British Justice....

[corevalue]

Estranged father who is banned from seeing his children is prosecuted for truancy after their MOTHER took them on holiday in term time

• Shane Allen, 44, convicted of failing to ensure his children went to school
• Ex partner took their three children on holiday to Scotland during term time
• He had no idea about holiday and was prevented from seeing children
• Attempt to appeal conviction dismissed by judge at Reading Crown Court

Wtf??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070398/Estranged-father-banned-seeing-children-prosecuted-mother-took-holiday-term-time.html

[MrPin]

What a load of nonsene! I think God can't find his **** sometimes. Why can't people go on holiday? It actually doesn't matter if you miss two weeks of school!

[The Masked Tulip]

There was a time when it would be commonsense that this is unjust. Alas, there now appears to be millions of people in this country who think that such things are perfectly normally.

[sPinwheel]

Surely a wind up. I mean we dont live in that fecked up a country do we????

[dgul]

This is rubbish reporting from the Mail. I am very disappointed with them.

He is 44, she 24, eldest child 10...

[Actually I think they've got their facts wrong. Surely no-one named Charlene will be 24. Hardly anyone in the UK is called Charlene outside of the age range 28-32]

[MrPin]

There was a time when it would be commonsense that this is unjust. Alas, there now appears to be millions of people in this country who think that such things are perfectly normally.

Mr Tulip, I am a fighter for "common sense". There does not seem to be much left!

[Bloo Loo]

There is something more to this:

Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil.

(1)If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence.

[F1(1A)If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails without reasonable justification to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.]

If it is true the father knew nothing, then, he is not guilty as per Sec 1A...suspect there is a little sensationalism in the spin on this.

EDIT...read this again, and it appears there is no excuse...1A is another offence. simply not turning up regularly is an offence by the parent.

The question then is just what is the definition of parent?

[Guest TheBlueCat]

This is why strict liability is such an appalling bad idea. Needless to say, most of the laws that have it were introduced by the last Labour government. I remember a case a few years back of some totally innocent guy who found a pistol in the street, picked it up and took it to the nearest police station. On arrival they arrested him and he ended up going down to possession of a firearm without a license despite even the judge saying it was ridiculous. Still, it's looking like we've got a lot more of this to come when we have Red Ed in Downing Street backed up by the Scottish National (Socialist) Party.

[Guest eight]

I can't decide if this is Kafkaesque or Orwellian.

[happy_renting]

This is why strict liability is such an appalling bad idea. Needless to say, most of the laws that have it were introduced by the last Labour government. I remember a case a few years back of some totally innocent guy who found a pistol in the street, picked it up and took it to the nearest police station. On arrival they arrested him and he ended up going down to possession of a firearm without a license despite even the judge saying it was ridiculous. Still, it's looking like we've got a lot more of this to come when we have Red Ed in Downing Street backed up by the Scottish National (Socialist) Party.

Years ago some bag thief stole a holdall from a pub in London, only to find it had an IRA bomb in it. He reported it to the police, and was convicted for having a bomb.

[MrPin]

Years ago some bag thief stole a holdall from a pub in London, only to find it had an IRA bomb in it. He reported it to the police, and was convicted for having a bomb.

Sheer stupdity always has me amused!

[Bossybabe]

Mr Tulip, I am a fighter for "common sense". There does not seem to be much left!

There was never a brain drain from this country, more a common sense evacuation.

[Bossybabe]

Sheer stupdity always has me amused!

And you can always rely on the police to provide it. ?

[Riedquat]

This is why strict liability is such an appalling bad idea. Needless to say, most of the laws that have it were introduced by the last Labour government. I remember a case a few years back of some totally innocent guy who found a pistol in the street, picked it up and took it to the nearest police station. On arrival they arrested him and he ended up going down to possession of a firearm without a license despite even the judge saying it was ridiculous. Still, it's looking like we've got a lot more of this to come when we have Red Ed in Downing Street backed up by the Scottish National (Socialist) Party.

What happens if the jury refuses to go along with such a farce. Clearly guilty according to the letter of the law, clearly stupid according to common sense. I read somewhere that one thing that helped stop the death penalty (in some cases at any rate) was juries refusing to convict even when guilt was clear due to disagreeing that the outcome of "guilty" was at all appropriate to the crime. These examples aren't as serious but I think the same principle applies (although nowdays I suppose people are more likely to go along with what Authority says are the rules, when they're not outright ignoring them).

[DTMark]

I recall a spate of news articles about homeowners who had tackled burglars and found themselves on the receiving end of the 'justice system', starting in fairly recent years with the farmer Tony Martin who shot a young burglar who was the latest in a line of people to break into his home.

This seemed to go on for a few years, and then stopped. Mind you I don't read the Daily Mail any more. What happened to cases such as these?

[Guest TheBlueCat]

What happens if the jury refuses to go along with such a farce. Clearly guilty according to the letter of the law, clearly stupid according to common sense. I read somewhere that one thing that helped stop the death penalty (in some cases at any rate) was juries refusing to convict even when guilt was clear due to disagreeing that the outcome of "guilty" was at all appropriate to the crime. These examples aren't as serious but I think the same principle applies (although nowdays I suppose people are more likely to go along with what Authority says are the rules, when they're not outright ignoring them).

If the person pleads not guilty and goes for a jury trial, then you're right, the jury could go with that. The problem is, that judges are very fond of instructing juries to come to specific verdicts on the basis of 'legal fact' and not many juries are prepared to tell them to sod off (I suspect most don't even realise that they can).

[Bloo Loo]

If the person pleads not guilty and goes for a jury trial, then you're right, the jury could go with that. The problem is, that judges are very fond of instructing juries to come to specific verdicts on the basis of 'legal fact' and not many juries are prepared to tell them to sod off (I suspect most don't even realise that they can).

I dont think a jury is an option for appealing a fixed penalty ticket.

One does wonder why the school issued the ticket to both parents...perhaps the man has more control than he is letting on...ie, the mother is not able to attend in an emergency, so the father has volunteered to add his name to their list. Or maybe he didnt add himself, someone else did.

What is a parent...what about the live in lover of the woman with custody?...isnt he/she also a defacto parent too?

[Riedquat]

I recall a spate of news articles about homeowners who had tackled burglars and found themselves on the receiving end of the 'justice system', starting in fairly recent years with the farmer Tony Martin who shot a young burglar who was the latest in a line of people to break into his home.

This seemed to go on for a few years, and then stopped. Mind you I don't read the Daily Mail any more. What happened to cases such as these?

IIRC the Tony Martin case ended up with him guilty because he shot the burglar as he was running away. I think there were a few other cases that pretty well established that fairly hefty defence could be viewed as resonable (which in one or two resulted in a dead burglar) but once it changed to the burglar running then you'd succesfully defended your house so further action was not justified. Perhaps it would be if the burglar was going to return with his friends for a bit of their own revenge for being stopped, but I can't see it being possible to prove that.

[Bossybabe]

I recall a spate of news articles about homeowners who had tackled burglars and found themselves on the receiving end of the 'justice system', starting in fairly recent years with the farmer Tony Martin who shot a young burglar who was the latest in a line of people to break into his home.

This seemed to go on for a few years, and then stopped. Mind you I don't read the Daily Mail any more. What happened to cases such as these?

Perhaps the Tony Martin case was exactly the deterrent burglars needed.

[Bossybabe]

I dont think a jury is an option for appealing a fixed penalty ticket.

One does wonder why the school issued the ticket to both parents...perhaps the man has more control than he is letting on...ie, the mother is not able to attend in an emergency, so the father has volunteered to add his name to their list. Or maybe he didnt add himself, someone else did.

What is a parent...what about the live in lover of the woman with custody?...isnt he/she also a defacto parent too?

Perhaps the mother lacked capacity in the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act.

[Bloo Loo]

Perhaps the mother lacked capacity in the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act.

she was ticketed too. And lacking capacity would mean the kids were in danger...but she did have the capacity of taking them out of school...so she is guilty of the sec1a offence too, failing to keep them attending and knowing about it too.

[Hail the Tripod]

I dont think a jury is an option for appealing a fixed penalty ticket.

One does wonder why the school issued the ticket to both parents...perhaps the man has more control than he is letting on...ie, the mother is not able to attend in an emergency, so the father has volunteered to add his name to their list. Or maybe he didnt add himself, someone else did.

What is a parent...what about the live in lover of the woman with custody?...isnt he/she also a defacto parent too?

The school does not issue the fine. They simply report the "unauthorised absence" to the LEA who then look up the parents details and fine them.

[Bloo Loo]

The school does not issue the fine. They simply report the "unauthorised absence" to the LEA who then look up the parents details and fine them.

will they get a refund the next teachers strike?

[Hail the Tripod]

will they get a refund the next teachers strike?

No, but it seems the school still issue invoices for "voluntary donations" from the parents. Jokers.