NorfolkBoy Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5208864.stm Another great idea down the pan....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trakker01 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 It will be worse,with the new laws...... the ******* know men don't stand up for their say.. WE MUST stand up & be counted..even fathers for justice got criminalised...by the powers be. DON'T be a door matt guys.. If i had a rental car payed for by the company, i would n't scew the same company for petrol to run a second private car..they would tell ya where to go... If your ex- gets another fella, her fella expects to take it all on ,lock stock & barrel,the lot..oh yes.. .. just like the bloke who takes on new missus's kids...he covers the costs..agreed,i ts a must. But they (the *****) want 2 wages to look after 1 set of kids...huh!! (greedy *******) we only get 1 wage & work our nuts off...they want 2 wages to meet their instagator ******* for coffee & do sweet **** all !! i know some(*******) & they do nowt but hassle a partner who cooks,cleans,works his *** off,& sorts the kids whilst the ***** parties (are the guys nutts???) maybe im wrong....don't think so !! your say.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted July 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Ah...touched a nerve there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 and a lot of them will still get away with it, its never been fare, for the ones that have payed the goverment new it was not paying for years so why go on with it.and it still wont work.they will never get all the farthers.same old thing some will pay and others wont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted July 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Quite right Mossy..... Over here in the US each state has its own methodology for tracking down fathers who aren't paying child support. I went to a sporting goods store here in NJ to get a fishing permit, and was asked for my drivers license AND my social security number. When I asked why the clerk needed my SS number he said that the state takes a dim view of parents who have the money to fish but NOT pay child support and the computer alert him if I was "wanted" ..... A bit Big Brother but a good point well made....Unless their poaching of course........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Like all things, there are usually two sides to every argument. No doubt there are situations like trakker01 describes, but I know of quite a few where the husband has left his wife to bring up their children on her own. With no financial support from the husband, the State has to provide, thats means any one of us that pays taxes. I believe child support should be means tested and if the wife finds a new partner and there is a joint income, that should be taken into account when assessing child support payments. Its a very complex issue and each case almost has to be judged on its merits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Like all things, there are usually two sides to every argument. No doubt there are situations like trakker01 describes, but I know of quite a few where the husband has left his wife to bring up their children on her own. With no financial support from the husband, the State has to provide, thats means any one of us that pays taxes. I believe child support should be means tested and if the wife finds a new partner and there is a joint income, that should be taken into account when assessing child support payments. Its a very complex issue and each case almost has to be judged on its merits. good point cranfield but a farther should pay for his child, not a partner. Quite right Mossy..... Over here in the US each state has its own methodology for tracking down fathers who aren't paying child support. I went to a sporting goods store here in NJ to get a fishing permit, and was asked for my drivers license AND my social security number. When I asked why the clerk needed my SS number he said that the state takes a dim view of parents who have the money to fish but NOT pay child support and the computer alert him if I was "wanted" ..... A bit Big Brother but a good point well made....Unless their poaching of course........... and that is a good idear you have over there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the last engineer Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 i agree with you Cranfield each case is different, but am i correct in thinking the local council/dhss/ss dept's have the legal rights to use an outside agency, i.e. debt collection, from what i gather this has been quite the norm over the years, also i have heard the methods used and monetary ammounts have been colossal to the point that many a guy has taken the last dive, making ends meet after courts and ss involvement makes it hard for an average guy to live, i have buddys back home who tell me this is so, i here of casess where there is another guy living in and on the back of the prior husband/father's wage. my own case is my ex is living with a self-unemployed builder, work that one out ( tried shaking his hand once, his neck got in the way oh well), my kids got money from me, i payed my way more over, even to the point of keeping her out of nick also, a friend of mine had the same situation, i was often told of his demise into depression over keeping her,him and the kids sorted. your right mossy, the kids are priority one, the only trouble there is the other partner can take the kids down with them as fast as you like, unfourtunatly your stuck with it as far as i see. Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 The reason for the CSA in the first place, was that the various Social Services Departments were generally inadequate at tracing missing fathers. They saw their priority as paying the benefits, not recouping the money. The CSA has also proved to be inefficient. There were a couple of high profile suicides, where it was claimed the CSA were hounding fathers that had already paid, etc. etc. Completely inadequate administration and management. A friend of my daughter was a "Section Supervisor" at the CSA (each Section covered a geographic area), to say that she is not the sharpest knife in the box, is being kind. She told stories of names and addresses getting mixed up, paperwork getting lost, fathers contacting them wanting to pay and being told that they didn't have a procedure to deal with them. I got the impression she was just happy to get through a day and go home. It was a complete shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Like anything in this country its a lardy shabbily run affair with no real powers, too much red tape and no backing from the top. I used to work for a government department some time ago (not this one) and it will come as no suprise to anyone that it was basically a social club wich also had some important work that needed doing which was getting in the way of the social side. For a lot of the time I am against the government