I have read some crass reports in my time but the case of the pet lamb which has become the prize in a school raffle in order to " educate children about food from animals " must top the lot .

What sort of head teacher does this education authority employ for God's sake ? We place our offspring in their capable hands to teach them not only the curriculum but also to instill certain moral values , not to traumatise them by slaughtering their pet .

If there is a need to know about the food chain I will tell you .

Firstly Marcus and his ilk will be transported along way off because of local abattoir closures , there he will have electric tongues clamped on his head in the hope that he is stunned , a chain is attached to his hind leg and he is hoisted up so his throat can be cut so his still pumping heart can expel the blood from his body ,at the same time his belly is slit open so his gut can fall out before his skin is quickly removed . By this time he will definitely be dead but he will certainly have felt some of the process .
This happens thousands of times a day across the country , unless the slaughterhouse is run by our Jewish or Muslim brothers in which case the stunning bit is omitted ( apparently offends their God or some such excuse )

This is not some vegetarian rant , nor is it an animal rights campaign just telling it like it is . I eat meat and enjoy it , but I also respect that life that has been ended somewhat prematurely in order for me to feed my family .
We have soldiers who go to war , I wouldn't think any teacher in their right mind would show the body of a returning casualty of conflict in order to explain the act of engagement with the enemy , so why do they have to see a leg of lamb that once said baa .

Wow that really is a "random rant"

The point is...? If I had to kill what I eat, I'd be a veggie!

You probably wouldn't be a veggie, you might just not eat meat and there is a world of difference.

I think they're great ideas, both showing children what they're actually eating and your idea about the returning soldiers.

There seems to be a disconnection between the reality of what happens to the animal and the pre-packaged, pre-cut meat we see in the supermarkets. The same can be said of the realities of war and the pictures of "shock and awe" or reports from embedded reporters on TV.

Let's not forget, many families would have reared and killed their own animals only just a few hundred years ago. Seeing death first hand might reign those who would be future yobbos and seem to think they're invincible, in at an early age.

Don't think many would disagree that children do need to understand the connection between animals and food. However, there are appropriate ways and means. This isn't the right way to do that QED.

hopefully the kids will get to visit the abbatoir & sample a lovely juicy lamb steak.

You can go to Lechlade, anyday of the week & kids & parents can 'catch diner' at the trout farm there. To make it easy the trout are cramed into shallow pools & you are issued a rod, bait & truncheon. I used to go there to buy fish & would often see parents encouraging junior to bash a trout's lights out with the truncheon, & occasionally see kids who had decided to bash one whilst still in the water & do away with the rod altogether.

The opposite might also be true.

I remember watching, with fascination, my grandmother skinning rabbits for supper. Growing up seeing this could desensitise us to butchery. Also, there is easy access to graphic images of war on the internet. I think this has a similar effect - a desensitisation to these things. The feeling of invincibility is a natural feature of being young.

Bit confused here. How is there a world of difference between not eating meat (including fish, of course) and being a vegetarian?

You're not thinking vegan, are you?

The key issue is that the sheep had been used as a pet - it was this element that was rather silly. As most books about the home front during the last war explain, many people kept rabbits for food and grew fond of them so couldn't bear to eat the result. Most teachers I know think how to get their message across.

I think there is a wider debate here. What we are really thinking about is "At what point are children able to listen to the whole arguement so that they can form a considered opinion."
As you may have read, I have worked in the care of other people's children all my career, & I am now a mother. I have always felt that it was my job not to influence children on subjective matters; I don't impress my opinions on children about diet, animal treatment, religion, belief, politics etc etc. That's not to say I wouldn't answer if a child asked, but I would offer them the opportunity to find out for themselves the WHOLE picture before making their own mind up, & this could only be done with consideration to the parent's feelings on the matter because this raises further questions; how much information can a child take in before they form an opinion? If they are sold all the positives first, will they join the pro group before hearing the drawbacks? Equally, will they be so put off by an initially repulsing view that they are anti, & never hear the counter arguement?
I also expect the same proffessionalism & courtesy from my son's school. When they informed me that they were intending to have a visitor to lecture on animal health & science, I decided he was not mature enough to understand the pros & cons & I requested that I was informed of the schedule of the visit so that I could remove him from school for that lesson. Likewise, it is policy to gain parental permission when the "sex & relationships" lesson is due, just incase a parent feels, that for whatever reason, they don't want their child included.
It is never an educator's job to spread one sided propeganda. We (as parents, teachers, religious leaders etc) should always attempt to share a wide knowledge BUT only parents can decide when their child is ready for forming life changing opinions, and parents need to feel secure that they can trust their children's educators. In my experience, they can.

But this approach can be taken too far. Taking an extreme case, would you prefer the "propoganda" that people should be tolerant of all religions and races, or present the "balanced view" that some people think that only white people should live in Britain, so that the children can form their own opinion?

There are basic morals and ethics that should be instilled at an early age.

