Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle
Rules are rules.
Common sense is one thing Wynonie but every milimetre relaxation of a rule starts to add up. Little things - the first swear word on TV was shock horror, then the rule got flouted and flouted until now it's common place - the first earring was ignored now children as young as five are going in with earrings. Yes, common sense is good and the school should have simply sent a letter home and asked the mum not to send shandy again, but the rule should be upheld.
|
Like most people, I would assume that zero tolerance on alcohol applies to beers, ciders, lagers, alcopops, spirits, wines...in fact, all the products which can only be sold on licensed premises to those who are 18+. To apply it to products which are officially classified as non-alcoholic (it is literally impossible to for any normal person, even a child, to become the slightest bit intoxicated on shandy - that's why anyone can buy it and why it can be sold in any shop) is pedantic in the extreme. Supposing the headmistress brings in a bottle of nail varnish remover in her handbag, or a member of staff offers a box of chocolate liqueurs round the staff room? Should they be sent home? After all, "rules are rules".
I also don't think the parallels you draw hold water (or anything stronger!). To go from saying one offensive word on TV to another would appear to be quite easy...you are just doing the same thing again and again. However, to say that allowing a can of shandy into school one day would make it more difficult to stop someone bringing in a can of Kronenbourg the next day is not the case. There is a huge difference between the two - one product is a licensed drink, the other is a soft drink...seems blindingly obvious to me!