CSA reduces non-compliance cases

November 8, 2010

New statistics unveiled by the Child Support Agency have revealed that between January and September 2010, the organisation collected almost £1.5 million in maintenance.

These figures mark an upward trend in the level of money recouped by the CSA, and the increased cash flow means the Child Support Agency is now able to support 260,000 more children than it could five years ago.

According to the report, three quarters of parents that are liable to pay maintenance met the demand during the last quarter, matching the Child Support Agency’s targets in that area. However, the rate of compliance is down slightly on the start of the year, when more than 80% of parents made the required payment.

Although there is still a multi-billion pound deficit to be collected by the CSA, that overall figure has been reduced in 2010 by £21 million, with the Child Support Agency dedicating more than a third of its employees to focussing on non-compliant parents from throughout the organisation’s history.

Stephen Geraghty, the Child Maintenance Commissioner, warned that although non-compliance cases are falling, parents should look to make a private agreement before turning to the CSA.

“All parents are free to make their own maintenance arrangements if they are able to. While more people are using the much-improved CSA, separated parents should first consider a private arrangement on mutually agreed terms. This more collaborative sharing of financial responsibility is often better for parents and better for their children. The Child Maintenance Options service is ready with information and support to help parents decide what’s best for them.”

Comments

35 Responses to “CSA reduces non-compliance cases”

  1. Karl Garrett on November 8th, 2010 8:06 pm

    I would love a “private agreement” but then I’d just get blamed for manipulation & have Damocles sword hanging over my head all the time :-(….instead I just get raped for cash to the point of being unable to do anything…whats the fecking point of living 🙁

  2. John on November 8th, 2010 11:18 pm

    I’m with you Karl. Who do these people like geraghty think that they are GOD? What happens between me and my ex-wife and my children is absolutely NOTHING to do with these people, who are on £300,000 a year of taxpayers money, and they are ‘banging the drum’ as if they are the ‘sheriff of brokenjaw’!

    Lets put it from another perspective. The CSA is impoverisng parents and filling the Government coiffeurs up on the pretext of raisng children out of poverty, whilst criminalising the childrens non resident parents., by taking 60% of their income from them, because they have all ready paid tax and N.I contributions and are having more money stolen from them

    Who do they think that they are kidding?

    The muppets who are running this debacle are interested in 3 things only.
    1) Their salaries
    2) Their bonuses
    3) Their gold plated pensions.

    It is costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to run and is a complete an utter shambles.

    When Geraghty and co get the boot I hope they remember this film sequence!

    As Maximus Decimus Meridius said to Commodus in Gladiator ” the time for honouring yourself will soon be at an end”!

    Spouting about the success of impoverising decent people is the lowest of the low Geraghty, and I hope that you soon see the wrath of the public and politicians alike!

  3. Laura Maybey on November 9th, 2010 1:55 am

    What a load of old s**t!!

  4. Lee Hughes on November 9th, 2010 3:13 am

    All parents are free to make their own maintenance arrangements if they are able to…..ABSOLUTE LIE, only the PWC has the choice!!!

  5. Richard Murray on November 9th, 2010 5:25 am

    Totaly true !!!!!!

  6. Jason Wallace on November 9th, 2010 6:09 am

    Sounds like a good bit of PR in that press release. To tout a drop from 80% to 75% as success is interesting – it would seem that i'n dedicating a third of their staff they have increased the amount of money from one group while letting another fall through the net.

  7. chall on November 9th, 2010 8:20 am

    ”Total arrears of unpaid maintenance, accrued over the entire 17-year life of the Agency, fell by £21 million to £3.775 billion over the year to September. Around 35% of the Agency’s workforce is now deployed on pursuing non-compliant cases after an additional 400 people were recently assigned to pursuing historic arrears.”

