AIBU: should live-in be picking from fridge?

[tsunami]

AIBU - I have a nice live-in postgrad student, recently moved in to live under my roof in exchange for 16 hours of after-school supper & homework duty. The deal I made was that this student would have the room in exchange for the 16 hours, and on those days would then get to eat with the kids. But now he's eating breakfast in the kitchen, helping himself to coffee and now to lunch. He did ask if it was 'OK to help [him]self from the fridge' and I said h'm, within reason - not the big meal stuff. But now I feel I'm feeding him - even though he goes out to a bar work job in the evenings and earns his pocket money.
He's a poor student etc, and I don't pay him any cash but he gets his bed, hot water, heating, roof over head, uses our internet etc etc. I feel I'm being taken advantage of as I'm not his mum.
Perspective? Should I just get over it, as a few extra pints of milk, a bit of cereal, bread and cheese etc aren't going to kill me?

Well said redglow, Often when you hear of something going badly wrong in a homecare situation, if you look into it you find it's because the family have gone for untrained cheap childcare with little or nothing in the way of references and checks. There will always be exceptions of course but on the whole professional nannies are trained and able to care for their charges in a way that your average casual labour couldn't possibly understand.

And once again I will say I do not feel threatened by these arrangements and the point of this thread is that many of us feel that the original OP should not be moaning about her lodger taking a little food from the fridge as she is getting a good deal.

For those who disagree with this that is their right just as its my right to think otherwise!

Exactly, you have always had arrangements like this. I know someone who had their lodger babysitting their sons and he had become a great friend to the family etc. Sadly he also turned out to be a paedophile. Hopefully, this does not happen often. But I can imagine if parents are advertising discounted accomadation in return for babysitting to anyone who wants the room regardless of whether they have childcare qualifications etc it will probably become more common.
These arrangements will not put nannies out of business, and the only people who will use lodgers rather than au-pairs are going to be the people who use au-pairs as maids of all work and nannies roled into one and exploit them. An au-pair is not just intended for cheap childcare. So no loss to au-pairs there.
And the people who get lodgers to do the childcare as part of the deal are not the sort of people to cough up for a proper nanny anyway, so not exactly going to change the status quo. It always amazes me how some people are prepared to let anyone look after their child so long as they are cheap as chips.
tsunami is out of line whining about her lodger eating from the fridge he should be getting full board and his room ar the very least. Getting lodgers to do chidlcare is exploititive if they are not getting a free room and board, and possibly pocket money. I am not a seamstress, but that does not mean I think paying people £1 an hour to work in a sweat shop is not exploititive. People should not have eyes bigger than their financial bellies. If they cannot afford proper childcare, they need to cut back elsewhere.