Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnyboy
Blazey, If it seemed suggested that milk was the cure of such things, then I misled you.
I attempted to suggest that was perhaps one of the initial reasons milk was given in schools as a general way of giving nutrition. Think it was initiated in the early 1900’s for goodness sake.
Taking away the milk probably had no effect whatsoever. Although I guess it was a worry for some parents. Science has moved on somewhat.
Christ, back then there was at least one kid wearing leg calipers in every class, I was always led to believe it was down to Rickets or Polio…just kid rumours I guess, never bothered to find out more.
|
But even so, it wasn't possibly to do with a lack of milk, nor could the amount of milk given in schools even prevent it, so how can there even be an argument about this from either side.
This isn't directed at just you, there are others who are complaining about the milk being taken away and children getting ill and whatever, but it isn't even CAUSED by this issue at all.
In fact I very much doubt a school could provide the recommended intake of calcium for every child via a school meal, so whilst it may have done a slight bit of good, though very unlikely even that looking at our CURRENT scientific evidence, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to health at all, and all Thatcher did was cut an unnecessary resource, whether she did so knowingly or not.
Her intentions may have been good or bad, but today we can surely see that it was a wise choice in regards to financial reasons, because it wasn't actually amounting to much more than a break during school to indulge in milk.
I'm a bit more 'efficiency' orientated than Andrewb, so he probably doesn't see it in the same way as I do, he probably has a more ethical way of making it sound, but to be honest, I think politics is very much about money so why ignore it.