    Ironic if they are deeming ALL arrears accrued over the agencies 17 year life spam, as being due to client non-compliance.
    The agency do not keep records and are unable to produce separate figures for non-compliance arrears, as opposed to arrears accrued due to agency maladministration, delays and errors.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  8. Susan Ward on November 9th, 2010 8:28 am

    They are talking crap as usual, and using illegal tatics to get the money by threats.they do not care about the well being of children they want to look as though they are doing a great job pathetic. If they really cared about the well being of children why do they not take into second families? They state they do but they don't. They do not get intouch for over 5yrs and THEN seek a liabilty order saying they have tried to resolve it???? Circumstances change my husband's have but they are not interested and today we find out at court what is going to happen. They told us not to go BUT WE ARE.Why should my daughter suffer just cos his ex was a bitter lying cow.How can they seek a liabilty order when they have made no effort to sort it out, Told us have we anything we can sell??? My husband says he is going to leave me and our daughter if things go wrong today, He paid for his other daughter his ex was alright with all the money and bills he paid…….Then she found out about me and then she got the csa involved saying i will F****** ruin you. OF course its a fair system……. Fair for the poor pwc.

  9. Kevin Cottrell on November 9th, 2010 8:29 am

    A private arrangement is a good idea because it gives the NRP a chance to budget what he can afford and still support his children/new family/himself.But in many cases the PWC will get the CSA involved as a means to put the NRP into hardship and hurt them, and then use this as an excuse to withhold contact.Stephen Geraghty should spend a week looking through the net for the direct and indirect cruelty that the CSA are causing our children, i'm sure he has plenty of time has he seems to be doing f**k all else

  10. Lorraine Moore on November 9th, 2010 10:13 am

    You really have to understand what they consider 'non compliance'…as even an NRP who was regularly paying maintenance will be put on the non compliance list if they dare argue a case..

  11. Phil Lee on November 9th, 2010 12:51 pm

    What tosh – the PWC has the final say full stop. The CSA should be able to kick out those PWC who don't need the money but use the CSA to hound their ex – bitter n twisted people who live in the past use the CSA as they can't move on and NOTHING to do with poverty – what a load of complete bullshieser…

  12. John on November 9th, 2010 12:55 pm

    I agree. Whoopee £21 million. That will pay for M.P.’s expenses, Civil servant salaries and bonuses for 3 months.

    I believe that they cannot use liability orders to enforce arrears prior to 2000, as the legislation was not in place at that time. Statutory time scales may apply.

  13. Peter Anderson on November 9th, 2010 2:07 pm

    What report is this from, as I want to quote it to my MP? What rubbish is spoken by Stephen Geraghty “All parents are free to make their own maintenance arrangements if they are able to." No, No, No! We have a court order, that has always been paid, but the CSA refuses to comply with the order and insists on attacking me and stealing both my and my children's money!

  14. Peter Anderson on November 9th, 2010 2:14 pm

    "Although there is still a multi-billion pound deficit to be collected by the CSA". Rubbish, most of this is ficticious arrears. According to the Auditor General, 55% of all maintenance assessments were incorrect in the financial year 2004/2005.Then there was a total debt of £1,413 million which the Auditor General said was overstated by £46.0 million. Anyone know what the current figures are, especially the collectable, possibly collectable and uncollectable?

  15. Lee Hughes on November 9th, 2010 2:35 pm

    With the removal of any great financial incentive going forward, it is quite obvious they will go after the arrears prior to them winding down the CSA. What would interest me is whether they are prioritising 'arrears' that are allegedly due to the SofS first?

  16. Peter Anderson on November 9th, 2010 3:18 pm

    I believe that they've just sent out computer generated letters to everyone with arrears on the old computer, irrespective of how old they are or whether they were paid up years ago. See earlier cases on CsaHell. Many people can just write back saying that the arrears are completely fictitious and don't comply with the 6 year rule. Then, they are following them up with threats of Liability Orders which can be defended by saying the arrears are fictitious and asking for a complete breakdown of the arrears and stating that if they choose to go to court you want it transferred to your local court. Then if they send a letter saying its going to court, write directly to the court concerned detailing you've already asked for the breakdown, which they've been unable to provide, and ask for the case to be transferred to your local court. The CSA will then withdraw the case.

  17. Lorraine Moore on November 9th, 2010 4:49 pm

    I believe the fact that they have prioritised arrears owing to the SOS is pretty obvious Lee..considering the amount of PWCs I know who are not on benefits and are still waiting for a MEGA amount of arrears to be paid. The whole thing is a complete scandal, and of course as you know has nothing to do with child maintenance or poverty levels, eh?

  18. Busylizzy on November 9th, 2010 4:57 pm

    I agree with all above. But, me thinks , how is it now after all these years they suddenly collect all this money, regardless of from whom or by what means ( by fair means or foul) do I see rats preparing to leave a sinking ship so feathering nests ready for when they hit those cold icy waters when they have to finally become members of the real world! Brings to mind certain poloticians in recent years…………who grew up into fat cats. Seems history may well be repeating it self? We shal see as time will tell and ALL is finally revealed. Until then as they say “Softly, softly, catchie monkey”

  19. Brokenfather on November 9th, 2010 6:05 pm

    John.

    I belive the Statutory Limitations do not apply to CSA debt. It is deemed equivalent to a Court fine when you have been convicted of a crime. It cannot be extinguished by bankruptcy either.

    I belive the CSA are however barred from using the courts for debts accrued before a certain date, 2003 I think but don’t hold me to it. That means that they cant use a liability order or seek withdrawal of passports, driving licences etc.

    Regarding the debt reduction. Less than 1% in a year huh, so we will all be dead and most likely our children too before they collect it all ………

  20. John on November 9th, 2010 7:20 pm

    Thanks for clarification brokenfather. From my experiences including tribunals, they have you stitched up all ways, if you don’t know the game in the tribunal.

    My last case involved the CSA hiring the presiding officer who gave the adjudication. Needless to say my appeal failed as in his words ” I have no jurisdiction regarding arrears”. Utter Bull–it. A DEO soon followed for £300 a month because of CSA mistakes with my case.

    I am currently at the Camerons office, with a suitably worded letter. My M.P. is in on the act, as well as the PHSO. I have been sent down so many ‘blind’ alleys and been thwarted by so much corruption, that I am determined to have this lot one way or another.

    If I ever came across enough money to challenge them in the high courts and the European courts I would. Not just for me but for us all.

    It would only take a landmark ruling to open the floodgates!

  21. Lee Hughes on November 9th, 2010 10:19 pm

    I don't have first hand knowledge but clearly you do Lorraine. Are they actually planning on implementing the proposed maintenance structure of CMEC but actually running it from within the DWP? I rather wish they would take a look at the legislation that governs maintenance but I fear that I am going to be disappointed!

  22. Chall Mod on November 9th, 2010 11:54 pm

    Ironic if they are deeming ALL arrears accrued over the agencies 17 year life span, as being due to client non-compliance.The agency do not keep records and are unable to produce separate figures for non-compliance arrears, as opposed to arrears accrued due to agency maladministration, delays and errors.

  23. Lorraine Moore on November 10th, 2010 1:17 am

    You probably will Lee..just like the rest of us! I haven't a clue, as anything is possible and we know they appear to be totally above the law in most respects. I don't really have first hand knowledge..honestly, who really does with this '…organisation'? all I know is that it is basically illegal to run several systems at the same time, which is what they have been doing for years. it's discriminatory & unjust.It is also discriminatory & unjust to allow some clients 60 years + to pay arrears, when others (SOS cases, obviously) have the '2 year rule' imposed on them…which of course is NOT a rule at all..just a guide that case workers are told to bully into clients.

  24. John on November 10th, 2010 2:18 pm

    Can I also ask you if there are any statutory time scales with regard to me bringing a case against them in the future. I have until 2014 before my ‘alleged’ liabilty ceases.

    As soon as I am able, I will bring a ‘well funded’ case, but it may be after 2014. Nevertheless, my intentions are to pursue the CSA for the return of ALL of my payments, plus interest and damages on the basis of discrimination, as they are allowing others to fail to pay and my case would also be based upon the fact that I have all ready paid into the benefit system through taxes. Why am I being asked to pay again?

  25. Brokenfather on November 10th, 2010 4:26 pm

    But that’s not discrimination, it’s incompetence!

    To claim the state should pay for your children because you have paid taxes wont win you any friends or legal arguments I fear.

  26. John on November 10th, 2010 5:40 pm

    I take your point, but somewhat disagree. The reason being is that as a result of this incompetence thousands of those who under the ‘letter of the law’ should have paid have had their paymnets written off. £40 million in Northern Ireland alone is deemed to be uncollectable! The reason that £3.77 billion has not been collected aside from incompetence is that figure also reflects Billions as uncollectable!

    However, I have had my parental rights of providing finances for my children removed from me, by the use of ‘stalin style’ statute laws. This does not make it right or proper. I was not consulted. I have not agreed to this course of action.

    Enforcement is NOT my choice I have paid under the current system, and we all know they are incompetent. It is as a result of their incompetence that I am being criminalised by their methods of imposing enforcement to my case, whilst other will never pay!

    The children do not belong to the state! If I can put a case together that would prove that I have been deprived of my Human and Civil rights as a parent, and also prove that there are thousands who have not paid and will never be asked to pay, then I believe there would be a case to answer.

    There has to be a way of getting this ‘tested’ in the courts. How can it be lawful to penalise the few and let the many off?

  27. Thomas Annetts on November 10th, 2010 5:58 pm

    how much was the wage bill how many people had to give up there job how many lost there home how many relationships ruined how many have they killed between january and september????????????

  28. Brokenfather on November 10th, 2010 7:02 pm

    Interesting argument that your human rights to provide for your children have been removed, but it is only valid if the Goverment keeps the CM they collect from you. Is that what happens in your case?

    If not the Government will argue they are simply a collecting agent and you have directly supported your children because what they collect they pay to the mother. Of course you can then argue that they dont actually make any assessments or checks that the money they pay to the mother is actually spent on the children so how can they prove their argument.

    I completely agree with your basic principle though, that people make children not Governments, and it is for people to sort out their own finances not the Government. Courts should be used where agreement cannot be reached, and not ‘one size fits all’ legislation which clearly doesn’t.

  29. Brokenfather on November 10th, 2010 7:06 pm

    The other problem with Human Rights arguments, is that not all peoples Human Rights are considered equal. The Human Rights legislation clearly states you have the right to a family life, but the Courts regularly fail to enforce that where a mother wants to exclude the father.

  30. John on November 11th, 2010 2:17 pm

    Email sent to local Members of the European Parliament. At least it will be on record, even if they choose to ignore me.

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am emailing you with regard to the ‘Shambolic’ system of Child Maintenance in the UK. I will explain why?

    I am/have been ‘what is said to be’ a non resident parent for two children. My ex-wife would not agree to a financial settlement of maintenance from me, and involved the CSA. I paid what was required of me at that time. in the meantime, I was left to raise a son on my own. He had disowned his mother. I counter claimed for child support fromk my ex-wife, only to be told by the CSA that my ex-wife had a nil assessment. Leaving me to pay for all three children from my income, whilst my ex-wife was allowed to evade her responibilty by the CSA. I did receive money two and half years later from her, only because I persisted.

    I have had contact with the CSA/CMEC since 2000. 10 years. During the first 5 years, I had to complain repeatedly, as the CSA were making mistakes with my case, to the point of acting illegally. I used complaints proceedures which found 15 errors with my case 5 of which were serious, bordering on criminal. I received a small amount of compensatory payments, and was given an assurance by the executive that the handling of my case would improve.

    In 2009, my non resident, middle son reached the age of 19. I wrote to the CSA and informed tham that my liability should end for him. The reply I got was an absolute ‘bombshell’. I was informed that as a result of further incompetence by the CSA I owed £6400 in maintenance. A scandal! I appealed this to a tribunal in November 2010, whereby the CSA ‘planted’ a local solicitor named Godfrey Freeman, as the panel adjudicator. He was employed by the CSA and had absolutely no impartiality whatsover, and dismissed my case stating ” I have no jurisdiction regarding arrears “. Yet another scandal!

    I attempted to negotiate payment with the CSA, who would not listen to my concerns about being thrust into debt. What came next was another ‘scandalous bombshell’! The CSA approached my pay department with a deduction of earnings order for £300 per month. This I believe was done unlawfully, as the ‘alleged’ debt was not negotiated.

    I involved my M.P. who did assist for a while, but then washed his hands of my case, stating ” Parliamentary protocol prevents me from acting on your case”! Another scandal! I was directed to the Parlimentary Ombudsman office, with what I believed was a ‘rock solid’ case of maladministration and unfairness. The PHSO, joined the rest and washed their hands of my case. There was an obvious element of corruption and collusion between, the CSA, my M.P. and the PHSO office!

    More recently, I have written to Nick Clegg, and David Cameron, both of whom have not even had the courtesey to reply. What great democratic values these people have?

    I am not attempting to avoid my financial responsibility. I am asking to be given the right for me to make those decisions, and not be bullied and criminalised by incompetent civil servants, who acting ‘like an out of control bunch of wheelclampers’!

    To conclude. I would ask that you raise my case in the European parliament on the basis of the following.

    1) I am being denied my basic Human Rights and Civil Liberties, in not having my case heard properly with free legal representation.I have right to family life. It is for me to provide financial support for my children and NOT a Politician an Executive or an office clerk.

    2) The UK has failed to collect £3.77 billion pounds in maintenance from those who have sought to evade their responsibilities. In Northern Irelenad the CSA have written off £40 million pounds as uncollectable. Why am I being treated differently.

    3) This system is flawed, where it discriminates and criminalises the ones who do pay and ‘lets off’ the ones who do not pay or those who have never paid. How can this be fair and just?

    4) My intentions are to have my case raised at the European Parliament as it is in the Public interest to have this flawed system abolished on the ground of Human rights, Civil Liberties being infringed and also discrimination.

    5) I have all ready paid into the UK tax system for 37 years, money that pays for benefits and other government finances. Why am I being asked to pay again? Therefore, 60% of my income has been taken from me over the last 10 years. It is disproportionate to my earning capacity, and is thrusting me into debt.

    I respectfully ask that you give thought to my comments and where possible provide information to me, that would enable me to further my case through the European parliament and The European court of Human Rights. If need be I will attend Parliament and discuss my disturbing experience regarding the shambles known as Child Support Agency/ Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

  31. D McKeever on November 11th, 2010 10:57 pm

    So, Stephen Geraghty head of The CSA / CMEC is talking about freedom, is he? That’s like being given a lecture on logic, reason and spelling from George W Bush.

    Firstly, ‘private agreements’ were not introduced because of any inherent desire of politicians/civil servants to help parents and children, but rather as a desperate attempt to shore up the utterly appalling CSA/CMEC: it was about the protection and sustenance of political/civil service careers, not the appropriate use of public trust and public money. It also goes without saying that it had nothing to do with the support of children.

    Owing to its legendary egregious negligence / incompetence, and breathtakingly still in existence in 2006, The CSA was sinking under the weight of its own failure: it could not service its caseload. Seizing the opportunity presented to them by the disgraced former chief executive of Liverpool City Council, ‘Sir” David Henshaw, cynically, the politicians and civil servants responsible for this appalling catastrophe considered that, if they simply slowed the conveyor belt of grief down a bit, they might somehow be able to claim that they were on top of their game. Et voila: success! It’s a bit like as would be the case should (as I’m sure he has) ‘Sir’ Fred Goodwin crow about the ‘much-improved’ RBS and how this had happened because, when he retired on his measly £600k-a-year pension, paid for with taxpayer’s money as reward for his, and his friends (including, obviously, lots of politicians and civil servants), having brought the British economy to its knees, he left it a lean, mean, customer-service dream. Clearly, you have to ignore all that inconvenient stuff about the history of eye-watering, catastrophic failure and the fact that, should they have been required by their, severely-embarrassed, duck-house-buying political paymasters to live by the rules they demand of others but don’t apply to themselves / their hired thugs, left to the wit of people like ‘Sir’ fred Goodwin, and/or Stephen Geraghty ‘Order of the British Empire:Commander’, both RBS and The CSA would have been consigned to the dustbin of history over a decade ago. But should you choose to ignore fact and reality, RBS – and its sister in the catastrophic misappropriation of public money, The CSA/CMEC – were/are a jolly old roaring success.

    Secondly, to say, as Geraghty does, that ‘all parents are free to agree amongst themselves’ is like saying that all people are free to agree – including in those instances when they are confronted by an aggressive, heavily-armed and worryingly-out-of-control mugger – as to who helps themselves to whose cash. It can be written out as a perfectly grammatical sentence… but beyond that, obviously it bears no relationship to the real world. And that is before we consider the fact that The CSA/CMEC will, because of the nature of what it does – jack-boot its way into the lives of separated/separating couples – have on its books a disproportionate number of people to whom no-one in their right mind would hand the power of a state-run protection racket because, obviously, when people split up, not always, but in many instances, that’s because they have fallen out. Now witness Geraghty’s logic: to ONE OF THE PARTIES ONLY – lets use the short-hand and call them a ‘vengeful, venal, spite-ridden lunatic’ (indeed, an ideal candidate for a job at The CSA/CMEC, you might say) – he hands the opportunity to unleash in their former, and now very-much-despised, ex-partner’s world (and that of his/her children, too) the entire weight of the most life-eviscerating, soul-destroying, Orwellian nightmare to stalk the homes of any western democracy since the end of The Second World War… and claims that that represents a ‘free’ choice open to all concerned. The Taliban would blush.

    Thirdly, because of the way The Child Support Act 1991 is designed to operate, money is awarded NOT to CHILDREN, but TO ADULTS. So in addition to giving them the kind of vengeance-providing machinery they could only dream about, to the spited ex-spouse, The CSA/CMEC also hands an enormous financial incentive (I appreciate that this is, given The CSA/CMEC’s legendary incompetence, not often processed, but the logic of incentive still applies). Fear not, however, because as Geraghty has told us – or to be more precise, told his Sun/Daily Mail-reading, truth-denying constituency – that ‘private agreements’ represent an agreement between equals and, therefore (!), The CSA/CMEC ONLY become involved should the parties, on their level playing field as they are, not be able to reach an amicable agreement… at which point The CSA/CMEC draw batons, take sides and proceed to destroy the lives, hopes and dreams of the perfectly reasonable… and their children… for an entire generation… and still… unbelievably… counting.

  32. John on November 12th, 2010 7:38 pm

    Reply from MEP and my reply to him!

    Thank you for your email. Unfortunately I cannot raise individual cases in the European Parliament and if you wanted to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, (which has nothing to do with the European Parliament) you have to go through the legal system in the UK before they will look at your case. I can only suggest that you seek assistance from a solicitor as this is a legal matter. I can forward you the forms for the ECHR if you wish to pursue this course of action.

    My reply.

    Thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately I am unable to use legal services as the CSA has cast me into debt and I cannot afford it. I would be loathe to part with any money any way to the legal fraterenity!

    The only reason that this matter is a legal matter, is because our elected representatives have chosen to put this ‘shambolic’ legislation on the statute book in the first instance, and the actual system itself is extremely poorly run and in my opinion has no place whatsoever in society. £3.77 billion pounds uncollected. That is discrimination.

    Criminalsing and Impoversing decent people is an absolute disgrace! It is for me to make financial provision for my children. Not a Politician an Executive or a grade 2 clerk!

    Would you please provide a name and address within the Europen Parliament of a representative who will listen and take up my case. If needs be I will attend Brussels and discuss this matter with a delegate.

    In view of the fact that I am paying my bit to prop up the EU, and have a genuine grievance regarding this ‘flawed’ system, it is only right and proper that my concerns should be listend to and acted upon.

    I am also waiting with others, for legislation regarding the power of recall with regard to my M.P.

  33. Patty on December 9th, 2010 11:15 pm

    Keep it up John , this is a truly noble aim to bring this criminal goverment institution to an end! I would suggest you go public- go to all the media outlets and make the case that you cannot have responsibilities without the rights and vice versa and expose the goverment corruption . Get a petition organised to dismantle the CSA once and for all so that you have the people’s support. There has to be a balance in law for anything to be sustainable. The sleeping masses need to be woken up and realise the truth behind the lies of goverment ‘family’ policies. There exists no sure way of paying for the child that would ensure that money was only for the child and not so that it could be abused as a tool by the resident parent to exploit the non- resident parent for money. For example if the money were to be paid into a Child Trust Fund account that would ensure that it is the child that will benefit and not anyone else including goverment tax collecting agency . Infact as only the child would be able to access that once they come of age , that money would come in very neccessary given the recent goverment decision to raise tution fees and cut uni funding. If only they(MP’s , CSA) truly cared about the children welfare they would they see the merits in this but no, they care only about justifying the presence of such corrupt front companies to generate funds for their parlimentary perks and privileges .How else can ‘these servants of the public ‘ maintain their elite status without the public paying for their luxuries ? If they’re ‘public’ ‘representatives ‘ they would only be credible if the used ‘public’ transport and used ‘public housing’ and lived the lifestyle of the public and used public services . Otherwise whats the point of a democracy when whoever gets elected then gets laws passed to enable them to behave like an autocratic ruler and hoodwink & brow beat the public?

    What you have is a Hypocrisy , not a Democracy! With laws being interpreted so arbitrarily , that come and go with fashion and are not based on human values and norms, with Judges acting as God and being answerable and accountable to no-one, with lawyers being self regulating when 99% of them are self -serving(thats why so many politicians are lawyers), with their friends the bankers, financiers and big businessmen all in the same game of patronage and favours- the governing system is a total farce! They treat the public with contempt and it shows! Its time for a revolution and that will only come about when 1)the truth is let out 2), there is a boycott of what is unjust and 3) an alternative which is fair and recognises eternal principles of human co-existance.

  34. John on December 11th, 2010 1:51 pm

    Thanks Patty!

    For example, the student get ‘stitched up’ with £9000 worth of debt if they want to go to Uni. They protest and Cameron blames the students. Not himself or other politicians, not the police handling of the matter. He blames the very people who put him and others in power, in our supposedly democratic parliament.

    They will reap what they have sewn and without inciting any one or any further violence (please note-to cover my back). I predict large scale unrest in the UK. I think we have all had enough and we are at a crisis point.

    Overtaxed fuel-petrol/deisel/gas/electricity. VAT up to 20%, Benefits wrongly withdrawn and dumbed down for the most vulnerable and our so called elected representatives, stealing taxpayers money from us, making promises and then breaking them, and telling us all what is good for us whilst they self ingratiate themselves in their own little club.

    The time for honouring themselves will soon be at an end, when they are thrown out of their cushy positions for acts of betrayal!

    They are put there to serve us, but they are seeing fit to serve themselves and very few of them are worth a carrot!

    As Churchill said in battle. “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

  35. bitterpil on July 6th, 2011 8:49 am

    I agree that in some circumstances fathers are given a raw deal by the CSA ..but nobody is taking into account that there are numerous men that refuse to pay for their children for reasons of spite against the mother. In my case my sons father owns a house outright has 4 holidays a year and a monthly income half the size of my yearly and wants to pay me next to nothing…in case it helps my other child i had before we met. I didnt have a child to access a large income just to have a family and do not see why i should bring up our child up on peanuts while he sips martini on a beach. ??? and two people caused the breakup.. so my sons not paying for being born and if men dont want to pay for kids the keep it zipped up because kids are not free to raise.

Got something to say?