No, I now a lot of "vegetarians" who still eat cheese made with rennet, drink alcoholic drinks made with tannings, and and chow down on ice cream and jelly at birthday parties! I know some people who just don't eat meat but do have the by products, and don't even get me started on the ones who still eat fish!

As suggested, you're confusing vegetarians with vegans.

No I'm not.
Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. Vegetarians do not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
Non vegetarian cheeses such as cheddar's contain slaughter products (stomachs) of cows. Wine and beer is filtered with bones.

"The vegan diet is a form of vegetarianism which excludes all animal products from the diet" which means non-vegan vegetarians eat some animal products in their diet.

No it doesn't. All animal products means things that are produced by animals, not things that are parts of animals. Milk for example, or eggs. If you parts of an animal you can not claim to be a vegetarian.

You're arguing against the Wikipedia page you posted yourself.

You're an idiot I don't know why I bother trying to have a conversation with you. What you are trying to tell me is that vegetarians eat meat as part of their diet. If you take a sausage, remove the meat and put in quorn but leave the intestine as the casing that would still be a meat product, a vegetarian would not eat it. And Wikipedia is not the be all and end all, but I am not arguing against it, it is quite clear with it's definition.

There's a difference between meat and a food which uses animal products in it's creation. Vegans would eat neither, but some vegetarians would eat the latter. That's my final say on this as you seem to have dragged the thread off topic on to one of your point-scoring rants.

I would say that you have dragged it off topic on one of your point scoring rants. A vegetarian would not eat a meat product full stop including fish. If they do then they are not a vegetarian. A vegan will not eat anything that was produce with animal labour. It's as simple as that.

You can't have "some" vegetarians - either they are or they aren't. If they are, they don't knowingly eat (ingest would be a better word) any part of an animal. "Animal products" is ambiguous: eggs and milk are animal products, but ok for vegetarians.

Making the connection for children used to be left for outside the classroom. Look at the foodf ad. from the 1930's - butchers vans with cartoon 'happy' pigs and such like. Today's news with product placement on TV will help - 'Babe' pork scratchings and 'Bambi' burgers. Suppose that would get scuppered by the no red meat lobby.

Basic morals & ethics should be instilled at an early age, my view is exactly as yours.....but that's a parent's call, not that of an outsider, albeit school staff, au pair, preist or whoever.

I don't agree. Some parents are not as caring or capable as you. If the parent doesn't bother, who is going to?

Perhaps that (not stepping in) is the root cause of some of the problems we've been discussing elsewhere.

I agree, if all parents could be trusted with the moral welfare of their children, teachers would only need to teach curriculum subjects. Sadly this isn't the case.

Crikey! Caring & capable......goes to show how misguiding these forums can be!!!! Only joking, that's a kind observation, I do try my best .
Before my son was born, I always just knew it was my duty not to influence the children in my care on subjective issues (I consider things like politics, religion, diet to be a few of these topics), but since my son was born I have worn the boot on the other foot (as the mother) & now I'm sure I was right. If anyone is going to influence him at an early age, it's going to be me! "Outside agencies" must stick to the basic rights & wrongs (which would be governed by society) & at the point in time when he's mature enough to form his own opinions, THEN I will welcome their valuable input. Please remember, I not talking about racism, illegal activities, life limmiting activities, acts that would cause offence or hurt to others-I would expect all adults to guide my son morally. But on whether to kill animals to eat, testing on animals for all or any reasons, how the universe began-the decision on when a child can really form a considered opinion on these things is best known by parents, or by staff who have been entrusted by parents. All children mature at different rates, but as a rough idea, I would suggest that children can normally take the responsibility of decision making on these sort of views around the 9 years of age mark. Until then, let children be children, I think, without bogging them down with politics.

That was pretty deep! Good set of values to work with; situations like these mothers are generally right - as you rightly say, they have the best knowledge and biggest interest. Of course, doesn't apply to all but (thank God) it does to the majority.

Was, wasn't it?! Now for a little light (perhaps abit soppy) relief....a poem that I like....


Unity
By Cleo V. Swarat

I dreamed I stood in a studio
And watched two sculptors there,
The clay they used was a young child’s mind
And they fashioned it with care.

One was a teacher:
the tools she used were books and music and art;
One was a parent
With a guiding hand and gentle loving heart.

And when at last their work was done,
They were proud of what they had wrought.
For the things they had worked into the child
Could never be sold or bought!

And each agreed she would have failed
if she had worked alone.
For behind the parent stood the school,
and behind the teacher stood the home!

Yes, I know it's idealistic, but I like it anyway, not least because it doesn't blame either teacher or parent, just reminds us of our duty & our opportunities to mould & grow our tommorow people.

This is a rural school in Romney Marsh - a place where a major economic factor is salt marsh lamb.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these kids know full well, even before starting school, the connection between live animals and meat.


If you read the full story, the KS2 school council voted for slaughter.