CSA and Driving Licence
Discussion
Can't say I'm surprised at the CSA using this tactic. A similar system has been in force in the states for a while. They have to have licences for virtually everything, i.e. licensed to be an electrician, mechanic etc. If they default on maintenance then the local state revokes their state issued licences until they start to pay.
I dislike the CSAs incompetence, money wasting and general tactics but if you have kids then you should provide for then and not let everyone else have to foot the bill instead.
I dislike the CSAs incompetence, money wasting and general tactics but if you have kids then you should provide for then and not let everyone else have to foot the bill instead.
esselte said:
Go LTD and pay yourself a low wage(£80)a week on the books.....buy everything you need through LTD company.......seems to work quite well!
My mate has got away with it for 5 years...
And that's fair to his kids?
Yes, Esselte, it is.
If his ex doesn't want him anymore and prevents him from getting fair access then this is absolutely fair. Why is she still entitled to his money? Is it because women are incapable, helpless little things who have to sponge of a man to survive? Lazziness? Bitterness? Revenge?
If someone drives off in my car, regardless of it being fair sale or theft, I'm no longer responsible for putting petrol in the tank. If I leave my job, either by quitting or by getting the push, I'm no longer responsible for taking the minutes on customer visits.
If my wife wants extra money for the kids over what I can provide guess what she does? She gets a job in Tescos like any other person does. Any other person that is except an ex with kids who seem exempt from this simple solution because they are far, far, too important to ever actually get off their backsides.
Frankly I'm very surprised that there haven't been cases of attacks on women with "Anti CSA" calling cards left at the scene. It wouldn't be my way of dealing with it and it's not something I'd approve of but I really am surprised that a spate of "angry men" gangs giving women a severe kicking hasn't happened.
seem to me that since "womens Lib" blokes have a hard deal to me!, why should a Woman be the best parent when we are now supposed to be on equal terms?, explain?, perhaps it's time for Mens Lib?, burning underpants and all that!, a child is half it's Mother and Half it's Father Biologicaly, so go on explain it to me otherwise?
matchless said:
seem to me that since "womens Lib" blokes have a hard deal to me!, why should a Woman be the best parent when we are now supposed to be on equal terms?, explain?, perhaps it's time for Mens Lib?, burning underpants and all that!, a child is half it's Mother and Half it's Father Biologicaly, so go on explain it to me otherwise?
It's not actually a WL issue in my opinion.
It has to do with the time frame in which the laws were made or changed.
Law makers tend to be older and back in the 60's to 80's most of them had been brought up to think that women should be supported by a man and that women stayed at home to look after the kids.
Those that actually have to deal with the law are younger and they've been brought up to think that women are equal, though equal may mean equally important as opposed to the same in all situations.
The result is a serious mismatch between the law and what men regard as right. Many men seriously question why they should support a woman many years after she has left them and especially if access has been denied. In their eyes an equal should be able to fend for themselves. But he law still reflects a paternalistic view of women as requiring support from a man and a maternalistic view of a family in which mothers alone bring up children so they must support her for up to 22 years.
cymtriks said:
seem to me that since "womens Lib" blokes have a hard deal to me!, why should a Woman be the best parent when we are now supposed to be on equal terms?, explain?, perhaps it's time for Mens Lib?, burning underpants and all that!, a child is half it's Mother and Half it's Father Biologicaly, so go on explain it to me otherwise?
It's not actually a WL issue in my opinion.
It has to do with the time frame in which the laws were made or changed.
Law makers tend to be older and back in the 60's to 80's most of them had been brought up to think that women should be supported by a man and that women stayed at home to look after the kids.
Those that actually have to deal with the law are younger and they've been brought up to think that women are equal, though equal may mean equally important as opposed to the same in all situations.
The result is a serious mismatch between the law and what men regard as right. Many men seriously question why they should support a woman many years after she has left them and especially if access has been denied. In their eyes an equal should be able to fend for themselves. But he law still reflects a paternalistic view of women as requiring support from a man and a maternalistic view of a family in which mothers alone bring up children so they must support her for up to 22 years.
So what happens then?..Father and Mother split up for whatever reason,mother gets custody,father refuses to pay maintenance,then what?Mother claims benefits which we all have to pay? Mother goes to work and struggles with child care costs?Just wondered what your solution is.
esselte said:
seem to me that since "womens Lib" blokes have a hard deal to me!, why should a Woman be the best parent when we are now supposed to be on equal terms?, explain?, perhaps it's time for Mens Lib?, burning underpants and all that!, a child is half it's Mother and Half it's Father Biologicaly, so go on explain it to me otherwise?
It's not actually a WL issue in my opinion.
It has to do with the time frame in which the laws were made or changed.
Law makers tend to be older and back in the 60's to 80's most of them had been brought up to think that women should be supported by a man and that women stayed at home to look after the kids.
Those that actually have to deal with the law are younger and they've been brought up to think that women are equal, though equal may mean equally important as opposed to the same in all situations.
The result is a serious mismatch between the law and what men regard as right. Many men seriously question why they should support a woman many years after she has left them and especially if access has been denied. In their eyes an equal should be able to fend for themselves. But he law still reflects a paternalistic view of women as requiring support from a man and a maternalistic view of a family in which mothers alone bring up children so they must support her for up to 22 years.
So what happens then?..Father and Mother split up for whatever reason,mother gets custody,father refuses to pay maintenance,then what?Mother claims benefits which we all have to pay? Mother goes to work and struggles with child care costs?Just wondered what your solution is.
I'm just giving an account of how attitudes to this sort of thing have changed over the years and how a mismatch in age related attitudes to the issue have resulted in a female biased system in a supposedly equal society. Society changed over the time frame in which the laws we now have originated and there was a marked difference in attitudes between the legislating and the legislated upon due to these changes.
Regarding what should happen over maintenance I would suggest that the aim should be to establish the single parent in a new life, not give them an 18 year meal ticket. Compulsory payments should start high (yes, high) and should take into account assets and how they are shared out, and then decrease over time, say over 18 years, to zero. A portion of maintenance can be withheld if access is denied. Conversely access may be withheld if maintenance is not paid. As compulsory payments decrease, and ultimately stop, there is nothing to stop voluntary payments, which many fathers make anyway.
I genuinely cannot see why women should expect to have a man support them indefinitely in an age of equality, especially if access is denied and also as wives, as opposed to ex wives, seem perfectly capable of earning extra income for the kids.
cymtriks said:
A portion of maintenance can be withheld if access is denied. Conversely access may be withheld if maintenance is not paid.
The only problem with that is that according to the way the law is interpretted these days it's NOT the parents' right of access to the children but the other way around - the childrens' right of access to the parent.
My sympathies lie entirely with the children who end up being used as weapons in the matrimonial/divorce/alimony war and can only be adversely affected by any additional factors like linking maintenance and access rights.
Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt, bruises and scars to prove it.
BigBob said:
My sympathies lie entirely with the children who end up being used as weapons in the matrimonial/divorce/alimony war and can only be adversely affected by any additional factors like linking maintenance and access rights.
Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt, bruises and scars to prove it.
Me too mate,when I was 13.Not a good age to have your parents split and use you as a bartering token.
esselte said:
I just can not for the life of me understand why they can take you driving licence away for not paying child support , i am feckin baffled my this
Me too!
thirded, I mean would they take away your shotgun licence? or if you are a doctor your licence to practice medicine or any other profession where such is needed.
But then as drivers we are the spawn of Satan it seems.
edited to add, whoever said that the CSA isn't about supporting children but an arm of the Revenue got it about right methinks.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 14th February 13:15
But surely FiF they must look at it that if he has the spondolicks to run a motor and it isn't cheap these days, if taken off him then that cash could go to putting a pair of shoes on the mites feet.
Likewise with fines now. If you don't pay then Court can order confiscation of the motor......
dvd
Likewise with fines now. If you don't pay then Court can order confiscation of the motor......
dvd
But equally DVD heard an item on Radio 4 about some female who had just received a cheque for ~£167 from CSA some years after her ex had paid around £4000.
Seems the ex was quite contactable and quite willing to pay but the above £167 was the only amount that CSA had actually managed to deal with. Seemed both parties had just given up on CSA.
Likewise, and I don't wish to become the initiator of an "itinerant bashing thread" but equally all those new 4x4s and new twin axle caravans on certain :ahem: unoffical caravan parks indicates a certain amount of available means.
Anyway turning to matters of more import, Home Sec just handed out a severe wigging all round and a sound boxing of ears re response to force amalgamation proposals
and a certain :ahem: force giving it the Greta Garbot with "Ve Vant to be alone!"
Told you it was a done deal, innit!
FiF
Seems the ex was quite contactable and quite willing to pay but the above £167 was the only amount that CSA had actually managed to deal with. Seemed both parties had just given up on CSA.
Likewise, and I don't wish to become the initiator of an "itinerant bashing thread" but equally all those new 4x4s and new twin axle caravans on certain :ahem: unoffical caravan parks indicates a certain amount of available means.
Anyway turning to matters of more import, Home Sec just handed out a severe wigging all round and a sound boxing of ears re response to force amalgamation proposals
and a certain :ahem: force giving it the Greta Garbot with "Ve Vant to be alone!" Jug Ears said:
wrong answer boys and girls, think again!
Told you it was a done deal, innit!
FiF
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff