Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

[surveyor]

Ari said:

ATG said:

I'm afraid that you are illustrating yet again that you just don't get it.

The only reason your behaviour didn't do much harm is because everyone else chose not to take their kids out of school mid-term like you did. Everyone else stuck to the rules for the greater good , you didn't. It may sound harsh, but that is pretty much the dictionary definition of selfish behaviour.

Precisely this!

The level of selfish here is off the scale. 'I took my kid out, all the other parents didn't, so no harm done and that makes it okay as far as I'm concerned.'.

Absolutely amazing.

Some of us don't agree. Get it?

[Kermit power]

surveyor said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Steve Campbell said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

But why did you need to take him out of school? I have achieved very much the same with my daughters without them ever missing school to do so

It's a good question & one my wife and I considered long and hard. We were simply unwilling to pay the exorbitant prices the ski companies charge for half term or easter (which we now are doing ... as I consider taking him out of school at secondary level may have a potential impact). For the equivalent holiday, we are talking 3 figure sums difference in price. It wasn't an affordability thing, I'm lucky enough to say we could have afforded it, but the very principal of paying so much more for the same holiday a week apart is just too much for us (we usually took him out the week before half term, when half of the week was playing games anyway at junior school :-))

Oh and Ari....partially correct....apart from the "oh so special child" & "rules don't apply to him". This has got nothing to do with him so piling in with another insult really helps the argument. Not. I just added some context that we didn't just do this on a whim with no forethought on impact or outcome. The rules did apply to me, and I was willing to pay the consequences of the fine weighed against the value of the holiday. Do the crime, do the time etc.

This is about me, and not playing the game of the travel agents by refusing to pay £££ for the sake of 1 week out of school at a time in my sons schooling where the time off made zero impact as previously said. Sure, I could have done those holidays in holiday time, and today I would be in the order of £10k worse off......or I could have spent the same money as I did for the holidays and downgraded the resort / accommodation etc to offset the price difference. Sorry, I haven't worked my butt off for nigh on 30 years to do that. I'll happily sit with the selfish tag with my £10k in the bank & not in the estate agents pockets. Am I a minority here ?

Edited by Steve Campbell on Tuesday 18th April 12:51

Edited by Steve Campbell on Tuesday 18th April 12:57

Only time will tell what the long term impact is.

I expect the biggest risk that you personally have taken - and I have seen this play out more than once, including with my own nephew - is that, when he starts to cock about at secondary school and prioritise sport/social life/girls over buckling down and working hard to get good grades, you have lost all moral authority to impress on him the need for and value of hard work.

I hope I'm wrong but it is possible that you may well find those few weeks out of school thrown back in your face in future

If you think the notion of kids using things from years previously in an argument against you is laughable, I'd have to assume you don't have any, or at least none older than about 4?

[surveyor]

Kermit power said:

If you think the notion of kids using things from years previously in an argument against you is laughable, I'd have to assume you don't have any, or at least none older than about 4?

And you would be wrong.

[Kermit power]

surveyor said:

Kermit power said:

If you think the notion of kids using things from years previously in an argument against you is laughable, I'd have to assume you don't have any, or at least none older than about 4?

And you would be wrong.

In that case, either I don't believe you, or you've got particularly dim kids! I can't think of a single other parent I know who hasn't at some point had something they said/did with their kids come back to bite them, sometimes years later.

Often enough it's just a cause for amusement and being slightly proud of them for the thought process. Most of the time it seems to result in a "don't do what I do, do what I say" type frustrating answer, and occasionally I have seen it cause really significant problems, but the notion of a kid never having pulled it at all seems totally implausible to me.

[surveyor]

Kermit power said:

In that case, either I don't believe you, or you've got particularly dim kids! I can't think of a single other parent I know who hasn't at some point had something they said/did with their kids come back to bite them, sometimes years later.

Often enough it's just a cause for amusement and being slightly proud of them for the thought process. Most of the time it seems to result in a "don't do what I do, do what I say" type frustrating answer, and occasionally I have seen it cause really significant problems, but the notion of a kid never having pulled it at all seems totally implausible to me.

Do I care what you believe? But frankly, to have a child throw the fact that you took them on holiday in a meaningful way seems to be clutching at straws.

We had far more issues with my step-son, but many of these were as a result of the example that his dad set - which was far more harmful than taking him on holiday, and started before he was ever taken on holiday in term time.

[Steve Campbell]

I'd happily have the conversation with my son in future years if he attempts to throw this back. In fact, we discussed it with him at the time we made the decisions. I'll take him through the pro's and con's that were discussed between my wife and I, how we saw it, the fact we only ever took him out 1 week before the end of half term ( a week with little impact).... only in Key Stage 1&2, not in his 11+ year or in secondary education and how we considered his progress before making the decision every year. We'd also discuss that we did it honestly & openly, with a letter to the headmaster beforehand & open up the debate on where does the line get drawn for decisions that go against rules that are in place, and whether it is ever acceptable to break the rules. But then, I consider myself a fairly rounded parent .... with strict rules and boundaries that are clear and have consequences that are enacted if the rules get broken.....what he doesn't know yet is that I expect some of those rules to be broken .... so he learns that his actions have consequences. With regard to the value of hard work and prioritising his education, one of the rules of the house that earns him pocket money is a clear homework plan for the weekends & holidays....which must be agreed with us prior to him getting pocket money or having any me time such as PlayStation etc. We don't tell him when to do it, we require him to plan, tell us the plan, then stick to the plan. It works well so far.

Based on the "facts" presented earlier in the thread, we'd also then point to all his mal-adjusted, underachieving primary school friends who had failed primarily due to our selfish act and say....look what could have happened to you if we hadn't done it ;-)......but then that last bit might be pushing it a bit far.

Edited by Steve Campbell on Tuesday 18th April 19:21

[nadger]

NWTony said:

zarjaz1991 said:

sealtt said:

Leave it to school/teacher's discretion. There are some situations in term where a few days off will make no difference to a particular student, some where it will. Let the teacher make the judgement call and then back up that judgement call with the LAW.

Wait....you mean.....trust people who have professional qualifications and experience in the field, and have personal knowledge of the situation? Trust them to make a sensible decision that's in everybody's best interests?

I'm sorry, we don't do that sort of thing in this country any more.

Because that would lead to inequality and bias? Because it would me OK for Jemima to have a week off to visit a charming Tuscan villa but Krystal-chardonnay wouldn't get to go to Bendiorm. Everyone is dead set against privilege until it benefits them.

So you believe schools and teachers have an innate bias against the less privileged then I guess?

[Cold]

Platt went back to court and lost again in toady's ruling. But not before costing the taxpayer £140k in the whole process.
Grauniad link

Part of Platt's defence said:

"that he had not seen documents setting out a new school policy in which term-time holidays were no longer allowed."

Which boils down to "The dog ate my homework".

[CoolHands]

He shouldn't have lost anyway. It's the establishment making sure they get the result they want.

[Welshbeef]

The chap wanted / needed to win and then could open his next business following his PPI business declining.

£60 fine or hundreds of thousands in legal fees plus the hassle plus everyone knowing your a tt.

[xjay1337]

CoolHands said:

He shouldn't have lost anyway. It's the establishment making sure they get the result they want.

Cos watching TV and making greeting cards for the last week at School is oh so important haha.

The whole system needs a shake up.

[ATG]

CoolHands said:

He shouldn't have lost anyway. It's the establishment making sure they get the result they want.

What result is that? Better exam results?

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

What result is that? Better exam results?

[CoolHands]

The one where the proletariat know their place and lack of freedoms. The state knows better, eh. Are exam results the be all and end all?

Edited by CoolHands on Friday 23 June 23:44

[ATG]

NorfolkInClue1 said:

ATG said:

What result is that? Better exam results?

What other interest do you think the "establishment" has, ffs?

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

NorfolkInClue1 said:

ATG said:

What result is that? Better exam results?

What other interest do you think the "establishment" has, ffs?

Result, not interest, who mentioned "interest". Two different things.
They could not at any point afford to lose this case.

See above post , +1 coolhands, bang on the money.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 June 23:24

[PurpleTurtle]

So now Mr Platt has:

a conditional discharge against him
a £2,000 fine
a £140,000 legal bill for the taxpayer
a £30,000 legal bill for himself.

All over a £120 fine for a cheap holiday to Disney World.

If I were his mate (I'm glad I'm not, he comes across as an objectionable prick) I would be asking him, with the obvious benefit of hindsight, if he is fking right in the head?

[surveyor]

He stood up for what he believed in. Hopefully has the means to do it.

The initial risk for him was fairly small (and he won). I suspect that at that point with the Isle of White appealed events went out of his control.

I personally think the restrictions on parents is wrong, and certainly our local school far prefers to work with parents then fine them (I don't think they have fined anyone).

Gove was got at by the educationalists and decided to ps off thousands of parents. I can't stand Jesus Christ, but by Gove if he ends up leader of the Tory party I'll vote JC.

[xjay1337]

surveyor said:

He stood up for what he believed in. Hopefully has the means to do it.

The initial risk for him was fairly small (and he won). I suspect that at that point with the Isle of White appealed events went out of his control.

I personally think the restrictions on parents is wrong, and certainly our local school far prefers to work with parents then fine them (I don't think they have fined anyone).

I totally agree. It takes one man to make a stand, I'm sure over the next few years regulations will change.
I see on Facebook a great deal of angst over the tax bill, made by the typical Daily Mail idiots.

[hyphen]

PurpleTurtle said:

So now Mr Platt has:

a conditional discharge against him
a £2,000 fine
a £140,000 legal bill for the taxpayer
a £30,000 legal bill for himself.

All over a £120 fine for a cheap holiday to Disney World.

If I were his mate (I'm glad I'm not, he comes across as an objectionable prick) I would be asking him, with the obvious benefit of hindsight, if he is fking right in the head?

+1