Supreme Court: Parents CAN'T take kids on term-time holiday without risking a fine

2010

The supreme court has just given the green light to ALL holiday companies to continue ripping off everyone at school holiday times.

tensandunits_2

2010 wrote: »

The supreme court has just given the green light to ALL holiday companies to continue ripping off everyone at school holiday times.

That's capitalism. Prices go up according to demand and supply.

WestonDave

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

I expect that holiday firms would quickly start adjusting prices based on which airport you leave from and when, if whole counties or regions had the same holidays.

They would on flights because you'd have everyone from say Bristol wanting flights out of Bristol on the same weeks. However part of the problem is that largely we have the same holidays as most of Europe - all on the outdated basis of some religious festivals and getting the harvest in during August.


We know kids are in school 190 days which is 38 weeks. The remaining 14 weeks are generally split as 6 weeks summer, 2 weeks each at Christmas and Easter and 3 half term weeks. The remaining week gets used up on Bank Holidays or odd days at the start or end of the summer holidays. The problem really is the 6 week summer holiday when everyone wants a holiday but we're competing with the whole of Europe for those hotel rooms etc. The other downside to the current system is that over the 6 week break kids forget some stuff and get out of routine so teachers waste time getting them back up to speed - plus certainly in the two long 7 week half terms before Christmas kids tend to get over tired and ill.


What if we took the 14 weeks off and split that into equal holidays - 7 lots of two weeks off, with either 5 or 6 weeks school in between. Starting with the same Christmas holiday as now, we'd end up with a two week break mid Feb (where the current half term is), another 2 weeks at the start of April (might hit Easter or might not), another 2 weeks that would come at the end of May, start of June around when the current May half term week lands. We'd then get 2 weeks in early July meaning we'd get away before the rest of Europe, and a couple of weeks in September after the rest of Europe have gone back to school with the equivalent to the October half term then being 2 weeks in November breaking up that long slog of the Autumn term.


That's just back of a fag packet stuff but if fine tuned a bit I reckon you could cut holiday costs by not clashing with Europe and also improve school performance by breaking up the long terms and the long summer holiday.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

Parents should have the choice to raise their kids as they see fit, but there are rules to play by, and one of them is £60 fine if you take your kids out of term time, you CHOOSE if you want to suffer it or not.

If you're poor you should be cutting your cloth accordingly, and I agree that at the very bottom that makes things difficult on a day to day basis let alone holidays.

Holidays are entirely priced as supply and demand, you are allowed to be involved when ever you want, but part of that is now a £60 fine if you CHOOSE to use school time.

So we seem to agree the £60 is a form of holiday tax and nothing to do with education?

And a tax that will hit the poorest the most?

Guest101

tensandunits wrote: »

That's capitalism. Prices go up according to demand and supply.

It's not true capitalism when the free market is influenced by state enforcement.

Guest101

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

What kind of father tries to save money by taking his child out of school, but is then prepared to spend a vast amount of time and money perusing a paltry fine to the highest court in the land?

One with principles?

pollypenny

The 10 days holiday allowance, with the head's permission, was originally introduced in order that people who had to take holidays on a rota - police officers, office workers, doctors etc could take their families away occasionally.

It was not designed for families to get cheaper holidays every year.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

It's not true capitalism when the free market is influenced by state enforcement.

like one where someone else pays for your kids education?

Guest101 wrote: »

One with principles?

Stalin had principles, doesn't make him a good role model or father figure.

worldtraveller

tensandunits wrote: »

Prices go up according to demand and supply.

Unsurprisingly, in other similar discussions I've read and watched on TV, there are some people that believe that holiday companies, airlines, hotels, and the like, should charge higher prices to people using their goods & services in 'off peak' periods in order to 'subsidise' lower prices in the school holidays. In other words, that people without children should 'subsidise' the lifestyle choice of people with children for their holidays. :rotfl:

martinsurrey

worldtraveller wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, in other similar discussions I've read and watched on TV, there are some people that believe that holiday companies, airlines, hotels and the like should charge higher prices to people using their goods & services in 'off peak' periods in order to 'subsidise' lower prices in the school holidays. In other words that people without children should subsidise the lifestyle choice of people with children. :rotfl:

And no doubt if that happened they'd be the ones complaining because "all the places got booked up and now there's no rooms for us!"

Its as if they imagine there are unlimited planes and hotels!