iMac Pro review
I still can't work out why this Government even thought that this was a good idea Welfare bill
At a time when a mother may need all the help she can get and may not even have enough money to keep a roof over her head they want to charge to use the child support service.
I know the system is not the most perfect way to get money from a father but at times it's the only way some people will pay up to support their children.
A friend of ours has just split from her husband after 18 years and he has offered to pay £60 a month for their 2 children,it's not even enough to pay the school dinner money,at this moment in time she hasn't even enough money to pay the bills never mind pay more out to the child support agency.
The worst part is I still see the husband and he still has enough money to buy a brand new car and set himself up in a new home with his new partner.
I think the ex should be paying all the expenses/charges if a mother has to resort to using the Child Support Agency. It does not seem fair to me that the mother has to pay any charges because the ex won't give voluntarily his share of the financial responsibility for his children.
It does not seem fair to me that the mother has to pay any charges because the ex won't give voluntarily his share of the financial responsibility for his children.
It's even less fair that others should have to stump up. It takes two to have children, so it's not unreasonable to expect a parent - regardless of gender - to contribute something towards sorting out what was at the end of the day a breakdown in their relationship, no matter how brief it was.
Yet again an unelected group of privileged people decide to block a decision by our elected represntatives.
The sooner the Lords is reformed into an elected accountable second chamber the better.
WhiteTruckMan exactly my point, except I forgot to keep it gender free in my post. (that was because of the example given by carver in first post)
bremner "..Lords is reformed into an elected accountable second chamber"
But then the problem is the disputes over which of two, both elected chambers, would have the most 'right' to make/change law? Recipe for even more battles, I would think, as each chamber strives to be top dog - but each then on an 'even' elected footing with the other.
Or would we need to make one set of 'votes' inferior to the other?
While I am at it, something else makes me slightly uncomfortable. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and it is the actions of the religeous appointees to the lords in defeating the bill that unsettle me.
The main idea of the unelected second chamber is to exercise some control over the excesses of elected first chamber, and certainly in this case it seems to have worked rather well ?
As to the comparison between elected and unelected presently the difference currently is none since none of them actually have a real mandate from the electorate
I'm completely with you on that one, but there really isn't enough of them to make a big difference. OK they led the debate but I think it would be stretching a point to say they defeated the Government much as it needed defeating.
My own point of view is this really is a civil matter for the courts to sort out but the Government decided to set up this organisation to deal with these matters so it has a cheak to now say that its clients should now pay for it.
The Bishops in the house are there to provide a conscience - something Cameron & Osborne seem to be lacking.
I'm not going to say anything further on this matter because the whole idea of millionaires squabbling about the best way to remove benefits from the poorest in society makes my blood boil...
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.