privatising certain things (water companies, rail etc) - in these cases all that happens is service goes to **** in favour of a profit - however in this case I think the only people who could deliver any value to the taxpayer would be an outside company. They would have the drive and motivation to cultivate efficiency and value, given that they would be payed on collections and accuracy among other measures. As has been said though the whole system is a shambles at the moment, the actual ethos behind the organisation is fundamentally flawed. Innocent people harrased, people taking the **** with claims when they don't need the money, fathers who pay twice etc. Means tested, reviewed every six months. There is no way this government is capable of delivering this kind of service, they prove this daily with the immigration service, the passport service, pensions debarcles and the NHS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 i feel so sorry for the kids its not there fault,they did not ask to be born, and they should be looked after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trakker01 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 the majority of fathers will take the flak from a so called"lovin wife" & his family is No.1..as the vous say " for better or worse" ... do the women understand this??? wish it could be said for the majority of mothers who don't care less...cash comes FIRST..to them..& there soap opera life & so its the mens fault for taking someone elses troubles on !! & the cycle goes on,& on & on>>> as luck had it i never married, but have 3 sets of great kids... phew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the last engineer Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Like anything in this country its a lardy shabbily run affair with no real powers, too much red tape and no backing from the top. For a lot of the time I am against the government privatising certain things (water companies, rail etc) - in these cases all that happens is service goes to **** in favour of a profit - however in this case I think the only people who could deliver any value to the taxpayer would be an outside company. They would have the drive and motivation to cultivate efficiency and value, given that they would be payed on collections and accuracy among other measures. thats the thing that worries me, having been told that some mothers (single now or otherwise) can go back up to 15 years for backpay/maintanence dont you think this can give a disgruntled person the ability to make things hell, and giving this collection to a company that works on a bonus style payoff, like giving the french cops 10% of all traffic offence fines given out back in the 80's when i drove the continent. just my thoughts Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 10 years ago the “Bitch from hell†walked out on my lad, leaving him with 2 little girls to look after. She moved in with a flash ba****d and had a good time living the life of Riley. My lad had a call from the CSA demanding money from him and it took several phone calls before the dim-wit on the other end of the phone actually grasped that HE had the kids and SHE had all the money. In the meanwhile they were demanding a lump sum of over £2,000 from him, payable within 2 weeks. Just for a laugh he asked if he was entitled to claim from her………the said “Dim-wit†didn’t have a clue about fathers claiming from wealthy mothers and told him he would have to make a claim…..but she didn’t know how. Now my youngest lad has the same problem only this time his ex took the kids and has a live-in lover who has a bloody good job and buys her anything she wants. Still didn’t stop her from calling the CSA for more money from my lad who has a poor paying job and actually has the girls for 3 days a week. Fortunately the claim was stopped when she discovered that he could counter-claim from her. The whole thing is a shambles from start to end, and has cost 10 times more to administer than it would have cost to pay the mothers out of government coffers. Still…….this government likes to spend our money on “White-Elephants†doesn’t it…. G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 The whole thing is a shambles from start to end, and has cost 10 times more to administer than it would have cost to pay the mothers out of government coffers. That's the core point - I read somewhere that it cost £6 for the CSA to collect £1 (and mostly they went with full force after soft targets - policemen, servicemen etc). The government has just cottoned on that the CSA was another crappy bit of knee jerk implementation from the government of white elephant and sound bite policies. The problem with labour is that they just don't think anything through and the problem with government departments is that they just do not operate in the same world as erm the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 It is also very craftily timed, imho. This is taking some of the sting out of the current political hot topics - lest we forget cash for peerages and the shambles of the immigration service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 they will not get them all,a lot will still get away with it,because there is so many to get,they are just tacken the pxxs out of the goverment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Nothing stopping you giving the child your surname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Im geting married in 10 days, is this a bad omen Im only doing it because we want a kid and I want it to have 2 parents and 1 surname. I must be old fashioned? Nothing old fashioned about wanting to be a normal family Fister. Best of luck for the future and I hope you have a couple of wonderful kids. I have 5 grand kids and one on the way and I reckon they have kept me young. G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darebear Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 this whole world is a useless messed up place (grrrr i HATE censorship ~ i could have done with a few swear words in there ). revolution is what it will take to bring it down. and until people stop being pussies and doormats, we arent going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Unfortunately it seems that once again it's the honest law abiding types who get screwed by the laws that be. They're easy targets and because they toe the line, ( I discovered the origins of that a couple of days ago, but another day ), they can more often than be nobbled at source. I've got so many mates at work who have to do so much overtime just to keep their heads above water. The pressure they're under is ridiculous and bloody unfair. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darebear Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 i totally agree pedro. and on the other hand, i have a lot of friends who dont bother chasing down the useless sod who abandoned their families because they want nothing to do with them. this world sucks. c'est la vie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.