Office Telephone
+44 (0) 1242--691110
Please Note
this is our ADVICE Line

For Press Enquiries Telephone
+44 (0) 1242--691110

What has happened is that the political establishment, mainly for the vote benefit, picked  up  on  the  feminist demands of earlier times and  allowed the drift away from  the rules  and standards    that defined what  society  WAS and  WAS NOT prepared to tolerate. This alleged  new order of society  was imposed on the mass of the people WHO DO NOT SUPPORT IT. A burgeoning  illegitimate population has  grown   over   the  last  30 years,  supported  by   social   security.  What  was intended  as assistance   for the  few   who fell  by the  wayside in  the sixties  has grown into a full blown industry that  guarantees housing and income support, with no questions   asked,  through social security. Successive governments struggled to find a   way of dealing  with the £20 billion  financial  overload, no solutions were available until  former Prime  Minister  Thatcher came up with 'the child support act solution'.  The trumpeted propaganda about so called 'absent fathers' was the vanguard of a massive con on the public to try and capture  their support. The right and proper thing  would  have been  to close the door  on    benefit  availability for those who choose to PRODUCE CHILDREN WITHOUT THE MEANS TO SUPPORT THEM. The  only  category for  benefit eligibility    should  be to a married couple, unless one of  them has  died prematurely,  only  this  group would be  considered,  unless there was  a properly investigated  approved reason  applicable  to the unmarried, who  could  then  have  access to  the benefit    system. There  is a  very  clear link between the low illegitimate birth rate of earlier times and the non availability of social security. Most would find it  ironic, with  the advances in  the last 30 years in contraception, that the illegitimate birth  rate has risen.  It is, therefore, very likely that qualification for benefit has had a great deal to do with the rise in the illegitimate birth rate. Whilst the social security burden due to the unmarried mother industry has risen so  it  has  also  as  a result    of  the  divorce  racket.    

THE UNITED KINGDOM DIVORCE RACKET, accessible via the home page, gives the background. A 400% increase in the divorce rate in the last  25 years has produced a large number of benefit claimants, year on year,   who will also receive housing benefit and income support without any questions being asked. So in  1990  the Child  Support  Bill    made  its  way through  Parliament. Strong warning signals were sent about the folly of this  proposed legislation, NOBODY LISTENED. The signals were  of  course  ignored, particularly  by the politicians,  who would soon receive the wrath of those who would  become affected and  it bothered  no  one  that established responsibility regarding  the liability to maintain was being overturned and that judicial decision regarding clean breaks at divorce, estoppel, would  be    set  aside.  The  reason  was  that   this    legislation  was  intended to be RETROSPECTIVE, something which is very unusual with  proposed legislation, but of course there was a reason for this. It is obvious  that any retrospectivity must play havoc with existing related law in so much that decisions that have been reached,  with  regard  to    existing  law,  renders  those  decisions   meaningless. It mattered  not to those  intent on  legislating   because,  instead of dealing with the fundamental  moral  problem of   illegitimacy,  the solution  was  to  be  sought  by tinkering   with    the  financial  dressing    that  empowered    it  in  the  first   place Despite  the   warnings  given  to our   politicians,  the Child  Support   Bill  passed  its   third  reading,  received  Royal   assent,  became   the  Child  Support  Act and was implemented on the 5th April 1993. That day will live in the memories of thousands for years to come. Early reports  suggested  that  the Child    Support  Agency, the military wing, was going about its business of seeking parents who did not maintain their children. all was quiet until  August 1993 , when out  of the blue  an instruction written by the then Chief Executive, Ros Hepplewhite, and directed  to all CSA principal offices was leaked to the press. 

Area offices were directed to TARGET FATHERS WHO WERE MAINTAINING THEIR CHILDREN.  The caption  soft targets began to be used to  describe this newly  targeted group. This change of direction exposed what  many  of  those    involved in  campaign against the Bill  had  predicted.   The prediction being  that fathers who  were not  maintaining their children were, like the mothers, benefit claimants or were in receipt of low wages. Both these  categories  would either  produce zero assessment  by the CSA. or be the subject of a protected income check that would produce a zero assessment. So it was not  a case of  deliberately not    maintaining  their children  but  simply not being able to afford to. This fact would have been known to the  establishment by virtue of knowledge of wage levels in general and in particular those paid to young people.   Quite   clearly  apart  from  the  inability  of   this    group  to  pay  child maintenance, repayment   of benefit received  by their former partners  could not be extorted either.  So, the   August exposure  of the leaked directive at long last revealed  what the   Child Support Act  was really  about   and that was TO HAVE NON LIABLE  PERSONS PAY BACK   THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF LEGAL STRANGERS. 

The rabbit was out of the hat and the anti Child Support Act movement was born. Had this true purpose been revealed to the people in 1990, the Bill would not have received any public support  whatsoever. It took  two to three months before the number of fathers WHO HAD BEEN MAINTAINING THEIR  CHILDREN grew large enough for meetings to be held. November  1993 saw the  first of these and by early  1994 the  structure of  support was in place  to launch the campaign for the REPEAL OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ACT. The events  since that time are well known, public demonstrations took place, MPs were lobbied and  local meetings  held throughout the country.  More recently the campaign, whilst less visible, has concentrated    on direct victim contact with MPs. It  is  this that  has ensured   constant Parliamentary  focus  on  the  Act   and  the problems it has caused. Moles, in area offices, have volunteered their services and they let us know what is actually going on in these centres.  At the time of writing 45 fathers have  taken their own  lives as a  result of   involvement with   the CSA, this figure has now  increased to 58 let us not forget  that these were 58 fathers who WERE maintaining their children. THEY WERE NOT ABSENT FATHERS (to use the objectionable expression), THEY WERE FATHERS LEGALLY EXCLUDED FROM THEIR CHILDREN.    

The effect of  Parliamentary  lobbying and continual contact  with MPs, by their victim constituents, has resulted in about half of them signing up to support repeal of the  Child Support Act.    Whilst this  support is welcomed  by the  campaign  it must beg   the question  WHY,  10 years  after  the   Act was passed in the  House  of Commons,  with almost  total   support, have   half of all MPs turned against it?. The answer must   be that  the Bill   was pushed  through  Parliament   as  a political exercise, where party majority held sway. The Bill was flawed from the outset and would never be correct because it  set out to  accomplish something which was not correct in the beginning. The  campaign will continue until the Act is finally repealed.  The   Liberal Democrats, who have hosted the Parliamentary lobbies, are totally committed to repeal. Labour are about 60% against and the Tories, as would be expected, field about 5 MPs against.

IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF  THE CSA THEN  ENSURE YOUR MP IS AWARE OF  YOUR CASE. GET YOUR MP TO TAKE  UP  ANY PROBLEMS YOU HAVE WITH THE  CSA FIND OUT YOUR MP's POSITION ON THE MATTER OF REPEAL. REMEMBER YOU HAVE A VOTE, LET YOUR MP KNOW YOUR POSITION IF YOUR MP DOES NOT SUPPORT REPEAL