Justice Giveth, then It Taketh Away

Eldest Son, who was caught fare-dodging on the buses, had to go to court on 15th January.  Being as he was Guilty as Sin Charged, we filled in the paperwork, and posted it off to The Court.

Got the verdict back today.  Even though we pointed out that a) we gave him money for the bus and b) he is a student and has NO FUCKING MONEY, The Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided to charge him £100 – exactly the compensation awarded Youngest yesterday.

Well, Eldest Son, looks like you are gonna learn painting and decorating, and general household maintenance to pay off your debt.  Either that, or get a job.

He is lucky though – he has been kicked out of college, got back into college on a very minimal course, and then (thanks to Husband and his polemic) got taken back into college for two full days to complete at least Part A of his course, with the option to take Part B of the course anytime over the next 5 years.  And he (Eldest) was genuinely pleased at this – I think the realisation that people do get kicked out of colleege with no qualifications was an eye-opener for him.

Advertisements

About bookmole
I am pro-choice. You make yours, I'll make mine, okay?

6 Responses to Justice Giveth, then It Taketh Away

  1. RedScylla says:

    It's like some kind of crazy Monkey's Paw thing. Get a $100, lose a $100. (I mean pounds of course, but I can't find how to get that symbol out of my American keyboard.)Also, it's true what they say about boys maturing much later than girls, isn't it? Fare-dodging…

  2. Red Pen says:

    Maybe Youngest should loan the money to Eldest at a reasonable interest rate. Funny how these things work out.

  3. Holly says:

    But only if youngest wants to.
    Here's the thing: Is eldest legally an adult? If so, then you're not obligated to pay his fine for him, right? Can he work out a schedule of payments through the Court, or is it all due right now or risk jail time? (I recall a civil case where a minor child was held liable for his own torts, but could not be compelled to pay money he didn't have – nor could his parents be compelled to pay, since he was the one who acted and was found to know what he was doing and to understand the wrongness of it. So no one could collect a dime until he turned 18, and then there was some kind of schedule worked out, as I recall. But, that was civil, not criminal, and it was in the U.S.

  4. if they would JUST listen to us…but no

  5. I would not want to revisit this stage of life for ANYTHING! He'll figure it out. Sounds like he's got the right stuff from you and 'husband'.

  6. Bookmole says:

    In reply to you all:

    Monkeys Paw – that was what I was trying to think of; all I could manage was what goes round, comes round and that didn't seem to fit.

    Youngest would no more lend Eldest money that I could fly to the moon. Eldest has a dreadful history of non-payment of loans.

    He is legally an adult, and liable. So the bailiffs won't be round for our stuff.

    Listen – you must be joking. That would imply we had some chance of being right. With Eldest, that is not something he wants to think.

    And we discovered he has some money, squirrelled away. So he has to withdraw £100 from however much it is (more than that, apparently!) to cover his fine.And they will grow.

    Dear god, please – let them grow. I am not sure how much more of teenage boy-ness I can cope with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: