Schoolboy makes £14K
Discussion
Got to hand it to him really...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
- but maybe introduce some healthier stuff to keep it, er, 'sustainable'...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
- but maybe introduce some healthier stuff to keep it, er, 'sustainable'...
Funny how schoolboy shows initiative and the end result is to punish him for it.... makes you wonder about all those conspiracy theorys out there how the "system" is set up to make you go to uni then to work a 9-5 for a corporation for the rest of your life, when someone who shows promise and initiative gets punished for it...
(EFA: Interesting, the post about how it's akin to selling drugs and saying he made £200 from selling conkers when he was 9 has been removed)
First, the parallel with drugs is a non-starter. Sweets are not drugs.
Second, the Head could suggest that the boy alters his product range (as I inferred above). The other pupils get products the school is unable or unwilling to supply, and the boy gets the funds to study at Oxford or Cambridge.
The Head also may be peeved that there was £14K profit that, had he thought about it, could have been channeled into school funds instead. (And maybe he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge and is thoroughly annnoyed at having rings run round him my a mere boy, who knows. But there is usually a real reason under the stated one.)
First, the parallel with drugs is a non-starter. Sweets are not drugs.
Second, the Head could suggest that the boy alters his product range (as I inferred above). The other pupils get products the school is unable or unwilling to supply, and the boy gets the funds to study at Oxford or Cambridge.
The Head also may be peeved that there was £14K profit that, had he thought about it, could have been channeled into school funds instead. (And maybe he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge and is thoroughly annnoyed at having rings run round him my a mere boy, who knows. But there is usually a real reason under the stated one.)
Sorry - I was going to edit it and write it again but here it is:
In the school walls sweets are banned for health reasons. It's a black market product.
Would you applaud a drug dealer?
And before you have a go - I was the boy who got pulled in to the headmasters office when I was 9 for making £200 selling conkers.
In the school walls sweets are banned for health reasons. It's a black market product.
Would you applaud a drug dealer?
And before you have a go - I was the boy who got pulled in to the headmasters office when I was 9 for making £200 selling conkers.
Edited by gregf40 on Saturday 22 November 12:14
Simpo Two said:
(EFA: Interesting, the post about how it's akin to selling drugs and saying he made £200 from selling conkers when he was 9 has been removed)
First, the parallel with drugs is a non-starter. Sweets are not drugs.
Second, the Head could suggest that the boy alters his product range (as I inferred above). The other pupils get products the school is unable or unwilling to supply, and the boy gets the funds to study at Oxford or Cambridge.
The Head also may be peeved that there was £14K profit that, had he thought about it, could have been channeled into school funds instead. (And maybe he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge and is thoroughly annnoyed at having rings run round him my a mere boy, who knows. But there is usually a real reason under the stated one.)
How is the drug parallel a non-starter - it may be extreme but I would say totally valid.First, the parallel with drugs is a non-starter. Sweets are not drugs.
Second, the Head could suggest that the boy alters his product range (as I inferred above). The other pupils get products the school is unable or unwilling to supply, and the boy gets the funds to study at Oxford or Cambridge.
The Head also may be peeved that there was £14K profit that, had he thought about it, could have been channeled into school funds instead. (And maybe he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge and is thoroughly annnoyed at having rings run round him my a mere boy, who knows. But there is usually a real reason under the stated one.)
The school has a policy not to sell sweets (rightly) for health reasons. The school can set whatever policies it wants in it's grounds. This policy is completely undone if some kid 'smuggles' them in to the school and sells them.
It's no different to dealing drugs in the real world.
Saying the head may be peeved the kid is making £14k that the school could have made is also a silly thing to say. Do you think the boy invented selling sweets to school kids?
The school is trying to put the kids health first and made a conscious decision not to sell junk food.
He should be encouraged to sell other stuff though - I completely agree with that.
gregf40 said:
It's no different to dealing drugs in the real world.
Ah, you've moved the drug-selling theme to the 'real world'. But it's still not a valid comparison.gregf40 said:
Saying the head may be peeved the kid is making £14k that the school could have made is also a silly thing to say.
We'll never know what the Head really thinks, so we'll never know if my suggestion is right or wrong. It's merely a possibility.Simpo Two said:
gregf40 said:
It's no different to dealing drugs in the real world.
