Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Term time Dad loses in the Supreme Court



happypig

happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
7,961
Eastbourne
Marshy said:
Ofcourse the kids should go to school, just do something about the cost of holidays when they are off, that's what needs fixing.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it's not "broken".

Holiday companies price according to demand; if they want to sell May/June/September/October holidays they need to make them cheaper because there is less demand.
If the government brought in a law requiring all holidays be priced the same throughout the year, the off-peak prices would go up.
 




Yoda

Yoda

English & European
Mar 1, 2004
10,056
Worthing, West Sussex, United Kingdom
So, the NHS for example, would have to have more staff on leave during school holidays than they can afford to have off? Causing more delays, pressure, etc...

I work on a team of over 20 staff and we can only afford to have a maximum of 3 on annual leave at once (in case of sick leave). If one person has booked only a part week off, that has the potential to screw that week up for others.
 


Hamilton

Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
12,461
Brighton
Triggaaar said:
I can't.
I clearly can, I just took them in term time.

I don't disagree with the court ruling though. £60 on top of the trip is still a huge saving. Although our school didn't fine us. And our kids attendance is still way over 95%, even with the holiday.
Click to expand...

Er... you clearly can't afford it. Your pedantry fails. Although I see what you're saying. £60 effectively becomes the 'holiday tax' that parents have to pay. The bigger question should be what steps government might impose on parents whose children's attendance rate falls way below 95% and whether it is right to do so.
 


Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,200
Goldstone
Publius Ovidius said:
guy on BBC breakfast reckons all the parents taking their children out in school time were "feckless"

Interesting. A old friend of mine was losing his father to the big C and as a last family holiday booked a trip to Machu Picchu as this would have been his last time to be with the family. He approached the school, explained the situation and initially the head was sympathetic and agreed. Another parent found out about this ( via the school secretary) and went to the local council saying it was unfair as she was refused taking her child out at Christmas to go to Lap land to see father christmas. The council agreed and said that there were no extenuating circumstances - tough shit that the grandad was dying....suffice it to say after much upset they took the children out of school anyway and ended up with a fine!
Click to expand...
Should have let the council take that one to court, the ****s. Name of other parent and school secretary would be useful too, it's a while since we've had a good Jamie.
 


Goldstone1976

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,787
Herts
SK1NT said:
As for the holiday price hikes during the holiday. This is just a part and parcel of supply and demand. You can't make private companies reduce their prices so people can go on holiday.
Click to expand...

But the Government can and did make car insurance companies remove the discrepancy in premiums between young men and young women despite all the evidence showing that young male drivers cost the insurance companies more than young women in claims. Result: initially nothing, the insurance companies suffered lower profits. After a couple of years (when they thought the fuss about doing it sooner had receded), they raised the premiums across the board to take their profits back to the previous levels. Result now: young women pay too much, young men pay too little, companies make the same profit.

I'd predict that the same would happen if the Government interferred with the current market dynamics of the holiday market - relatively quickly the price of all holidays would increase, thus effectively meaning that those without school-aged children would be subsidising those with. Governments mess with the market at their peril, unless they are prepared to have a state nationalised system... the law of unintended (but entirely foreseeable) consequences.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,200
Goldstone
Hamilton said:
Er... you clearly can't afford it. Your pedantry fails.
Click to expand...
Never! It depends what 'it' meant in your post. It looks like that 'it' meant 'you can't afford to take your kids to Disneyland'.

Although I see what you're saying. £60 effectively becomes the 'holiday tax' that parents have to pay.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'd have paid it. Although in the example above, where a family had a last chance to be together due to illness, I might have held my ground.
 


M

mooey

New member
Mar 30, 2012
484
I ve just this minute finished writing to my son s school because i took him out for a week, to go and see his aging family abroad who he has never met before and might not meet again and to discover some of his roots.There is even a place called Albion there as well so it was very benifical. I haven t been for 9 years because it s very expensive to fly to.Anyway explained all of this apart from the Albion bit! and was told it was a Family Holiday.Except my other half did nt come thats his mum so not really a family holiday.My boys school reports have been excellent since he has been at school and punctuality.So could nt really understand why im still being fined expecting to hear back today or tomoz.Probably a no though but worth a shoot.Easy money for the goverment tar everyone with the same brush instead of using common sense.
my Son s grammer is a million times better than mine before anyone starts taking the piss. lol UTA
 


Hamilton

Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
12,461
Brighton
Triggaaar said:
Never! It depends what 'it' meant in your post. It looks like that 'it' meant 'you can't afford to take your kids to Disneyland'.

Indeed. I'd have paid it. Although in the example above, where a family had a last chance to be together due to illness, I might have held my ground.
Click to expand...

We won't get into the 'it' or we'll be here all day.

I'm sure there will be compassionate grounds and schools will use their judgment.
 




M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,653
Fiveways
Goldstone1976 said:
But the Government can and did make car insurance companies remove the discrepancy in premiums between young men and young women despite all the evidence showing that young male drivers cost the insurance companies more than young women in claims. Result: initially nothing, the insurance companies suffered lower profits. After a couple of years (when they thought the fuss about doing it sooner had receded), they raised the premiums across the board to take their profits back to the previous levels. Result now: young women pay too much, young men pay too little, companies make the same profit.

I'd predict that the same would happen if the Government interferred with the current market dynamics of the holiday market - relatively quickly the price of all holidays would increase, thus effectively meaning that those without school-aged children would be subsidising those with. Governments mess with the market at their peril, unless they are prepared to have a state nationalised system... the law of unintended (but entirely foreseeable) consequences.
Click to expand...

Liberal intellectual elitist you.
 




Wilko

Wilko

LUZZING chairs about
Sep 19, 2003
9,923
BN1
lost in london said:
What annoys me most is that schools shut on a whim and take teaching days away from children when it suits them without any regard to inconvenience to parents. Roles are reversed and parents get fined.

As an example, my kids' school recently had to put two classes in temporary classrooms whilst building works were carried out. Rather than get the teachers to give up two days of their enormous holidays to get the rooms ready, the school shut down entirely for two days. A whole school of parents having to sort out two days childcare. We've got a whole week shutdown in September whilst they move back into the new building. There's then a week in June where there are two inset days and a sports day in one week, plus two days of 'sport' for the remainder of the week. If that isn't an invitation to take your kids out and go on a cheaper holiday when they're learning sod all I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I do not know where to start with this but I will try:

1) Do you really think a school can work with a H&S issue, imagine the complaints if a kid got injured
2) A school holiday for children does not mean a holiday for staff
3) An inset day is not a day off for staff, it is training day in exactly the same way all companies and businesses have training days
4) How is sport not beneficial or educational? No wonder there is an obesity crisis in this country
 
Last edited:




Indurain's Lungs

Indurain's Lungs

Legend of Garry Nelson
Jun 22, 2010
2,260
Dorset
Hamilton said:
Er... you clearly can't afford it. Your pedantry fails. Although I see what you're saying. £60 effectively becomes the 'holiday tax' that parents have to pay. The bigger question should be what steps government might impose on parents whose children's attendance rate falls way below 95% and whether it is right to do so.
Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:
I can't.
I clearly can, I just took them in term time.

I don't disagree with the court ruling though. £60 on top of the trip is still a huge saving. Although our school didn't fine us. And our kids attendance is still way over 95%, even with the holiday.
Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:
Nonsense. Kids could go on holiday in term time when I was growing up, as long as the school was informed. It still works out cheaper to pay £60 fine and save £200 on a holiday.
Click to expand...

It's £60 per day per child so could work out at £600 a week for a family with 2 kids - probably a reasonable deterrent.
 


Goldstone1976

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,787
Herts
middletoenail said:
I'd argue that a week away listening to different languages and experiencing other cultures is more valuable than some of the lessons I was part of!
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't holiday in the Costa del Sol that often then? :wink:

I agree with your underlying premise though... perhaps a week in Glasgow would meet the criteria...
 


WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,843
Them's the rules. If you take your kids on holiday in term time and the school don't think it's justified, you pay the fine. Just stop f***ing whining. A holiday isn't some sort of necessity. Food, heating, electricity and rent/mortgage are necessities (and the occasional football match).

We always took summer holidays in the school holidays and paid the premium. At Junior school we took the kids out of school for a week each winter skiing. The school didn't have a problem with that (maybe because their attendance record outside of that was 99+%). When they started senior school we bit the bullet and went at half term. If we couldn't have afforded half term, then we couldn't afford to go skiing as that was the price of the holiday.

Now they are both working, life is wonderful and me and the missus have nice quiet and cheap holidays outside of school holidays :cool:
 
Last edited:




Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,796
Hove
middletoenail said:
I'd argue that a week away listening to different languages and experiencing other cultures is more valuable than some of the lessons I was part of!
Click to expand...

As said before, it is not the disruption to an individual child that is the main issue, it is the teacher's time in bringing each child that has been away up to speed with the rest of the class for the week or 2 weeks they've missed. If that turns into several children at different times, then the whole class has definitely been disrupted, with teaching diverted away from where it should have been.
 






middletoenail

middletoenail

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2008
3,570
Hong Kong
Bold Seagull said:
As said before, it is not the disruption to an individual child that is the main issue, it is the teacher's time in bringing each child that has been away up to speed with the rest of the class for the week or 2 weeks they've missed. If that turns into several children at different times, then the whole class has definitely been disrupted, with teaching diverted away from where it should have been.
Click to expand...
I can see that, but does that really happen? I can't recall any of my teachers having to do that with me, and I turned out alright (I think).
 






The Spanish

The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,477
P
SK1NT said:
Good. Not a great example to his children breaking the school rules to go on holiday. Such a disregard for the law .

If one person does this then what happens when all other parents start to do this... Constantly kids having to play catch up on the curriculum and affecting other children's learning as they will be going over old ground for the kids that weren't there.

As for the holiday price hikes during the holiday. This is just a part and parcel of supply and demand. You can't make private companies reduce their prices so people can go on holiday.

If you are someone pulling your kid out of school for a cheaper holiday you are basically valuing money over your child's education.
Click to expand...

especially if it's state education which other people are paying to put your kids through. i really can't get the mentality of challenging the state who is educating your child for free, over taking them on a holiday that you think that this free education is stopping you from getting a good deal on.

its like moaning they make you come home to sign on from your holiday.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here