David Cameron’s biased towards women and the CSA

July 23, 2011

The original Child Support Agency scheme gained most of its impetus from Margaret Thatcher’s discovery that the fathers of children whose mothers were receiving income support were getting away without paying maintenance.

‘Absent Fathers’ were, and still are demonised through the media creating justification for the government to bring in laws that seek to punish them rather than rectify any anomalies or fairness in law regarding their access to their own children.

The CSA seek out easy targets they can find and apply the legislation punitively to maximise their own income targets, regardless of the welfare of the absent parent or the sometimes tenuous contact with their child.

Fathers are driven out of their jobs, their homes and even contact with their children by these tyrants who abuse the legislation once they have an easy target with an address and a salary.

Cameron and his government claim that fathers who abandon their families should be ‘stigmatised’ in the same way as drink-drivers – without seeing that ‘families’ are a far more complicated issue than his own. His claims that ‘runaway dads’ are ‘beyond the pale’ and should be made to feel the ‘full force of shame’ for their actions, are part of the demonisation of male parents who’s children cannot be with them. His comments are deeply sexist and offensive.

Issues such as the rights of access of fathers to their children are still mostly ignored or glossed over. The ‘law’ seems to demonstrate again and again that the ‘possession’ of a child of separated parents defaults to the mother – even if she has clearly demonstrated her ability to create an income through serially excommunicating fathers from contact with their offspring.



  • John says:

    Excellent piece! Yet, politicians still want to Criminalise and Persecute fathers who do pay for their children. As you say, people who do pay, are repeatedly targeted!

    It is for parents to make financial provision for their children. NOT a politician, NOT a ‘bonus seeking’ civil servant or ‘fat cat’ Executive! These people are on performance related pay, so it’ s easier to go after those caught up in this shambolic in the system! Surviving, to get to their gold plated pensions, at any cost!

    If I had the money, I would be heading through UK Judicial process and onward to the European courts in order to finally stick a nail in the coffin, of the ‘shambolic’, ‘not fit for’ purpose, disgrace known as CSA/CMEC to free all the victims of the oppressive and represive thugs in government!

    I hope that one day there will be a succesful challenge to the UK government, enabling all CSA victims to reclaim their money, plus interest and compensation!

  • karen bedford says:

    Actually your statement is biased! As there are many mothers (pwc) who suffer to due to absent fathers – but absent fathers who do not want to support their children and do whatever they can to not pay, thats who your ‘beef’ should be towards as you and other fathers who support their children suffer due to them aswell as the CSA being incompetent and their policies being unfair to both parties, its the ones who ‘work the system to their own advantage’ who you should target this towards.

  • John says:

    That’s not strictly true! As a long term taxpayer, I know that I am paying into a system that provides money for benefits, housing, education, health etc,etc.

    So! Where the PWC claims income support or other benefits, the NRP has all ready paid into the system to facilitate the payment of those benefits.

    What the government is doing is double-whammying, the NRP, by taking money from them not once but twice. Once by way of taxation and secondly by way of maintenance.

    My ex-wife is all ready wealthy in her right. She had a high divorce settlement pay out. (and she was the adulteress)…….and yet the CSA keep coming back to me for more and more.

    I don’t know what benefits (if any) she claims. All that I know is that I being ‘scammed’ by the government, and a bitter ex who can’t get her own way all of the time!

    It is for me to make provision for my children. Not a Politician, Not a Civil Servant or an Executive. ME!

    All that this divisive, shambles is achieving, is alienation of parents with children, because of a government that is throwing taxpayers money away to all unsundry, and then looking for victims in order to scam them so that they pay even more tax into the system!

  • My experience was to pay 4 times over, not twice. I paid my taxes until the CSA drove me out of a hard-won career with an overestimated DOE, I made payments in purchases to my ex which were disregarded as there were no receipts, I was sometimes the parent with care but the expense of that was ignored as it was under 90 days and made payments to the CSA when they took pretty much all my salary. They left me with £11 a week to get to work and the cost was £25 a week – which was disregarded because the first 150 miles a week didn’t count. ‘Protected income’ is a total myth. The CSA / CMEC have been given too much power to track down ‘wayward fathers’ and they totally abuse it by using the legislation punitively on easy targets. The courts aid them in this extortion by denying fathers the basic civil right of defending themselves against miscalculated liability orders.

  • John says:

    Totally agree. I am a believer in what comes around, goes around, and if and when there is a succesful legal challenge to the Government and CSA thieves, I will be asking for repayment of all my money paid to date, plus interest and compensation.

    I swear, that If I ever have a financier or I have money to throw at this myself, I will use it on legal processes and expose the autocratic morons for what they are!

    I will also be asking for criminal proceeding s to be brought against the Government and Executive. Lets see how they like a taste of their own medicine!

  • steven thomas says:

    Vindictive women are being hoodwinked into ‘punishing’ their ex partners.

    I am not a ‘absent father’. I pay monthly what they (CSA) say I must pay. I have had a private arrangement with my ex partner. They wrote her and told her that she should be getting a certain amount which was £20 more than the previous assessment.

    She, being one of those vindictive women has instructed them (CSA) to collect the money from me and they will pay her. the problem is they want £10 to collect the extra £20. I have refused as I already pay income tax.

    How dare Cameron say that fathers who are not with their children for what ever reason be ‘stigmatised’ like drunk drivers.

    The CSA are legal thieves and extotionists that make ordinary mens lives miserable. They have no one to police them. it iis an absolute joke. But what can we expect from a man who if he could have his own way…would have is own way.

    Very Bitter father

  • Eric says:

    Im classed as a lone parent. Male and took custody of both my children. Although it was suggested that I can claim from my ex partner I wouldnt dream of doing so because the less she has, the less she can do for the children on the odd weekend she has one of them.

    Another factor is what happened to my brother. His vindictive ex wife used the csa and also made him pay for birthdays christmas etc. It near drove him to suicide. I saw him drop from a heathy looking brother to a stick thin with worry because he was left with so little to live on. His wife in the meantime because the fattest pig you can imagine and turned his own children against him by constantly telling them that he didnt care for them. The truth was he couldnt even afford the travel cost to get up and see them. Also when he did (at first) have them over for weekends he could barely afford to feed them.

  • joanne shier says:

    I’m a woman and agree totally with you men, I was a single mum and I went to work as my children are also my responsibility, and it is me who has the right to slate my ex, not a damned politician who was born with a silver spoon in his gob! I’m now an nrpp and see what this dreaded organisation do to a loving dad and our family. And to be classed as a drink driver is disgusting, my grand father was killed by a drink driver and they are two completely different issues. My partner doesn’t break the law, works and pays his taxes. and since when is divorce a crime? Also not all absent parents are men, so its a statement by Cameron to get an effect and alienate men more.

  • Sarah westwood says:

    My ex Husband abandoned myself And our daughter And stopped saying the mortgage when the CSA contacted him – he had Gone off with another woman yet was angry when he had to provide for his own child!

  • j says:

    “Cameron and his government claim that fathers who abandon their families should be ‘stigmatised’ in the same way as drink-drivers – without seeing that ‘families’ are a far more complicated issue than his own. His claims that ‘runaway dads’ are ‘beyond the pale’ and should be made to feel the ‘full force of shame’ for their actions, are part of the demonisation of male parents who’s children cannot be with them. His comments are deeply sexist and offensive.”

    What about the women who cause a breakup? If a woman runs off with another bloke for example, should they be stigmatised as well? The trouble with ‘soundbite’ politics from the likes of cameron is that they have no idea what the issues are all about. Red flag or blue flag they are all the same, I’d rather vote for the chap with the horns and pointy stick than this lot, you might get some decency back into politics then.

  • >