A furious mother has been driving to her four-year-old daughter’s primary school to deliver food each day after the institution banned packed lunches.

Bean Primary School has banned packed lunches for children in Year 1 and Reception due to the need to guarantee a certain number of cooked dinners from the meal provider.

But parents are outraged by the implementation of the policy which they say strips their children of their choice between a packed lunch or a hot dinner.

Some also bemoan the quality of the cooked lunches – citing meals such as ‘onion bhaji and chips’.

However, the headteacher of the school in the village of Bean, Kent, insists the lunches are of excellent quality and include alternatives for children with special dietary requirements.

HAS YOUR CHILD’S SCHOOL BANNED PACKED LUNCHES? Email jessica.hamilton.mol@mailonline.co.uk 

Fay Armitage, whose lactose intolerant daughter Bonnie is in Reception at the school, is vehemently opposed to the new policy.

She says four-year-old Bonnie regularly comes home with tummy aches from school as she’s no longer able to control how much dairy she has in her diet.

Ms Armitage was hoping to send Bonnie to school each day with a packed lunch so she would know exactly what she’d eaten throughout the day.

But parents have now been forbidden to do so, as all children in Reception and Year 1 must partake in school dinners.

Ms Armitage has been told instead to fill in a special dietary request form so the kitchen knows what they can give Bonnie.

But the mother-of-three does not seem to think that is sufficient and sometimes drives to the school gates to allow her daughter to eat her packed lunch in the car.

‘I didn’t say she can’t eat certain foods,’ the 35-year-old, who works as a part-time healthcare assistant said. ‘I just monitor what she eats and make sure she does not have too much of anything that is going to upset her tummy.

‘I don’t need them to tell me every mouthful she eats, but just to give me an idea so I can adjust her evening meals accordingly. 

‘If she has had a yoghurt I would know not to give her one later. They just told me they didn’t have enough staff to be able to do that.

She added: ‘I think it’s ridiculous, to be honest.’

Ms Armitage also feels that in implementing this new mandatory policy to have cooked dinners, the school is taking away the children’s right to choose what they eat.

The new policy currently only applies to children in Reception and Year 1. But under the Government‘s universal infant free school meals (UIFSM) policy, the same scheme will gradually be rolled out to each new academic year group until it covers the entire school, and there are three choices to order from. 

Parents are now arguing that under the new policy, Unicef children’s rights, which the school is signed up to, have been breached.

‘Bean Primary School is a Unicef Rights Respecting School – this is highlighted on their website where Article 12 states that every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously,’ Ms Armitage said.

‘Yet the school is ignoring the fact that some children would prefer a packed lunch and is forcing them to have a school dinner purely for financial gain.

‘It’s disappointing that the headteacher, Mr Reilly, and the school governors are taking away the rights of the children by refusing to let the younger children have a packed lunch.

‘While I appreciate that the government offers UIFSM, this is an offer and not compulsory.

‘It appears Mr Reilly and the governors have promised the catering company a minimum number of meals each day,’ the mother added, saying the policy is ‘forcing the children in Reception and Year 1 to have school dinners while children in all other year groups have the option of taking in a packed lunch from home’.

‘This is going to result in children being hungry unnecessarily and is not safeguarding my child or putting her needs first. It is instead preventing my child from eating properly.’

Ms Armitage has suggested the school provide a simple sandwich option for lunch, but was told this wasn’t possible.

‘I’m in a no-win situation,’ she said. ‘If I don’t collect her she’s starving, but if I pick her up we have a tantrum when she leaves because she doesn’t want to go back.

‘It doesn’t have to be fancy – just offer her a sandwich.’

Other mothers of children in Reception and Year 1 at the school are equally unhappy with the mandatory new policy.

Lissa Jones, another parent with a child at Bean Primary School, said the policy could detrimentally impact the children’s learning.

‘A decision on packed lunch or school dinners should rest with the parents of a child based on the parent’s knowledge of what a child can and will eat,’ she said.

‘Being forced to eat school dinners that children do not want to eat, will not eat and being forced to eat can have a detrimental effect.

‘A child could be put off going to school knowing that they will not enjoy the dinners, not eat much and therefore affect their happiness and learning.’

She added: ‘Of course encourage children to try new things, but don’t force them.’

Another mother, whose daughter in Year 1 was part of the first cohort under the no-packed lunches rule, said that although the policy helps her financially she’s unhappy with some of the food on offer.’

She said: ‘It’s not really fair on her that most of the week she is stuck with jacket potato that sometimes isn’t cooked very well and she comes home starving.