Ah, you've moved the drug-selling theme to the 'real world'. But it's still not a valid comparison.I'm making the point that the school environment is not 'the real world' and the rules set by the school are like the laws we are set by the government.
Why do you not believe it is a valid comparison - you have given no reason or argument why I am wrong.
gregf40 said:
I've not moved the drug dealing theme in to the real world at all.
I'm sorry, when you said 'real world' I read it as 'real world'.gregf40 said:
I'm making the point that the school environment is not 'the real world' and the rules set by the school are like the laws we are set by the government.
Why do you not believe it is a valid comparison - you have given no reason or argument why I am wrong.
Because school rules are not the same as the laws of Great Britain. The latter are set by Government after due debate by 600 MPs. The former are made by a Headmaster. And selling sweets is not the same - whether you like it or not - the same as selling drugs. If it was, the boy would be in a detention centre now. And he isn't, so it isn't Why do you not believe it is a valid comparison - you have given no reason or argument why I am wrong.
Perhaps the Head should have asked him to make 50% of his range 'healthy' and donate 10% of the profit to the school book fund by way of a trading licence... everybody wins...
Simpo Two said:
gregf40 said:
I've not moved the drug dealing theme in to the real world at all.
I'm sorry, when you said 'real world' I read it as 'real world'.gregf40 said:
I'm making the point that the school environment is not 'the real world' and the rules set by the school are like the laws we are set by the government.
Why do you not believe it is a valid comparison - you have given no reason or argument why I am wrong.
Because school rules are not the same as the laws of Great Britain. The latter are set by Government after due debate by 600 MPs. The former are made by a Headmaster. And selling sweets is not the same - whether you like it or not - the same as selling drugs. If it was, the boy would be in a detention centre now. And he isn't, so it isn't Why do you not believe it is a valid comparison - you have given no reason or argument why I am wrong.
If they don't they get expelled. As this kid has before.
I bet there is more chance he ends up in prison in 10 years than at Oxbridge. Sadly.
EDIT: The only reason he is making money is because he is selling a 'banned' product and there is no competition. If the school lets children think it's OK to sell things which are banned...how does that prepare them for the real world?
Edited by gregf40 on Saturday 22 November 16:00
twoblacklines said:
Are you seriously comparing drugs to sweets?
Whether banned in schools or not, sweets are not illegal, drugs are.
I'm comparing the fact they are both 'black market' goods.Whether banned in schools or not, sweets are not illegal, drugs are.
Whether that be in the eyes of the law or the eyes of the school.
I'm fully aware sweets aren't drugs. But thanks for confirming
The school has a 'no sweets' policy. He is at the school - he should respect the rules.
I'm not saying he should go to prison - just that he should stop selling them if he is told to by the school!
Swearing is not illegal - do you think kids should be allowed to swear at school without consequences?
Surely you can see my point?
Edited by gregf40 on Saturday 22 November 16:56
gregf40 said:
Be deliberately obtuse if you wish - but children have to obey by 'school rules' regardless of if they are law or not.
If they don't they get expelled. As this kid has before.
I bet there is more chance he ends up in prison in 10 years than at Oxbridge. Sadly.
EDIT: The only reason he is making money is because he is selling a 'banned' product and there is no competition. If the school lets children think it's OK to sell things which are banned...how does that prepare them for the real world?
I tend to agree with this (although I don't think he's going to become some sort of underworld sugar kingpin, I think he has a good chance of going to uni), the important thing (to me at least) is that he took some initiative rather than leaning on his parents for money like most kids would.If they don't they get expelled. As this kid has before.
I bet there is more chance he ends up in prison in 10 years than at Oxbridge. Sadly.
EDIT: The only reason he is making money is because he is selling a 'banned' product and there is no competition. If the school lets children think it's OK to sell things which are banned...how does that prepare them for the real world?
Edited by gregf40 on Saturday 22 November 16:00
ModernAndy said:
I tend to agree with this (although I don't think he's going to become some sort of underworld sugar kingpin, I think he has a good chance of going to uni), the important thing (to me at least) is that he took some initiative rather than leaning on his parents for money like most kids would.
I agree with that - good initiative and work ethic. I applaud him for that.Just accept the fact it wasn't the correct product and try and think of something that won't break the rules.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff