Term-time holiday dad loses court battle
Discussion
ciege said:
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!
Well said. 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!
I think the whole case highlights a few issues.
1) take kid out of school, deemed disruptive to other kids- charged £60, pay fine all ok. So how does paying £60 reduce the disruption?
2) the notion of a week off being seen as detrimental to a kids education / the rest of the kids, is just too simplistic. It needs to be looked at in context and the people to do that are the schools. After all, I can see if it is deemed that catastrophic, heaven forbid your kid gets ill and cant go to school for a week! The stress that notion must put on a kid? Truth is, is is not "that" catastrophic, certainly not in most cases and I would be interested to see any case where a kid having a week off mean the ended up dusting chicken at KFC!
3) the fact that the law does not apply to privately educated kids, is one of inequality. If it is a law, it should apply to all kids. The fact is doesn't, again suggests that the carte blanche approach to it being detrimental is a bit of a crock!
4) I agree entirely that the reason for absence is important. It is interesting that they choses things like "extended family visits / weddings", which seems to pander to a certain demographic. And I agree a week off for skiing (very limited options for location and times) is different that a week in Benidorm. It just is.
5) The law makes allowance for servicemen on leave. Why should that be an exception? Presumably as their leave can be dictated by their employer, well in my experience, (as an ex servicemen too), there are PLENTY of non military employers that make similar restrictions.
6) Similar to the above, there are many small businesses with guys all in their 30s and 40's all fighting over taking leave around the kids holidays. I work for one, of these now, it is a constant battle to get time off, as so many want it and managing people being off means someone has to cover. Are they not entitled to a family holiday? It really is an issue for many people.
All the above leads me to think that there needs to be some discretion in all this. Merely charging a £60 fine and it being paid does not make the issues and points on both sides go away. As someone who is involved in primary school as a PTA chair (and ex governor), the truth is every school has its a
hole parents, complete with troublesome kids, but most parents are pretty savvy and pretty good. The "law" is never going to stop Chardonnay taking Kylie and Jayden to Benidorm in term time, they will just go and don't give a st about any fines. They also are the ones who's kids are constantly late, scruffy, wont attend or contribute to the PTA, (cos school's all free, init). They really don't give two fks about their kids. But these people are rare, thankfully. Trouble is, if you try to make a law to deal with these people, it will disenfranchise parents who really do care about their kids and their kid's school, and by shoehorning everyone with kids into taking hols in the same limited window each year, the law has allowed for massive profiteering within the travel industry.
I wish schools had some more discretion. For example, the poster with the "gifted kid" going skiiing, I have no issue with at all, and I am sure his kids teachers also had no issue with it. But with no discretion, he has to be tarred with the same brush as the less involved and caring parents. It's fundamentally just wrong, IMO.
The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will fk off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised.
1) take kid out of school, deemed disruptive to other kids- charged £60, pay fine all ok. So how does paying £60 reduce the disruption?
2) the notion of a week off being seen as detrimental to a kids education / the rest of the kids, is just too simplistic. It needs to be looked at in context and the people to do that are the schools. After all, I can see if it is deemed that catastrophic, heaven forbid your kid gets ill and cant go to school for a week! The stress that notion must put on a kid? Truth is, is is not "that" catastrophic, certainly not in most cases and I would be interested to see any case where a kid having a week off mean the ended up dusting chicken at KFC!
3) the fact that the law does not apply to privately educated kids, is one of inequality. If it is a law, it should apply to all kids. The fact is doesn't, again suggests that the carte blanche approach to it being detrimental is a bit of a crock!
4) I agree entirely that the reason for absence is important. It is interesting that they choses things like "extended family visits / weddings", which seems to pander to a certain demographic. And I agree a week off for skiing (very limited options for location and times) is different that a week in Benidorm. It just is.
5) The law makes allowance for servicemen on leave. Why should that be an exception? Presumably as their leave can be dictated by their employer, well in my experience, (as an ex servicemen too), there are PLENTY of non military employers that make similar restrictions.
6) Similar to the above, there are many small businesses with guys all in their 30s and 40's all fighting over taking leave around the kids holidays. I work for one, of these now, it is a constant battle to get time off, as so many want it and managing people being off means someone has to cover. Are they not entitled to a family holiday? It really is an issue for many people.
All the above leads me to think that there needs to be some discretion in all this. Merely charging a £60 fine and it being paid does not make the issues and points on both sides go away. As someone who is involved in primary school as a PTA chair (and ex governor), the truth is every school has its a
hole parents, complete with troublesome kids, but most parents are pretty savvy and pretty good. The "law" is never going to stop Chardonnay taking Kylie and Jayden to Benidorm in term time, they will just go and don't give a st about any fines. They also are the ones who's kids are constantly late, scruffy, wont attend or contribute to the PTA, (cos school's all free, init). They really don't give two fks about their kids. But these people are rare, thankfully. Trouble is, if you try to make a law to deal with these people, it will disenfranchise parents who really do care about their kids and their kid's school, and by shoehorning everyone with kids into taking hols in the same limited window each year, the law has allowed for massive profiteering within the travel industry. I wish schools had some more discretion. For example, the poster with the "gifted kid" going skiiing, I have no issue with at all, and I am sure his kids teachers also had no issue with it. But with no discretion, he has to be tarred with the same brush as the less involved and caring parents. It's fundamentally just wrong, IMO.
The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will f
k off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised. Edited by poo at Paul's on Monday 26th June 16:36
poo at Paul's said:
I wish schools had some more discretion. For example, the poster with the "gifted kid" going skiiing, I have no issue with at all, and I am sure his kids teachers also had no issue with it. But with no discretion, he has to be tarred with the same brush as the less involved and caring parents. It's fundamentally just wrong, IMO.
The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will fk off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised.
IF you think the rules need revising, surely as a school Governor you are ina position to gather your colleagues and work towards that. The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will f
k off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised. Edited by poo at Paul's on Monday 26th June 16:36
As for the poster with the "gifted" child, his attitude of my kid is better than all the others is the reason these rules were created in the first place, maybe we should allow all PHers to drive at 120mph cause after all we care about cars, driving and are red-bull drinking bearded company directors.
babatunde said:
poo at Paul's said:
I wish schools had some more discretion. For example, the poster with the "gifted kid" going skiiing, I have no issue with at all, and I am sure his kids teachers also had no issue with it. But with no discretion, he has to be tarred with the same brush as the less involved and caring parents. It's fundamentally just wrong, IMO.
The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will fk off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised.
IF you think the rules need revising, surely as a school Governor you are ina position to gather your colleagues and work towards that. The law should be either universal, applies to al kids, all schools no exceptions, or some level of discretion from the school that know the kid and family be allowed. Again, refusal from the school wont stop Chardonnay, they will f
k off anyway, but it will allow some genuine caring hardworking parents who take their kids' education seriously, to not be criminalised. Edited by poo at Paul's on Monday 26th June 16:36
As for the poster with the "gifted" child, his attitude of my kid is better than all the others is the reason these rules were created in the first place, maybe we should allow all PHers to drive at 120mph cause after all we care about cars, driving and are red-bull drinking bearded company directors.
ks but had only that discretion. I think you are wrong on the attitude of said gifted kids' parent / poster. The School really do know their kids, and assuming said poster is not bullstting, they themselves would have had no issue with him going skiing. The "law" was not put in place to deal with such people and kids. The problem with the law is that it stops some people taking their kids on hols that a school would not have an issue with, and the ones the law was set up to try to control, don't take it seriously and still abuse it. So in that respect it is fairly ineffective. In our school, it seemed the absences have remained fairly consistent pre and post law change. It is the same fmailies and same demographic that drag the figures down, the law has had no or little impact on curbing them. And they are the ones who take as much from the school as they can, and never help at any PTA event, never even turn up to support it.....but happy to accept the PTA cash so little Tyrone can go on the school trip with the rest of his class. They play to the system, we all know they do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff