Sunday, May 6, 2012

This is why you shouldn't encourage them...

In the past I had my run ins with the Child Support Agency, I disputed every claim against me they made, not because I wanted to get out of supporting my kids, but because after a couple of colossal blunders (one of them requiring an ombudsman to sort out) I no longer trusted the people at the ground level to do their jobs properly, relying on what appeared to be tick box taxation to justify what were some outrageous claims to my income. In the end they had me marked down as a "difficult" customer and I believe went out of their way at times to be difficult too, but that might just be my creative paranoia at work.
yet I was also well aware of the problems elsewhere in the system...
Express.
THOUSANDS of absentee fathers are getting away with paying next to nothing for the care of their children, shock new figures reveal.
One in three – a total of 314,000 – pay £5 a week out of their weekly benefits of £100.
If they have several children by different women, the situation is even worse, as shown by the case of serial love rat Keith Macdonald.
The 25-year-old, from Washington, Tyne and Wear, has fathered 15 children with 14 mothers. One former girlfriend, Danielle Little, gave birth to twins. His £5 weekly contributions means each child will get just 33p.
Another 240,000 fathers pay nothing because they can’t be traced. In total £3.8billion is owed by absent parents, a scandal highlighting the role of the Child Support Agency, which is overseen by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, the source of the staggering statistics.
The Department for Work and Pensions said: “It is a deeply flawed system. That’s why we are overhauling it.”
Initially my first thoughts on Keith MacDonald was that after the third child he perhaps should have been forcibly sterilised, but of course it does take two to tango as it were and perhaps the silly (or easily charmed) women he got pregnant should also share some of the blame too, contraception after all is fairly easy to get.
Yet this in a sense is a problem of our own making, years ago if a girl (or woman) got pregnant out of wedlock there was a shame factor and/or her family went round to the "father" of the unborn child's house and remonstrated with him right into a shotgun wedding if necessary. If he were already married he's be in for the hiding of his life, unless rich in which case he'd be out of pocket for a long time. These days with housing benefit and other perks of the benefits system it actually can be quite a good move for a young "lady" with no other prospects to get her own place and have it all paid for by you and I. The very ineffectiveness of the CSA system means that the only people really out of pocket are the taxpayers. The system we have encourages a feral underclass system and maintains a bread and circuses attitude towards them, perhaps out of fear for what might happen if they ever did break loose and made the recent riots look like a cakewalk. They don't work, wont work and can't be made to work under the present system, the government even encourages mass immigration to do the jobs they wont do. Yet sooner or later it will break, if only by the taxpayers saying enough is enough and voting for a party who will do something, however unpleasant their other policies are..
As it is, none of the mainstream political parties are interested in fixing it, merely tinkering with it, that's why we should never vote for them, ever.

1 annotations:

Able said...

The CSA is a hypocritical and misandrist organisation and should be shut down.

You have a situation where thanks to the feminist biased courts and social services women automatically get custody of any children. As a consequence (it's for the cheeldren) they receive the house, car and most of the mans income for the foreseeable future, whilst the 'lady' gets all the help, benefits and manages an active 'social' life with a new boyfriend (don't marry as then he might have to contribute). None of that is taken into account by CSA.

Then of course you have the issue of rights and responsibilities. The man has the responsibility to provide, whilst having no rights to involvement with the child if the woman disagrees (to push for more money, score points, etc.). CSA's opinion, sorry not our problem.

Then you could consider the 'ladies' who go out intentionally to get pregnant so they can get their house/benefits/etc. (let's not pretend this isn't common) and not have to worry about working. Whilst 'it takes two to tango' the responsibility for pregnancies falls squarely on the man, despite any woman having as much, if not more, access to precautions. So an 'accident' happens, if she doesn't want the baby it's gone, if she does it stays. The man has no say, or even in many cases doesn't even hear about it until the knock on the door from CSA.

I have no respect, even despise, these men who 'father' multiple children and never contribute but at the same time I wonder what man in his right mind would voluntarily end any chance of a life for himself purely on the whim of a woman who after a one night stand decided to use him as her cash-point for the next few years (still it's a little better than their other current penchant for accusing him of rape).

Despite the above I'm not a misogynist, I just despise the hypocrisy of women and society in general today.

Equality? Don't make me laugh!