parents complaning need to take a step back and thank their lucky stars! swindonian1111
  • Score: 11

8:41am Tue 13 May 14

ChannelX says...

What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?
What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school? ChannelX
  • Score: 21

9:56am Tue 13 May 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Poor kid as if being the newbie at school isnt hard enough already.

I am sure it wouldnt be a huge problem for parents to make sure there is no fish in packed lunches as it is potentially life threatening to a child.
Poor kid as if being the newbie at school isnt hard enough already. I am sure it wouldnt be a huge problem for parents to make sure there is no fish in packed lunches as it is potentially life threatening to a child. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 8

10:05am Tue 13 May 14

nobody says...

ChannelX wrote:
What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?
Maybe the parents should consider home schooling, not really fair but if the allergy is so life threatening why take the risk?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?[/p][/quote]Maybe the parents should consider home schooling, not really fair but if the allergy is so life threatening why take the risk? nobody
  • Score: 18

11:24am Tue 13 May 14

CocoaClown says...

So you expect the child to live a life of solitude in case she comes into contact with fish? How ridiculous. Surely taking precautions isn't an issue? They are reducing the likelihood that she will come in contact with fish. From the article the staff have been trained to deal with a situation should one arise so it isn't like they aren't prepared but are just trying to reduce the risk.

I suspect there are many schools with children with allergies and they will probably ask parents to avoid certain foods in lunchboxes. Some allergies are mild and can be dealt with easily, others are life threatening. You do all you can to minimise the risk as is what this school is doing. A non-story really.
So you expect the child to live a life of solitude in case she comes into contact with fish? How ridiculous. Surely taking precautions isn't an issue? They are reducing the likelihood that she will come in contact with fish. From the article the staff have been trained to deal with a situation should one arise so it isn't like they aren't prepared but are just trying to reduce the risk. I suspect there are many schools with children with allergies and they will probably ask parents to avoid certain foods in lunchboxes. Some allergies are mild and can be dealt with easily, others are life threatening. You do all you can to minimise the risk as is what this school is doing. A non-story really. CocoaClown
  • Score: 3

11:34am Tue 13 May 14

nobody says...

CocoaClown wrote:
So you expect the child to live a life of solitude in case she comes into contact with fish? How ridiculous. Surely taking precautions isn't an issue? They are reducing the likelihood that she will come in contact with fish. From the article the staff have been trained to deal with a situation should one arise so it isn't like they aren't prepared but are just trying to reduce the risk.

I suspect there are many schools with children with allergies and they will probably ask parents to avoid certain foods in lunchboxes. Some allergies are mild and can be dealt with easily, others are life threatening. You do all you can to minimise the risk as is what this school is doing. A non-story really.
Kids in general love fish, especially fish fingers.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: So you expect the child to live a life of solitude in case she comes into contact with fish? How ridiculous. Surely taking precautions isn't an issue? They are reducing the likelihood that she will come in contact with fish. From the article the staff have been trained to deal with a situation should one arise so it isn't like they aren't prepared but are just trying to reduce the risk. I suspect there are many schools with children with allergies and they will probably ask parents to avoid certain foods in lunchboxes. Some allergies are mild and can be dealt with easily, others are life threatening. You do all you can to minimise the risk as is what this school is doing. A non-story really.[/p][/quote]Kids in general love fish, especially fish fingers. nobody
  • Score: 7

11:34am Tue 13 May 14

street2000 says...

The school could still serve Findus fish fingers. I have tried for years and never found any fish in them!
The school could still serve Findus fish fingers. I have tried for years and never found any fish in them! street2000
  • Score: 22

12:16pm Tue 13 May 14

CocoaClown says...

You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life. CocoaClown
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Tue 13 May 14

Hmmmf says...

The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Hmmmf
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Tue 13 May 14

house on the hill says...

Hmmmf wrote:
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Welcome to the world of 2014 and the stupid human rights act that does exactly that, says the needs of the few are more important than the needs of the many.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.[/p][/quote]Welcome to the world of 2014 and the stupid human rights act that does exactly that, says the needs of the few are more important than the needs of the many. house on the hill
  • Score: 1

1:26pm Tue 13 May 14

house on the hill says...

ChannelX wrote:
What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?
The've had their chips!
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?[/p][/quote]The've had their chips! house on the hill
  • Score: 6

1:40pm Tue 13 May 14

nobody says...

CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
What about fish finger sandwiches, or tuna/salmon/prawn sandwiches.
Young kids are often fussy about anything green, but many like fish.
It's important for kids to eat fish.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]What about fish finger sandwiches, or tuna/salmon/prawn sandwiches. Young kids are often fussy about anything green, but many like fish. It's important for kids to eat fish. nobody
  • Score: 3

1:48pm Tue 13 May 14

CocoaClown says...

house on the hill wrote:
Hmmmf wrote: The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Welcome to the world of 2014 and the stupid human rights act that does exactly that, says the needs of the few are more important than the needs of the many.
The difference here is a child's life is at risk and the only inconvinence to others is that they have to go without eating fish whilst at school. For the sake of a child's life, I think I would be happy to forfeit fish for 6 hours a day. Nothing preventing these children/staff having fish for dinner at home afterall.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.[/p][/quote]Welcome to the world of 2014 and the stupid human rights act that does exactly that, says the needs of the few are more important than the needs of the many.[/p][/quote]The difference here is a child's life is at risk and the only inconvinence to others is that they have to go without eating fish whilst at school. For the sake of a child's life, I think I would be happy to forfeit fish for 6 hours a day. Nothing preventing these children/staff having fish for dinner at home afterall. CocoaClown
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Tue 13 May 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life.

Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other.
The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity.

Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice?
Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea.

queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.
If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life. Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other. The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity. Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice? Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea. queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Tue 13 May 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Are we also going to ban fish on the University campus or the company's caf that she will attend?!?
If this child is in such danger from fish then this child does not belong in a school, for her own safety and the freedom of others
Are we also going to ban fish on the University campus or the company's caf that she will attend?!? If this child is in such danger from fish then this child does not belong in a school, for her own safety and the freedom of others A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 2

2:34pm Tue 13 May 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life.

Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other.
The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity.

Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice?
Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea.

queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.
At the end of the day we live in a Society, the school should ask every parent if a ban is appropriate.
If the needs of one child prevail over the need and rights of all the other, then so be it but this is not the kind of Society that we should be promoting IMHO.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life. Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other. The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity. Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice? Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea. queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.[/p][/quote]At the end of the day we live in a Society, the school should ask every parent if a ban is appropriate. If the needs of one child prevail over the need and rights of all the other, then so be it but this is not the kind of Society that we should be promoting IMHO. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 4

2:49pm Tue 13 May 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Are we also going to ban fish on the University campus or the company's caf that she will attend?!?
If this child is in such danger from fish then this child does not belong in a school, for her own safety and the freedom of others
I think there are some big differences between schools and universities namely children and adults.
One would imagine adults would be responsible around others with such an allergy where as children are...kids.

Maybe looking at the normal menu, how often do they have fish in the first place? Once, twice a month not a big change surely?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Are we also going to ban fish on the University campus or the company's caf that she will attend?!? If this child is in such danger from fish then this child does not belong in a school, for her own safety and the freedom of others[/p][/quote]I think there are some big differences between schools and universities namely children and adults. One would imagine adults would be responsible around others with such an allergy where as children are...kids. Maybe looking at the normal menu, how often do they have fish in the first place? Once, twice a month not a big change surely? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -3

2:59pm Tue 13 May 14

Cornyisland1 says...

CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps.

Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits.

Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it.

It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend).
But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps. Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits. Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it. It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend). But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed. Cornyisland1
  • Score: 7

3:28pm Tue 13 May 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Cornyisland1 wrote:
CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps.

Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits.

Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it.

It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend).
But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.
Fair play to all parents I am sure this cant be ideal and will cause problems for some parents.
Its in allot of horseradish sauces????? sorry after reading your comment I had a look, by the sound of it there was very little information offered by the school well done for asking the right questions.

Join you in hoping that in time a better solution is found in the near future.
[quote][p][bold]Cornyisland1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps. Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits. Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it. It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend). But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.[/p][/quote]Fair play to all parents I am sure this cant be ideal and will cause problems for some parents. Its in allot of horseradish sauces????? sorry after reading your comment I had a look, by the sound of it there was very little information offered by the school well done for asking the right questions. Join you in hoping that in time a better solution is found in the near future. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 6

3:35pm Tue 13 May 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?
Is that for breakfast in the morning or for dinner in the evening? One would hope they have washed before going to school.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: What happens when children have fish at home and then go into the school?[/p][/quote]Is that for breakfast in the morning or for dinner in the evening? One would hope they have washed before going to school. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

3:41pm Tue 13 May 14

CocoaClown says...

Cornyisland1 wrote:
CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps.

Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits.

Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it.

It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend).
But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.
Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised.

If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given.

I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies.

Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life.

I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item.
[quote][p][bold]Cornyisland1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps. Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits. Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it. It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend). But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised. If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given. I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies. Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life. I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item. CocoaClown
  • Score: 2

3:50pm Tue 13 May 14

Cornyisland1 says...

CocoaClown wrote:
Cornyisland1 wrote:
CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps.

Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits.

Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it.

It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend).
But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.
Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised.

If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given.

I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies.

Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life.

I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item.
The banned food wasn't so much an issue for us as we gave fish in our weekly dinners, it was the lack of information. As I said foods you'd assume where safe actually contain fish, and relevant medical professions who deal with allergens will have a comprehensive lists of possible allergen containing products.

It wasn't until I looked in more detail on what products may contain fish did I find out about certain sauces. I wouldn't want something I pack my child killing another pupil. But it's the lack of information tht was the irritating issue. As I said fish and shellfish two different allergens. I needed to find out if prawns where off limits. 'Fish' is generic.

Also as I mentioned only sent via email. If it was so important which it is, why was it not backed with a paper copy? Not all parents are on the email system.
It's not absurd to want some clear cut specific guidelines. It ensures everyone's safety, dignity and lives potentially.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornyisland1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps. Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits. Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it. It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend). But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised. If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given. I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies. Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life. I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item.[/p][/quote]The banned food wasn't so much an issue for us as we gave fish in our weekly dinners, it was the lack of information. As I said foods you'd assume where safe actually contain fish, and relevant medical professions who deal with allergens will have a comprehensive lists of possible allergen containing products. It wasn't until I looked in more detail on what products may contain fish did I find out about certain sauces. I wouldn't want something I pack my child killing another pupil. But it's the lack of information tht was the irritating issue. As I said fish and shellfish two different allergens. I needed to find out if prawns where off limits. 'Fish' is generic. Also as I mentioned only sent via email. If it was so important which it is, why was it not backed with a paper copy? Not all parents are on the email system. It's not absurd to want some clear cut specific guidelines. It ensures everyone's safety, dignity and lives potentially. Cornyisland1
  • Score: 10

3:53pm Tue 13 May 14

KeyboardWarri0r says...

A very minor inconvenience, people causing a fuss for the sake of it and now the Sun has gotten hold of the story, feel sorry for the parents who will just want their child to have a normal life.

Next year infant children will get free lunches too so it won't have to change buying habits. But realistically, the only thing that young children might have in their lunch is tuna or salmon sandwiches, and I would say that would be less than 10%, most will have Ham/Cheese/Chicken.
A very minor inconvenience, people causing a fuss for the sake of it and now the Sun has gotten hold of the story, feel sorry for the parents who will just want their child to have a normal life. Next year infant children will get free lunches too so it won't have to change buying habits. But realistically, the only thing that young children might have in their lunch is tuna or salmon sandwiches, and I would say that would be less than 10%, most will have Ham/Cheese/Chicken. KeyboardWarri0r
  • Score: 4

5:24pm Tue 13 May 14

swindonian1111 says...

KeyboardWarri0r wrote:
A very minor inconvenience, people causing a fuss for the sake of it and now the Sun has gotten hold of the story, feel sorry for the parents who will just want their child to have a normal life.

Next year infant children will get free lunches too so it won't have to change buying habits. But realistically, the only thing that young children might have in their lunch is tuna or salmon sandwiches, and I would say that would be less than 10%, most will have Ham/Cheese/Chicken.
Here here!!! Some people have nothing else to complain about. Yes a whole school has to ban fish but if it keeps a little child safe then that has to be a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]KeyboardWarri0r[/bold] wrote: A very minor inconvenience, people causing a fuss for the sake of it and now the Sun has gotten hold of the story, feel sorry for the parents who will just want their child to have a normal life. Next year infant children will get free lunches too so it won't have to change buying habits. But realistically, the only thing that young children might have in their lunch is tuna or salmon sandwiches, and I would say that would be less than 10%, most will have Ham/Cheese/Chicken.[/p][/quote]Here here!!! Some people have nothing else to complain about. Yes a whole school has to ban fish but if it keeps a little child safe then that has to be a good thing. swindonian1111
  • Score: 1

11:46pm Tue 13 May 14

Mukkin says...

Just a thought, have they banned wasps flying in the playground?
Just a thought, have they banned wasps flying in the playground? Mukkin
  • Score: -3

6:22am Wed 14 May 14

old 'arry says...

Cornyisland1 wrote:
CocoaClown wrote:
Cornyisland1 wrote:
CocoaClown wrote:
You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes.

Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue.
And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.
As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps.

Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits.

Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it.

It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend).
But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.
Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised.

If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given.

I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies.

Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life.

I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item.
The banned food wasn't so much an issue for us as we gave fish in our weekly dinners, it was the lack of information. As I said foods you'd assume where safe actually contain fish, and relevant medical professions who deal with allergens will have a comprehensive lists of possible allergen containing products.

It wasn't until I looked in more detail on what products may contain fish did I find out about certain sauces. I wouldn't want something I pack my child killing another pupil. But it's the lack of information tht was the irritating issue. As I said fish and shellfish two different allergens. I needed to find out if prawns where off limits. 'Fish' is generic.

Also as I mentioned only sent via email. If it was so important which it is, why was it not backed with a paper copy? Not all parents are on the email system.
It's not absurd to want some clear cut specific guidelines. It ensures everyone's safety, dignity and lives potentially.
What an endless load of drivel:
To quote Shakespeare: It is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
signifying nothing
[quote][p][bold]Cornyisland1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornyisland1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: You will probably only find a small number of children who will eat fish willingly other than fish fingers and even less that will have fish in their lunchboxes. Just because children like fish fingers doesn't mean they have to eat them at school. Most schools serve up home cooked meals in any event and wouldn't necessarily serve fish fingers. They are not saying that every child that attends this school can't eat fish, but they are asking for the safety of a child to not bring fish into school. For the sake of this child's life, I'm sure the majority of parents wouldn't have an issue. And I'm sure if the daughter of the man who is quoted had a life threatening nut allergy he would ask for those to be banned rather than risk his daughters life.[/p][/quote]As a parent of a child at the school. It is an outright ban across all years from reception to year 6. It include anything including or may contain fish (sauces like BBQ can contain fish....yeah that was a shock for me to find out too) shellfish is a different allergen but they can not clarify if said child is allergic so have banned that as well so no prawns. Also some fish flavoured crisps. Yes it's 6 hours but that's 5 days a week. Some kids aren't fortunate to have parents who will cook fish from fresh or processed as yet may not receive the benefits. Yes the child is at risk from anaphylactic shock and may die. There's no dispute over the condition. The way it was handled was below par. A standard generic email (not all parents are signed up to the email scheme) that said all fish from pack lunches and got dinners was banned. No proper explination. No off limit products listed. And from reading this they now kbow what the child is allergic too as we where not told. Just like it and lump it. It wasn't until parents asked questioned was a more detailed email. They're also not considering a special day once a month on a Friday (as example) where fish can be eaten at lunch. Even if the child is in part time and wouldn't come into contact (as rooms get cleaned over the weekend). But we've all accepted it now, and just hope there may be a day where specific foods can be consumed.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree it's not ideal, but at the risk of a child's life it is something that can be overcome by preventing that food item in school. It may be that the child doesn't attend full time yet but come September they will and therefore I think the school are being sensible to introduce changes now so that come September people are aware and mistakes can be minimised. If I had to choose between eating fish or a child's life, I know what I would choose and make changes for. It is only lunch and children will also have another meal in the evening when fish can be given. I agree the school could have provided more information but surely just knowing that it is life threatening and therefore please avoid bringing fish into school is enough? My childrens school ask parents to avoid nuts and kiwi due to allergies in children. No questions asked, these items are avoided for the sake of the child/ren with the allergies. Some people outgrow their allergies and it may be as the child gets older the allergy may lessen or disappear. Perhaps they are awaiting some allergy testing to find the main allergens? In any event, until more tests and investigation are done it is best to avoid the item that threatens their life. I fail to see why avoiding a food type for 6 hours a day (yes for 5 days a week) for the sake of someone's life is such a big deal? You still get 5 evening meals and weekends to eat the banned item.[/p][/quote]The banned food wasn't so much an issue for us as we gave fish in our weekly dinners, it was the lack of information. As I said foods you'd assume where safe actually contain fish, and relevant medical professions who deal with allergens will have a comprehensive lists of possible allergen containing products. It wasn't until I looked in more detail on what products may contain fish did I find out about certain sauces. I wouldn't want something I pack my child killing another pupil. But it's the lack of information tht was the irritating issue. As I said fish and shellfish two different allergens. I needed to find out if prawns where off limits. 'Fish' is generic. Also as I mentioned only sent via email. If it was so important which it is, why was it not backed with a paper copy? Not all parents are on the email system. It's not absurd to want some clear cut specific guidelines. It ensures everyone's safety, dignity and lives potentially.[/p][/quote]What an endless load of drivel: To quote Shakespeare: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing old 'arry
  • Score: -3

7:08am Wed 14 May 14

house on the hill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life.

Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other.
The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity.

Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice?
Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea.

queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.
so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life. Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other. The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity. Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice? Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea. queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.[/p][/quote]so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad! house on the hill
  • Score: 5

9:17am Wed 14 May 14

Mukkin says...

house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life.

Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other.
The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity.

Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice?
Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea.

queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.
so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad!
Spot on Sir :-D
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life. Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other. The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity. Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice? Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea. queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.[/p][/quote]so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad![/p][/quote]Spot on Sir :-D Mukkin
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Wed 14 May 14

IfItsONtheNet says...

Mukkin wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life.

Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other.
The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity.

Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice?
Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea.

queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.
so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad!
Spot on Sir :-D
I cannot believe this story is still going judging by comments supplied the parents are now satisfied of what they need to do so that this new pupil can be given the best chance in school.

Yes common sense is missing from the world but in the main this will effect kids common sense is not normally their highest priority.
Unless you are a child or a parent of a child in this school any other opinions are pointless.

Is it really that much of a slow news week that this is one of the main stories.
[quote][p][bold]Mukkin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: If the child has fish it could be terminal anyone with any level of intelligence must see that it is not worth risking a child life. Some have raised to needs of the many out weight the needs of the few,,,Surely it should be looked at as no one person is anymore or less valid than any other. The same stupid responses from the same moronic people to suggest no measures should be put in place is at best trolling or most likely arrogant stupidity. Yes fish is an important part of diet so given that the life of a child could be at risk feeding them fish in the evening is no big sacrifice? Given the levels of obesity in the town a vegan lunch might not be the worst idea. queue down thumbs down, it saves you thinking of an intelligent response.[/p][/quote]so where do you draw the line then? I would imagine there would be dozens of different answers to that and that is the problem. People have different ideas on what should and what shouldn't be allowed just because of a small number. Cars kill about 3000 people a year should we ban them then? Just need a bit of common sense that is severely lacking in today's world. More kids die from passive smoking or drowning while on holiday than from fish allergies. Sorry but the world has gone completely mad![/p][/quote]Spot on Sir :-D[/p][/quote]I cannot believe this story is still going judging by comments supplied the parents are now satisfied of what they need to do so that this new pupil can be given the best chance in school. Yes common sense is missing from the world but in the main this will effect kids common sense is not normally their highest priority. Unless you are a child or a parent of a child in this school any other opinions are pointless. Is it really that much of a slow news week that this is one of the main stories. IfItsONtheNet
  • Score: 2

4:07pm Wed 14 May 14

Cornyisland1 says...

Considering this ban came in before Easter holidays I gather it must be a slow news week. :/
Considering this ban came in before Easter holidays I gather it must be a slow news week. :/ Cornyisland1
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree