To be fair to UKIP they were polling high before Carswell and Reckless joined them and the more May continues free movement in the transition period the better UKIP will do
What a silly system where you can get elected through the list system and then decide to become an independent, even though no one voted for you. It just encourages parties to fill their list with party loyalists over talented individuals.
To be fair to UKIP they were polling high before Carswell and Reckless joined them and the more May continues free movement in the transition period the better UKIP will do
So you are sticking with UKIP I gather. Ever the loyalist.
The problem as I see it is KL makes it sound as though it was a neutral common sense agreement w Hitler rather than ethnic cleansing
What? That is back to front: it was a neutral common sense agreement, and Livingstone is trying to make it sound like [Jews cooperating in] ethnic cleansing. None of this is historically controversial; "final solution" means the solution eventually settled on after previous solutions (expulsion to Israel/Madagascar/the rest of the world) had not worked. Livingstone's offence is not in the main misrepresenting the truth*, but stating it in a way designed to generate misinterpretations.
* that is, about the existence of the Agreement. His subsidiary claims about Hitler approving the flying of the Zionist flag in Germany are bonkers.
It is not a neutral common sense agreement.
If tonight the British government rounded up all your property in the middle of the night and then said 'get out the country never to return and we will return your property to you' would your agreeing to that mean the agreement was neutral and common sense?
Yes, if I knew that the other solutions to my continuing presence in the country the British government had in mind were those that Hitler was known to have in mind at the time of the agreement. If your point is that Hitler wasn't very nice, it is a valid one. What Livingstone is (I think) trying to derive from the history is that Hitler was secretly pro-Jew and vice versa. My point is that the existence of the agreement is evidence of nothing more than rational self-interest on both sides, given ultimate objectives of freeing Germany of Jews on the one hand, and remaining alive on the other.
I don't consider any agreement to be made under duress to be neutral. If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, then you choosing your life may be self-preservation but it isn't a neutral agreement.
Did he seriously type this statement on a page of A4, print it, and take a photo? A photo/scan of an actual letter he sent to someone would be one thing, or a screenshot of the statement text, but this is just too much.
Unlike Cameron, who was never regarded by MPs as "one of them", May has forged warm relations through policies such as grammar schools and a more traditional line on climate change and international aid. Crucially, the country also likes the PM. Under May, the Tories have enjoyed their best poll ratings since returning to government. While Labour MPs grow more rebellious in times of political success, their Conservative counterparts tend to respect it. Cameron's worst period coincided with the 2012 "omnishambles" Budget, forcing him to concede a referendum the following January. Under the former PM, some Tory MPs viewed defeat to Labour as inevitable, they are now urged by ministers not to jeopardise what most regard as inevitable victory at the next election.
That UKIP would splinter post-referendum was clearly predictable. This particular splinter is, it seems, not actually re-joining the Conservative Party, but (as the Americans say) caucusing with the Welsh Tory AMs. So @TSE can breathe a sigh of relief.
Did he seriously type this statement on a page of A4, print it, and take a photo? A photo/scan of an actual letter he sent to someone would be one thing, or a screenshot of the statement text, but this is just too much.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Since the EUSSR banned all stout, British incandescent bulbs, there have been no lights to turn out at UKIP. Which probably explains a lot.
I know it's an a flippant comment, but as a fact obsessive I need to point out that the heaters formerly known as 100W and 75W bulbs are being banned all over the world. If the UK hadn't been a member of the EU I would have hoped that they would have been 'banned' earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs Brazil and Venezuela started the controversial phase-out in 2005,[citation needed] and the European Union, Switzerland, and Australia started to phase them out in 2009. Likewise, other nations are implementing new energy standards or have scheduled phase-outs: Argentina, and Russia in 2012, and the United States, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and South Korea in 2014.
What a silly system where you can get elected through the list system and then decide to become an independent, even though no one voted for you. It just encourages parties to fill their list with party loyalists over talented individuals.
I have always said that anyone elected by FPTP should not feel it necessary to seek reelection if they leave their party - though I admired Carswell and Reckless for choosing to do so.
But anyone elected by a PR system that assigns seats based on party votes should surrender their seat to the p[arty when they leave. That goes for MEPs and assembly members as well. It was not Reckless's seat.
To be fair to UKIP they were polling high before Carswell and Reckless joined them and the more May continues free movement in the transition period the better UKIP will do
So you are sticking with UKIP I gather. Ever the loyalist.
I have never voted UKIP in my life, I have voted LD more often and I voted Remain but the longer May leaves introduction of a work permit requirement and the more we continue to pay to the EU for a transition deal the better UKIP will do
In my area ukip have gone from fighting 54 seats to 8 in 4 years. Currently, many of the foot soldiers aren't feeling the need to keep fighting.
Why bother? I was so into it that I almost ran as a candidate in the GE, but now I can't remember if I am a member of Ukip or not!
They should (and are whether they like it not not) scale down and concentrate resources where they can influence matters. Parish councils etc aren't worth the bother, just attack Remain MPs at the next GE, don't try and stand a candidate in every seat
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Surely I'm not alone in celebrating the fact that it's now 6 April and hopefully therefore I will no longer be confronted by a picture of Neil Woodford grinning out at me every time I switch on the internet, advertising his latest ISA suitable fund in which I should consider investing.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter was studying for GCSEs we haven't taken a holiday for more than 3 years because I am always working during holidays and didn't want to risk her education at that point. But if I decided to take a holiday in term time because that was the only time available to me I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
I suspect the reason TSE thinks Reckless is the Cunto De Tutti Cunti is because he is an apostate. From the religion of Dave n George. The wellspring of TSE's very being. Reckless, like Carswell, has not altered his political views about the EU since forever. Under the gimps the Tory party drifted away from the common man and into bed with Clegg and views shared by (shudders) Heseltine, Clark, Ashdown, Mandelson, and god-only-knows what manner of pondlife. When Dave, who got himself elected as party leader on the false prospectus of being a Eurosceptic, basically gave up trying to get EU reform Reckless had had enough and walked. The timing was most unhelpful to project Daveosexualist. The party left Reckless and Carswell really, not the other way around. Post-Brexit and with that nice MrsMay in charge, the party has come right back to where it bloody well should have been all along (and mostly was but in a quiet, resentful sort of way). Simples.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter was studying for GCSEs we haven't taken a holiday for more than 3 years because I am always working during holidays and didn't want to risk her education at that point. But if I decided to take a holiday in term time because that was the only time available to me I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
I do think there needs to be felxibility,
Obviously if someone if 15 or 16 and building up to GCSE's they shouldn't be going off on holiday in term time but if a kid if 5, 6, 7, 10 etc.. And their parents want to go on holiday for a week in term time I don't think it's anybody else's business.
I remember when I was about 10 we went to Jersey in June (term time) that was one of the best holiday's I had with my parents and brother and after my father died last year there were many fond memories that I looked back on from that holiday when we were all together...
Oh and after visiting the WWII underground hospital, when I got back to school, I wrote a long project about it and got an A*.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter was studying for GCSEs we haven't taken a holiday for more than 3 years because I am always working during holidays and didn't want to risk her education at that point. But if I decided to take a holiday in term time because that was the only time available to me I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
So #Reckless ratted on Tories & now ratted on UKIP. Never be trusted again. Gone into hiding & refused to face press.
Must say I feel sorry for the people of Wales that they are lumbered with politicians like these!
Its the labour politicians that are the problem in Wales - been in power far too long - over the last five years we have had annual council tax increases of 5%, education is failing, and as for the NHS it just one long list of failure
The problem as I see it is KL makes it sound as though it was a neutral common sense agreement w Hitler rather than ethnic cleansing
What? That is back to front: it was a neutral common sense agreement, and Livingstone is trying to make it sound like [Jews cooperating in] ethnic cleansing. None of this is historically controversial; "final solution" means the solution eventually settled on after previous solutions (expulsion to Israel/Madagascar/the rest of the world) had not worked. Livingstone's offence is not in the main misrepresenting the truth*, but stating it in a way designed to generate misinterpretations.
* that is, about the existence of the Agreement. His subsidiary claims about Hitler approving the flying of the Zionist flag in Germany are bonkers.
It is not a neutral common sense agreement.
If tonight the British government rounded up all your property in the middle of the night and then said 'get out the country never to return and we will return your property to you' would your agreeing to that mean the agreement was neutral and common sense?
Yes, if I knew that the other solutions to my continuing presence in the country the British government had in mind were those that Hitler was known to have in mind at the time of the agreement. If your point is that Hitler wasn't very nice, it is a valid one. What Livingstone is (I think) trying to derive from the history is that Hitler was secretly pro-Jew and vice versa. My point is that the existence of the agreement is evidence of nothing more than rational self-interest on both sides, given ultimate objectives of freeing Germany of Jews on the one hand, and remaining alive on the other.
I don't consider any agreement to be made under duress to be neutral. If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, then you choosing your life may be self-preservation but it isn't a neutral agreement.
It is neutral in the sense that given the situation that you want to obtain my money by armed robbery and I want not to be killed (and that just is the situation, whether we like it or not), my giving you my money and you not killing me are both fully explained by the fact that we are guided by rational self-interest. What Livingstone is cleverly and nastily doing is to insinuate that there must be more to the bargain than meets the eye - that, e.g. I secretly and for discreditable reasons want to give you money anyway.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
May I ask what jobs prevent one organising a holiday out of term time?
The Kippers must be feeling sad. The best they can hope for now is that Theresa agrees to some compromise over EU immigration and they can try milking that - i.e. an unpleasant campaign based on Xenophobia and divisiveness. But that's a far cry from the revolutionary and Utopian movement they once dreamt of forging. Curious that Brexit has had the effect of entrenching Theresa and the establishment Tories in power, possibly for ever.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
I agree with the general gist of why HMG has imposed these restrictions and accept that there will always be a few hard luck stories. Perhaps after consultation between school and parent, the final say should be with the head teacher.
Nihal Arthanayake (Radio 5 Live presenter) just commented on Mark Reckless's defection by quipping 'The People's Judean Front and the People's Front of Judea.... and all that'...
Which was as brave as it was inflammatory in the current BBC climate!
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter was studying for GCSEs we haven't taken a holiday for more than 3 years because I am always working during holidays and didn't want to risk her education at that point. But if I decided to take a holiday in term time because that was the only time available to me I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
Ha Ha Ha , who would be teaching the revision classes
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
Rubbish. These rules never used to apply and the classes weren't half empty. There are many like me who due to work are not able to take time off during holidays. Now because my daughter was studying for GCSEs we haven't taken a holiday for more than 3 years because I am always working during holidays and didn't want to risk her education at that point. But if I decided to take a holiday in term time because that was the only time available to me I would do it and screw the authorities.
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
The only way I could see it being possible is to organise revision classes, homework in the holidays for time missed and cap it at a maximum 2 weeks per pupil per school year with no more than 10% of each class permitted to be absent at any 1 time.
For a 6 year old???? Do you actually have kids?
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
I recommend living in a holiday destination and homeschooling your child, saves all the heart ache
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
May I ask what jobs prevent one organising a holiday out of term time?
For me it is offshore work. But there are many others in self employed businesses who cannot choose when they take holidays.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
Most teaching these days doesn't consist of saying "turn to page 94 and do the exercises". We explain, do experiments or demonstrations, ask questions, do small group work and so on. Organising work for someone who won't be there can take almost as much time as planning for the original lesson. If someone is ill for a couple of weeks we will do our best, but they will not be in the same position as someone who attended the lessons. Besides, if they are on holiday they aren't going to want to spend five or six hours on school work each day.
No more news yet on the story about confidential police documents being found at the French National Front's HQ.
As I understand it, they were found in February this year, but their status as police documents that were supposed to be confidential was only revealed yesterday.
This is not to be confused with the raid of February 2016, on which occasion Le Pen filmed the police with her mobile phone, and when they asked her to stop she famously "wedged" it between her tits, continuing to film and daring them to come and get it. (Report in the Times.)
If this story develops it could damage Le Pen a lot, as people get scared of what relations her party might have with elements within the police.
Re: term-holidays The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
And yet they are not going after those taking the piss. They are instead criminalising the otherwise law abiding so it looks like they are doing something. Discuss.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
Do we have any evidence these regulations make any difference to anything except the blood pressure of some parents ? The idea that a struggling child (usually because of parental disinterest) is suddenly going to do well because they don't miss a couple of weeks of school in a non-critical year seems a little fanciful.
What is wrong with just giving kids work to do whilst they're away. I'm in complete agreement with Richard Tyndall here, it's far too heavy handed and the idea that it goes to court these days is an utter nonsense.
And then when you have people with kids doing badly at school with parents taking them out of school, it is impossible to prevent it..
If a kid is doing badly at school there will be a lot more going on than a "one off" family holiday in term time.
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
I'm with you on this one. Seems a bit rigid, but that's the law I guess.
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
May I ask what jobs prevent one organising a holiday out of term time?
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
Considering the child was 6 years old the judgement is ludicrous. The law has been brought into disrepute with these sorts of cases.
Problem is once a few kid's start taking holidays in term time half the class will soon be empty and holiday companies will just raise their prices in term time anyway
So what? Especially if the child is 6.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Most companies allow a set period of annual leave, school holidays fall in the summer Easter and Christmas and half term plenty of time to fit in a fortnight break and once you open the floodgates you risk endless problems of pupil absence in term time, catch up classes etc
Again utter rubbish. There are huge numbers of people for whom it is impossible to arrange time off during school holidays and your comments are simply not backed up by the evidence. None attendance due to holidays never used to be a major problem and this law was entirely unnecessary.
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
May I ask what jobs prevent one organising a holiday out of term time?
Pretty much anyone that works in leisure or hospitality.
Comments
Perhaps some Tory members here could enlighten us ?
Which probably explains a lot.
When he lost it was a better feeling than coitus for me.
You know, like a friend.
George Eaton:
Unlike Cameron, who was never regarded by MPs as "one of them", May has forged warm relations through policies such as grammar schools and a more traditional line on climate change and international aid. Crucially, the country also likes the PM. Under May, the Tories have enjoyed their best poll ratings since returning to government. While Labour MPs grow more rebellious in times of political success, their Conservative counterparts tend to respect it. Cameron's worst period coincided with the 2012 "omnishambles" Budget, forcing him to concede a referendum the following January. Under the former PM, some Tory MPs viewed defeat to Labour as inevitable, they are now urged by ministers not to jeopardise what most regard as inevitable victory at the next election.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/04/theresa-may-softens-her-brexit-why-are-tory-mps-so-calm
I think you might ask TSE as I am sure he can clarify matters
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39504338
I don't know the merits of the particular case, but I do strongly dislike the nanny state that thinks it is in all cases (as indicated by legislating on the matter) a better judge than the parents on what is best for the kid. In my view, it is the exception, rather than the rule, both that parents make bad decisions for their kids, and that government is even in a position to have the facts to decide what is truly in the kid's interests.
Personally, I think all kids should travel more and all kids should spend more time with their parents. Admittedly, not all travel is equal in terms of its positive impact on a kid's education, inquisitiveness and openness to other cultures and ways of doing things, but even a beach holiday in Ibiza can open eyes and widen horizons.
My original comment says more about my hatred of Mark Reckless, which I think I've hidden quite well from PBers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs
Brazil and Venezuela started the controversial phase-out in 2005,[citation needed] and the European Union, Switzerland, and Australia started to phase them out in 2009. Likewise, other nations are implementing new energy standards or have scheduled phase-outs: Argentina, and Russia in 2012, and the United States, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and South Korea in 2014.
But anyone elected by a PR system that assigns seats based on party votes should surrender their seat to the p[arty when they leave. That goes for MEPs and assembly members as well. It was not Reckless's seat.
They should (and are whether they like it not not) scale down and concentrate resources where they can influence matters. Parish councils etc aren't worth the bother, just attack Remain MPs at the next GE, don't try and stand a candidate in every seat
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/849967573206806528
Why fight a May government that is implementing Brexit when you can fight a Corbyn opposition, or Farron's die-in-the-ditch-for-Remain Lib Dems?
His subsequent actions in the days after also made him despised.
Surely I'm not alone in celebrating the fact that it's now 6 April and hopefully therefore I will no longer be confronted by a picture of Neil Woodford grinning out at me every time I switch on the internet, advertising his latest ISA suitable fund in which I should consider investing.
*hides*
Neil Hamilton AC/AM @NeilUKIP
So #Reckless ratted on Tories & now ratted on UKIP. Never be trusted again. Gone into hiding & refused to face press.
Besides it isn't just about holiday prices. Some parents can't get time off during the school holidays, what are they supposed to do? Never go on a holiday? Never spend time with their children?
Maybe they should fine all those teachers who decide to strike during term time as well.
Reckless, like Carswell, has not altered his political views about the EU since forever. Under the gimps the Tory party drifted away from the common man and into bed with Clegg and views shared by (shudders) Heseltine, Clark, Ashdown, Mandelson, and god-only-knows what manner of pondlife. When Dave, who got himself elected as party leader on the false prospectus of being a Eurosceptic, basically gave up trying to get EU reform Reckless had had enough and walked. The timing was most unhelpful to project Daveosexualist. The party left Reckless and Carswell really, not the other way around.
Post-Brexit and with that nice MrsMay in charge, the party has come right back to where it bloody well should have been all along (and mostly was but in a quiet, resentful sort of way).
Simples.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/849969950626267136
https://twitter.com/malmstromeu/status/849875120235708416
This is what a Leaver Tory MP told me at the time
I can't say the word c**t but Mark Reckless is a f**king c**t who deserves a red hot poker up his arse
Obviously if someone if 15 or 16 and building up to GCSE's they shouldn't be going off on holiday in term time but if a kid if 5, 6, 7, 10 etc.. And their parents want to go on holiday for a week in term time I don't think it's anybody else's business.
I remember when I was about 10 we went to Jersey in June (term time) that was one of the best holiday's I had with my parents and brother and after my father died last year there were many fond memories that I looked back on from that holiday when we were all together...
Oh and after visiting the WWII underground hospital, when I got back to school, I wrote a long project about it and got an A*.
The reason for this is probably the same as the reason we can't have lots of nice things we'd like: people taking the piss.
Another way of thinking about it: if you want the state to educate your child, you have to abide by the state's rules. Discuss...
There are plenty of parents who do not ensure their children attend school and allow them to play truant. All this is doing is going after the responsible parents who simply want to take their child away for a holiday rather than those who don't give a damn. I am afraid both the law and your view of parenting are somewhat warped.
Which was as brave as it was inflammatory in the current BBC climate!
I do wonder how it worked for decades before these morons decided to criminalise having a holiday. You know? Back when we actually had a reasonable education system rather than the devalued rubbish we have now.
Labour's plan to tax private school fees to pay for free school meals in tatters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/jeremy-corbyn-announces-vat-rise-private-schools-policy-pay/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/06/why-worlds-largest-fund-manager-paying-george-osborne-650000-pounds
Richard Tyndall is right. For years (decades) this all ran perfectly smoothly with a flexible system where-by if a family wanted to do something exceptional (like have a week's holiday in June rather than August) it was acceptable (and in some cases maybe even encouraged as "family time" seemed to be valued much more)
Why does everything have to be such a big issue these days?