‘Not to mention some of the meal options not even an adult would choose. Onion bhaji and chips? What even is that?

‘The children just aren’t getting a variety of food.’

In a letter, the school assured parents that staff were checking children had eaten enough and would ensure more of what they liked was available if not.

It was also stated that if a child was not eating adequately a member of staff would let the parent know, but that they might come home with an appetite due to their busy day.

Bean Primary School head teacher Graham Reilly said: ‘The policy was brought in a year ago because of the school’s need to guarantee a certain number of cooked lunches from the provider.

‘The quality of meals is excellent and we have received many compliments from parents and pupils.

‘There were no issues last year and the policy is being rolled out as each year group progresses, so children who have brought packed lunches in the past can continue to do so until they change schools.

‘The situation is explained to every parent who takes part in the meetings for reception-age children before choosing that school for their child.

‘There is a lactose-free alternative for affected children. It is not feasible to prepare a written report on everything an individual pupil has eaten.’

A spokesman for Kent County Council said it was up to individual schools to decide on their own policies and added there was ‘no obligation’ on them to allow packed lunches.

Colts cut Isaiah Rodgers and Rashod Berry after the pair, plus free agent Demetrius Taylor, were banned for the ENTIRE 2023 season for betting on league games in 2022

• It follows the NFL’s revelation of six ‘key rules’ relating to its gambling policy
• There has been several players already suspended for violations in 2023 
• DailyMail.com provides all the latest international sports news 

By Patrick Djordjevic For Dailymail.Com

Published: 12:38 EDT, 29 June 2023 | Updated: 15:51 EDT, 29 June 2023

Donald Trump has been banned from publicly sharing information in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case after his dramatic Miami arraignment last week.

The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart also put strict conditions on Trump’s access to the materials.

The former president can only view evidence in the presence of his lawyers and cannot post anything on social media or mention it during interviews. 

It includes Truth Social, where he has posted attacks on Special Counsel Jack Smith in the two weeks since he announced he had been indicted over allegations he illegally moved files on the nation’s biggest secrets to his Florida club.

The restrictions are similar to those put on him in the Stormy Daniels hush money prosecution in Manhattan. 

If Trump violates the order, he could face contempt of court charges or criminal sanctions.

It is the latest development in the first federal prosecution of a former president and comes after a DailyMail.com/J.L. Partners poll found most Americans think it was right to indict him. 

Last week, Trump also called for the charges to be thrown out, claiming he was allowed take classified documents from the White House.

‘The Discovery materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,’ the order filed on Monday said.

The order granted a motion filed last week by prosecutors who had asked the court to put conditions on how the defense stores and uses the documents.

Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was indicted on federal charges earlier this month. 

He was accused of illegally retaining classified government documents after leaving the White House and then conspiring to obstruct a federal probe of the matter.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts in court.

The former president faces other legal hurdles, having been indicted by New York prosecutors earlier this year in the Daniels case.

He is due in court in March 2024, in the middle of his presidential campaign. 

Special Counsel Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is also probing Trump’s alleged role in actions surrounding his loss in the 2020 presidential election that culminated in the January 6 Capitol Riot.

Trump’s prosecution has split the nation on political lines, but results of the DailyMail.com/J.L. Partners poll released over the weekend suggests how it might play into the 2024 election.

Of 1,000 respondents, some 46 percent thought it was ‘very reasonable’ to charge Trump. Another nine percent said it was ‘fairly reasonable.’

That compares with 31 percent who said it was ‘very unreasonable’ and nine percent who said it was ‘fairly unreasonable.’ 

At the same time, 50 percent said it was politically motivated while 42 percent said it was not.

James Johnson, co-founder of polling firm J.L. Partners, said: ‘The average American voter’s verdict on Trump’s indictment is that he probably did something wrong, but that the charges are political.

‘This balance – a little more nuanced than many give voters are often given credit for – gives some indication of how the case might affect the 2024 race. 

‘Make it a referendum on Trump’s behavior, and voters get reminded of what they see as his worst instincts. 

‘But if the Trump campaign can succeed in making this about the system pursuing him for political gain, then independents and other key voters may yet side with the former president on the issue.’

Polling began as Trump flew from his New Jersey golf club to Miami for his court appearance.

Facebook ‘bans’ awareness posts from women’s hygiene company for using terms period, vulva and clitoris for ‘being too sexual’

• EXCLUSIVE: The campaign was forced to remove the ads for ‘being too sexual’
• Facebook said their ad campaign was ‘targeted to people aged 18 and older’

By Chloe Louise

Updated: 07:57 EDT, 8 June 2023