Anyone See The Problem Here?

Under the plans, mothers who successfully claim they deserve more money for child support will also be able to claim a share in any profits their ex-partners make from selling assets – even those acquired long after the divorce. And authority will be given to civil servants to raid the father’s bank account and withdraw lump sums.

Civil servants now have direct access to your bank account?

No, no, nothing could go wrong, could it?

6 thoughts on “Anyone See The Problem Here?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Isn’t it sweet to see that the British government really does think we belong together until death do us apart?

    Just because I shared some words with someone who used to like me once, she has a right to any and everything I earn ever after?

    Sure Blair didn’t become a Catholic a long time ago? Brown, son of the Manse or a Papist whore?

  2. What about the mistakes? The CSA routinely issues salary garnishing orders to the wrong people (some of whom don’t even have children). Can you imagine the lawsuits for compensation when they made a keying-in mistake on the NI number and your purchase of a house falls through because the money got taken?

    The law may exempt the CSA from liability for mistakes, but the Human Right Act (much derided by the frothy brigade, I note) will have other views on the legality of that.

  3. SMFS: the story does claim that it’s about the children, not the ex-spouse. Your gets are a fair charge on you, in my view, because I’m buggered if I see why they should be a charge on me.

    The detail is, of course, consistent with everything we know about New Labour. Arseholes.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    dearieme, I agree that any poor little bastard I whelp shouldn’t be a burden on you. But I am not convinced about the logic of this article – am I supposed to have a never-ending open obligation to former spouses – and it is the spouse that gets the money even if children are the immediate cause? If I have a child at a certain level of income and a particular standard of living, but raise my own, I have to raise theirs too? Even though that was not foreseen when they were born? Suppose some chav paying support wins the lottery – half of it to the ex he hasn’t seen in ten years?

    I think that there is a problem with both types of Liberals here. The Libertarians must be hard pushed to claim that any individual owes anyone else anything – even their offspring. The Leftists hate the family and clearly the driving force for a lot of their policies are a dislike of men. Fair enough. But they too have a libertarian heart when it comes to sex. Most of the time. But also men have little to no role in child-rearing. No entitlement to visitation for instance. Yet when it comes to paying, they should pay and pay again. Odd.

    I would have fewer problems with a real Catholic, or a proper Conservative, saying that men do in fact create life long obligations to their spouses and their children. Regardless. Because that is at least a well thought out and consistent point of view. However on this the Liberals seem to want to run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds depending on whatever hurts men the most.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *