Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

[WinstonWolf]

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?

He has principles, I don't have a problem with that. The rules were unclear when he went on holiday, it seems the state really still has plenty of spare money when it's challenged...

[Zoon]

Steve Campbell said:

He was top of his class in practically every subject, won the academic prize and to add to this was the best sportsman in his year (he is also well liked with lots of friends and not an annoying t**t like this makes him sound :-)).

Is he modest?

[Murph7355]

xjay1337 said:

I totally agree. It takes one man to make a stand, I'm sure over the next few years regulations will change....

I agree - hopefully for state provided education they'll make the rules on this sort of thing 10x more strict

You want to do what you want, go and pay for private education - assuming you can find one that will allow you to do this. Which IME is highly unlikely (not that I set this out as a criteria to find ).

WinstonWolf said:

...The rules were unclear when he went on holiday,..

Were they though?

[hyphen]

Judgement here https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0...

30th January dad applies for permission- denied.
8th Feb his ex wife takes daughter out of school fort a holiday without school or dad knowing, gets penalty and pays it
13 April dad takes daughter on hols regardless of the refusal and knowing mum has been fined.

doc said:

It is more the disruptive effect of unauthorised absences. These disrupt the education of the individual child. Work missed has to be made up, requiring extra work by the teacher who has already covered and marked this subject matter with the other pupils. Having to make up for one pupil’s absence may also disrupt the work of other pupils. Group learning will be diminished by the absence of individual members of the group. Most of all, if one pupil can be taken out whenever it suits the parent, then so can others. Different pupils may be taken out at different times, thus increasing the disruptive effect exponentially.

[WinstonWolf]

Murph7355 said:

xjay1337 said:

I totally agree. It takes one man to make a stand, I'm sure over the next few years regulations will change....

I agree - hopefully for state provided education they'll make the rules on this sort of thing 10x more strict

You want to do what you want, go and pay for private education - assuming you can find one that will allow you to do this. Which IME is highly unlikely (not that I set this out as a criteria to find ).

WinstonWolf said:

...The rules were unclear when he went on holiday,..

Were they though?

Yup, it said kids had to attend school regularly but regular was undefined. Ironically you can take your kids out of school completely and teach them yourself and you won't get fined.

[Countdown]

hyphen said:

Judgement here https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0...

30th January dad applies for permission- denied.
8th Feb his ex wife takes daughter out of school fort a holiday without school or dad knowing, gets penalty and pays it
13 April dad takes daughter on hols regardless of the refusal and knowing mum has been fined.

So the week before half term and the week before Easter? Plank.

[hyphen]

WinstonWolf said:

Yup, it said kids had to attend school regularly but regular was undefined. Ironically you can take your kids out of school completely and teach them yourself and you won't get fined.

Then why didn't he clarify what regular meant prior to the incident, he had been refused permission to take her on holiday- why did he not go to court to challenge that?

[WinstonWolf]

hyphen said:

WinstonWolf said:

Yup, it said kids had to attend school regularly but regular was undefined. Ironically you can take your kids out of school completely and teach them yourself and you won't get fined.

Then why didn't he clarify what regular meant prior to the incident, he had been refused permission to take her on holiday- why did he not go to court to challenge that?

You'd be better off asking him rather than me...

[surveyor]

I suspect he was stuffed by his ex-wife.

I think a large number (about 18) of his family was on this holiday. It was probably not booked at the last minute... His ex-wife may well have jumped in regardless,

He has three kids - two to his second wife. It was their holiday time. His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned. Was he supposed to leave one of his kids behind?

[hyphen]

surveyor said:

I suspect he was stuffed by his ex-wife...

This bit in the judgement won't have been appreciated that is for sure...

court judgment final paragraph said:

49. The question remains what should be done with this case. The father asks us to content ourselves with making such a declaration and the local authority take a neutral position. They and the Secretary of State are interested in the point of principle and not in the outcome of this particular prosecution. Nevertheless, the father did have a case to answer. On the agreed facts, the penalty notice was properly issued and, having failed to pay it, he should have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged unless he can establish one of the statutory exceptions. The case will be returned to the magistrates with a direction to proceed as if his submission of no case to answer had been rejected. I am particularly mindful of the fact that the mother did exactly the same thing, was issued with a penalty notice and paid it. She might well feel a sense of injustice if, it now having been held that the penalty notice to the father was properly issued, the case did not proceed.

surveyor said:

Was he supposed to leave one of his kids behind?

No he was supposed to pay the fine!

Edited by hyphen on Monday 26th June 15:13

[ATG]

surveyor said:

I suspect he was stuffed by his ex-wife.

Right ...

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

[boyse7en]

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

Its a tricky dilemma.
Not easy to pick which of your children you are going to take on holiday without upsetting the other one(s)

[Jinx]

Given the state of IOW schools "Seven state schools were all less than good"
Could the defense not argue that rescuing the child from a poor school even for only a short time would actually be of benefit?
This would remove the whole "detriment" argument from the prosecution side.

[ATG]

boyse7en said:

ATG said:

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

Its a tricky dilemma.
Not easy to pick which of your children you are going to take on holiday without upsetting the other one(s)

At the risk of repeating myself, he also had the choice to not "go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family." (By which I mean the extended family, in case that wasn't obvious from the context.)

[Countdown]

Jinx said:

Given the state of IOW schools "Seven state schools were all less than good"
Could the defense not argue that rescuing the child from a poor school even for only a short time would actually be of benefit?
This would remove the whole "detriment" argument from the prosecution side.

Could the prosecution not argue "Seven schools are rubbish. The Council believes that if students actually went to school during term time like they're supposed to they might learn more and pass more exams, resulting in the schools being rated higher" ?

[surveyor]

ATG said:

boyse7en said:

ATG said:

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

Its a tricky dilemma.
Not easy to pick which of your children you are going to take on holiday without upsetting the other one(s)

At the risk of repeating myself, he also had the choice to not "go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family." (By which I mean the extended family, in case that wasn't obvious from the context.)

I understood you. Just don't agree with you.

[ATG]

surveyor said:

ATG said:

boyse7en said:

ATG said:

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

Its a tricky dilemma.
Not easy to pick which of your children you are going to take on holiday without upsetting the other one(s)

At the risk of repeating myself, he also had the choice to not "go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family." (By which I mean the extended family, in case that wasn't obvious from the context.)

I understood you. Just don't agree with you.

Did you understand I was replying to boyse7en?

And in any case, how can you disagree? Are you saying the two options I suggested weren't actually options at all? Are you suggesting he was compelled to go on holiday?

[Murph7355]

Countdown said:

Could the prosecution not argue "Seven schools are rubbish. The Council believes that if students actually went to school during term time like they're supposed to they might learn more and pass more exams, resulting in the schools being rated higher" ?

Bingo.

Ah but the naysayers may say that you cannot prove that. Indeed it cannot be proven. But this is a state school. You want state services, toe the line. You want it your way, self school.

We should be like this for many more state provided services.

I'd like to think he regrets not paying the fine now. Or even talking to the school sensibly about their position and his. I suspect he'll just be getting more angry about the "rules" (and possibly his ex-wife who's had him over ).

[babatunde]

surveyor said:

ATG said:

boyse7en said:

ATG said:

surveyor said:

His choice was one kid missing some school or two kids missing some school as their holidays were not aligned.

Or don't go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family. My, what an insurmountable dilemma.

Its a tricky dilemma.
Not easy to pick which of your children you are going to take on holiday without upsetting the other one(s)

At the risk of repeating myself, he also had the choice to not "go at all, or go at some other time with or without the rest of the family." (By which I mean the extended family, in case that wasn't obvious from the context.)

I understood you. Just don't agree with you.

Or here is a novel idea, he broke the rules pay the bloody fine.

The argument as to whether the rules are reasonable are neither here nor there, you don't argue a speeding ticket in an obvious speed trap area, you pay the fine and take your points like a non plonker or go to court and lose like a plonker.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime isn't a new concept

[ciege]

Nice to know we have some laws which are real laws, you know like murder and stuff

Then some laws which are real but you know not really real, like stealing Sky, downloading music, bit of speeding, quickly checking a mobile at the lights and such

And then laws which are just silly ones, like this one.

Is there a book somewhere so we can pick the ones which are socially acceptable to break?

And yes I have two kids at school
And yes I pay more for holidays
And no, not ever, not even once have a pulled them out, what's that teaching them, that education isn't as important as a family holiday?
My neighbors do however both sides!

TLDR - This guy is an idiot, he lost, good!