Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Supreme Court sides with government on term-time holidays

913 replies

Mulledwine1 · 06/04/2017 10:28

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-judgment.pdf

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-press-summary.pdf

AIBU to get the popcorn out for the discussion of why this is/is not a great judgment?

OP posts:
Dannythechampion · 06/04/2017 11:55

Travel companies aren't to blame, if you make them charge lower prices in holidays, and higher off season, then there would be less companies offering holidays because its not feasible to have almost empty hotels, flights etc off season.

ohforfoxsake · 06/04/2017 11:57

And then there's different schools/different holiday dates...

PrincessLeia80 · 06/04/2017 11:59

A lot of comments about holidays being more expensive out of term time. Of course they are during school holidays my husbands work is fully booked every single day and could fill up 3 times over outside of holidays it's half full! It's not more expensive during holidays it's heavily discounted in quiet times. Also why is it so bad for children to be taken out of school for holidays surely most children are will benefit and learn far more visiting new and different places? As it is we don't have a choice my husband is not allowed annual leave during school holidays or at weekends and yet we are still denied permission we haven't had a family holiday since our kids started school the only time we had a holiday my husband stayed at home.

Morphene · 06/04/2017 11:59

I think the whole thing is nonsensical and outdated.

How can it be that you fine people to take their children out of school for a week but I hear absolutely sweet FA from anyone for simply never registering my kid for school in the first place.

If schools had any interest in anything beyond precious league table points all this would be a total and utter non-issue.

knackeredinyorkshire · 06/04/2017 11:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Writerwannabe83 · 06/04/2017 12:00

Are many people actually out off by the fine though?

Surely paying a £60 fine is FAR more cost saving to parents than spending £100's and £100's more by waiting to have a non-term time holiday?

Increasinglymiddleaged · 06/04/2017 12:00

My opinion is that I wouldn't take my children out of school for holidays and I don't agree with people doing so in general.

However, I also don't think it should be something that is enforced by law. I read in the guardian about someone saying that people taking kids out was not fair on the 'obedient' parents. OBEDIENT Angry, no I just prefer my Dcs to be in school in term time!

Collaborate · 06/04/2017 12:02

I wonder whether those who think holidays should cost the same all year round also get worked up about out of season veg being more expensive?

Mulledwine1 · 06/04/2017 12:03

With our local schools you would have half the kids having "exceptional circumstances" because of how many parents are in hospitality and how can that be exceptional

But this assume you ahve to go away in the summer.

What about Feb and Oct half terms? And Christmas?

We have friends who run B&Bs in Dorset and Scotland and they take their holidays out of season. Neither have school-aged children, but one year the Dorset people were away in Feb half term. I suppose they'd taken the view that not many people holiday in Dorset in half term. I suppose if you ran a ski school somewhere snowy it would be different - then you might take your holidays in the middle of August.

OP posts:
CauliflowerSqueeze · 06/04/2017 12:03

Agree with judge.

Favourite line: "You are not the final arbiter of what's right for your child."

Also like:

"Unauthorised absences have a disruptive effect, not only on the education of the individual child, but also on the work of other pupils, and of their teachers," she said."

Correct!

Morphene · 06/04/2017 12:06

theres also a massive problem with a fine for doing this, which is that people will just pay it.

Its the same with the plan to clean up air in London, people won't stop driving polluting cars in london they will just cough up (literally) the money for it and pass the cost on to the consumer.

And then TM will give them their money back anyway.

PerspicaciaTick · 06/04/2017 12:06

I think it is worth posting a copy of Jon Platt's statement from his Facebook page. (I've tried to remove the CAPITALS which makes the original very hard to read).

I lost.
The following is the statement i will be reading outside court just after 10am.
I want to start by thanking a few people. Firstly my legal team of michael spoors, lee peckham paul greatorex and clive sheldon qc. They have all been outstanding advocates and i can’t thank them enough for their work on this case over the last 2 years. Craig langman of parents want a say and karen wilkinson of parents union who have campaigned on this issue for years, thank you for your support and hard work. Thanks too to all the people who have sent messages of support and to the school teacher karin siemund who has spent hours helping me respond to messages from parents who need help and advice.
To my family, who have put up with this nightmare for 2 years because i was too stubborn to pay a £60 penalty notice, thank you and sorry. Finally my wonderful wife sally who has been forced to live almost every second of this and put up with so much, thank you, it is almost over.
As you all just heard, the supreme court has just reversed decades of judicial precedent. They didn’t just say that a high court judge who heard my case, lord justice lloyd jones, misinterpretted the law, they have concluded that earlier high court decisions from 2006 (the bromley judgment) and 1969 (crump v gilmore) were also wrong in their interpretation of the law and should no longer be followed.
Be in no doubt, despite today's judgment, i followed the law, precisely as laid down and interpreted by high court judges in two different cases from 1969 and 2006. To attend regularly, they told me, was to attend ‘very frequently’ so i decided not to pay a £60 penalty notice because my daughter had otherwise near perfect attendance. The decision of those high court judges from 1969 and 2006 informed my decision making process, but here i stand outside the supreme court having just been told that i was wrong to rely on the decisions of those high court judges to guide me on the law. With this judgment those precedents have been swept away and the consequences can only be described as shocking.
To attend school regularly no longer means to attend very frequently - it now means to attend at all times and on all days that the school requires it. Every unauthorised absence, including being a minute late to school is now a criminal offence.
If you share custody of your child with a former partner and they are late getting your child to school…. You have committed a criminal offence even if you weren’t aware of it.
If you decide to keep your child off school for a day because they look exhausted after having a difficult night of bad dreams, you have committed a criminal offence if the head teacher second guesses that decision and marks it as unauthorised.
This issue is no longer, if ever was, about term time holidays, it is about the state taking away parents ability to make decisions about what is best for their children.
Many of you might have thought, given in 2015 when i took my family on this now infamous term time holiday, as i was, at that time following the law as laid down by several high court judges, that it would be grossly unfair to retrospectively criminalise me. That was very nearly not the case. The first draft of the court's judgment that i received yesterday remitted this case back to the magistrates with a direction to convict. It was only when my legal team pointed out that i have not even had a trial yet that this reference was removed. I now have to go back to the isle of wight magistrates court where this all started 2 years ago for a trial. I can tell you today that i have absolutely no intention of pleading guilty to this offence.
To parents all over england, i say this. The legal battle is over. There is no right of appeal beyond this place. It will be a generation or more before this court revisits this decision if ever they do. You can no longer make a decision to take your child out of school, even for one day, without the permission of the state.
That does not mean this is the end of this matter. Petitions have been signed by hundreds of thousands of parents. Parliament has debated this issue multiple times. Nothing has changed.
So i would urge each and every parent and grandparent that finds the consequences of this judgment to be shocking, to vote on the 4th may. Local elections are being held all over england and that will be your opportunity to express your views on this judgment. A conservative secretary of state for education sent lawyers to this place to argue for the judgment that was handed down today and she now has that judgment. They won, but we get to vote on that victory on may 4th.
Vote to remove people like colin noble the conservative leader of suffolk county council who issued more penalty notices to parents last year than any other council – 6000 of them. I’d urge you to vote for a green party candidate if at all possible but if one isn’t standing in your area vote for a lib dem or an independent. Most council seats are held by very small majorities. A few hundred parents in each council ward could change the face of local politics all over england in less than a month. If everyone who has received one of these penalty notices was to vote green, this government would pass emergency legislation overnight to reverse the consequences of this judgment here today.
Please vote on 4th may and tell this government that we as parents will be the final arbiters of what is right for our children - not the state.

My personal view is that this legislation is excessive and interferes with family life and that the Government should consider ways of incorporating some flexibility which enables families to make carefully considered decisions for their children without taking the piss. At the moment it seems to be a bit of a lottery as to whether a family will be fined or not.

Morphene · 06/04/2017 12:07

Favourite line: "You are not the final arbiter of what's right for your child."

If this is the case, then how come home schooling is allowed?

MyWhatICallNameChange · 06/04/2017 12:09

Seriously?

I believe I am the person who knows what is right for my children. Not some judge in court that's never met them. Not some headteacher in a school with hundreds or thousands of kids who probably couldn't pick them out of a line up.

Bollocks to it ever affecting other children in school. I barely noticed when other kids were away when I was school.

For all this read the government wants your kids in school at all times to push them harder and harder for those crappy SATs tests, and constantly changing GCSEs etc, so that they must all be above average (dur!) and must learn not to ever question authority.

Ellybellyboo · 06/04/2017 12:09

For us, it's not about having a cheaper holiday, but being able to have a holiday at all.

We live in a tourist area so our busiest time, starting with Easter round to the October half term, is the school holidays. As a result, DH finds it difficult to get time off and the company I work for have a 2 week shut down which doesn't co-incide with the school holidays.

Our local schools have been exploring the idea of chopping and changing the holidays round a bit by having 4 terms instead of the standard 3 - which would be fab, but not all schools are willing to change - meaning the idea has been shelved so that parents don't end up with a whole load of different term dates.

We got away last year by going away in the May half term, but with flights, etc, we ended up taking them out for the Friday before - DD1 had an inset day anyway, and DD2's put it down as unauthorised but we didn't get fined

elkegel · 06/04/2017 12:10

I don't agree with anyone getting a fine unless absence has fallen below the required level for no good reason.

I have to take DD1 out of school soon for something that isn't a holiday, and the school have not replied to my request. If we get a fine I'll kick up a stink about it as it relates to a sporting activity and is absolutely something the school should support.

Unihorn · 06/04/2017 12:11

My mum's a headteacher and has always authorised time off for children in her school. We were never able to go on holiday out of term time because of her job so I guess she's paying it forward. I'm of the opinion that if your child is generally performing well it won't make a difference. I know others disagree though.

As an example, when pricing 4 days in Bluestone at the end of August/beginning of September, there is an £800 jump in price. That is fucking disgusting.

windypolar · 06/04/2017 12:11

I don't know. If you're registered with a state school, you have to accept their rules I'm afraid. I see their point, people can't be allowed to take ordinary holidays in term time. For an ordinary, money saving, holiday they're not going to make allowances, but they will often for plenty of other extra curricular and educationally connected time off, including 'holidays'.

It is a pity about the costs, but unless you can afford to go private etc then there's little to be done.

Morphene · 06/04/2017 12:11

welcome to authoritarianism!

AnguaResurgam · 06/04/2017 12:12

It's allowed because it is the responsibility of the parents to provide a suitable education.

They can do so via a state school, a private school, or some form of HE. If they choose to use a state school, then they have to follow the rules. And I'm pretty sure the wording compelling 'regular' attendance was in the 1944 (?) Education Act and it has always been an offence, if you choose to school your DC, if they do not attend. Fines were brought in in 2003.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 06/04/2017 12:12

All very well ne and mine are alright Jacks going on about saving extra money, but. That's not always possible, is it.

pinktissue · 06/04/2017 12:13

I agree with it. I went through my child without ever going away on holiday, so I don't see it as an essential. My son is older now, but even though I raised him on a low income as a single mum, I saw his education as obligatory and never took him out of school for cheaper holidays. We had very cheap holidays, including youth hostels, camping and Sun caravan holidays as that was all we could afford. A lot of people who complain that they can't afford school holiday prices could easily afford that kind of holiday - but they think it's not good enough for them and they deserve a proper resort holiday.

ThatsNotMyMummy · 06/04/2017 12:13

It's so complicated. It used to be that no one took term time holidays unless you needed to. So only time a parent could get off, wedding, dying relative etc etc. You had a quiet word with the head they okayd it. All fine.

But somewhere the number increased and it became a "right" and expectation. That's when it went tits up and ruined it for everyone. it should be exceptional circumstances, but one persons exceptional
'Grandma in oz is really poorly we need to go'
Has become
'Can only afford to do Disney in school holidays'

hibbledobble · 06/04/2017 12:13

drudge I have holidayed in term time,and didn't expect the teacher to provide any resources. I recognise that teachers are very busy, and it is my choice to take a holiday.

We did workbooks and reading while away. Academically my dc is doing very well, so there was no worry about falling behind.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot · 06/04/2017 12:14

"As an example, when pricing 4 days in Bluestone at the end of August/beginning of September, there is an £800 jump in price. That is fucking disgusting."

Except of course it's the other way round. The price for off-peak is an £800 reduction on the regular price.

Swipe left for the next trending thread