Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Great Idea abused and rendered useless

Set up in 1993, the CSA has struggled to keep up with a huge backlog of payments and has been unable to force reluctant parents to pay up.

One must assume that as we have had cases of people "topping" themselves, that the cases referred to in this statement are those that they cannot catch, or more likely, those who pack in their jobs to avoid paying. Please bear in mind when it first came to the publics eye it was the assessments that were wrong, taking well over half to two thirds of the former partners wages in some cases. Meaning a person was allowed to earn £57.00 for themselves the rest of their money went towards paying the assessment, and as the assessing took so long massive arrears were accumulating, taking even more of the ex-partners money!

Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the new scheme will mean women on benefit will no longer have to go through the CSA for maintenance payments from absent fathers. The new agency will have new powers!

CMEC POWERS (This will replace the CSA)
(Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission)
Seize driving licences
Order curfews
Try telling a thirty year old he cant go out.. will not work
Access money directly The government is mistaken they do not have this power!
Encourage parents to make own arrangements Through the courts as they had to before!

"The truth of the matter is, whatever reforms we have put into the Child Support Agency, they have not worked," he said.

Basically, too much red tape, as per usual, strangles any chance of civil servants getting on with their jobs,( by civil servants I mean the frontline staff), who actually have to deal with "the customers". But then the worst people to make laws and legislations are lawyers, who have no idea how the real world works.

"It is extremely difficult when the agency is being asked to chase relatively small sums of money from people who don't want to pay in circumstances where the mother often doesn't want that to happen either."

Firstly, yes to Herr Blair, these are small amounts of money, sometimes as little as £120.00 per month, as the ex partner is on low wages. Financial hardship is often what forces these relationships to break down. The constant "robbing peter to pay paul", that is a big part of the lower paids couples struggle through life. A struggle that has only the hope, that one day all will be well, that they can get through these hard times.

Secondly, "where the mother often doesn't want that to happen either", suggests that they dont care! This is very very often not true, sometimes they are frightened to give details for fear of reprisals and sometimes, just sometimes they resent that monies supposedly for the "child" is stolen by the government, to offset money paid by the state in Income support.

As is becoming more and more evident by the actions of this deluded government that we allow to rule us, they are "not fit for purpose", they do not have the capability to do the job! The sooner they are out the better!!!

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Pay us £100,000 a year, say MPs

MPs are pressing for a pay increase to push their salaries to £100,000, an increase of 66%.
Backbenchers have written to the independent body that sets salaries seeking a rise from the current £60,277 to achieve parity with GPs and council chief executives.

Now as far as I can remember, GP's and even Councils Chiefs, work about 40 hours per week for approx 44 weeks of the year!

Money grabbing bastard waste of space, breath and time politicians work ( if you wish to call it that) for 160 days per fucking year!!!!! 160 divided by 7 days = 22 FUCKING WEEKS!!!

The money grabbing two faced humpty backed bastards, want to work for just over 22 weeks a year and get paid £100,000.oo not withstanding the absolute twats can claim up to £131,000.oo (The Average Allowance) in expenses, so they essentially want £200,000.oo for less than 6 months work!! What fucking planet are these creeps on!!!!

During its last review in 2004, the SSRB found that MPs earned about the same as junior directors of middle-sized companies, head teachers of middle-sized schools and departmental heads of local authorities or NHS trusts.

But in all cases mentioned above, the people concerned all work full time!!! NOT 22 bastard weeks per year!!!! I say No to MP's pay rise!!

Over the years we have been downgraded and compared to junior directors of middle-sized companies at the last review [in 2004] but, even so, we have failed to keep up. There is no point in having a review body that chooses comparators then doesn’t keep us up with them.”

Same reason you should'nt have a pay rise, as above they all work full time and have to contribute to thier own pension, something MP's do not have to do!!

He said it was not for MPs to decide what jobs were comparable but added: “Not that many years ago, we were on a par with GPs and heads of comprehensive schools. They are now on £100,000.”

The reason GP's are on £100,000 a year is cause the government couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery, and cocked up the negotiations, they were warned by GP's what would happen, but as ever the fuckwits decided they know best! ( See Dr Crippen for more details about Dr's pay)

That's why these fuckers are all so happy with Britain being in the EU. The MPs don't have to take any decisions, and yet still get to pocket vast amounts of our cash, from our taxes, the grasping, greedy, sponging, humpty backed bastards that they are.

Road Pricing..

National road tolls could be brought in within a decade, Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has said.
He admitted a "still sceptical" public had yet to be won over to the benefits of road pricing - but said something had to be done to prevent gridlock.

Right, so NuLabour have had report done by an airline executive, which was commissioned, not by the Dept of Transport, but by the Treasury. Which means its not about the congestion, its another way of raising revenue, for the greedy bastard Brown.

As I understand it the Road Fund Licence was first robbed by Winston Churchill, thereby setting a precedent for all the other thieving chancellors. So they have felt safe in using the Car Tax to pay for anything other than the roads. So whilst over the years the road infrastructure has deteriorated through lack of investment, and improper use of monies that should have paid for the roads. Not a lot has physically been done to help the motorist.

As I see it, we the car driving public have paid for the roads twice over, once with car tax and the other with duty on fuel! Yet they still expect us to pay yet again. Because make no mistake this money will not go on repairing the roads or reducing congestion, it will be syphoned off into some hairbrained scheme of Gordo's.

Instead of spending the monney on other things, why not ring fence 30% of it to actually pay for the roads, after all thats what the monies supposed to go on.

Now I don't know if its true,( but it does seem fairly plausable given this governments use of spin and downright lies) it has been mentioned on some blogs. That in order to push through the Congestion Charge in London, they altered the sequencing of the Traffic Lights, so that they actually created the problem, so it would appear that congestion was worse than it actually was, and that the charge would be seen to be working from day one.

I would have thought, that given the mass of freight on the roads, HGV's etc, all with governed engines so they are unable to reach above a certain speed. How about reducing the time they spend on the roads, ban them during the day from 7 am to 7pm, so that all deliveries have to be done at night or go by other methods ie. the train. They could deliver to localised hubs and then the deliveries made by transit vans during the day. This would free up the motorways and most of the A Roads which should reduce congestion.

Then set the traffic lights to speed up the flow of traffic, as they do in europe, where traffic moves smoother and somewhat quicker than here.

Next take back the buses and start them running a decent service at reasonable prices and at times to suit those going to work, if your shift starts at six you need to be on a bus (dependant on journey times) usually an hour beforehand.

But road pricing is a big no no, even if they gave the incentive of reducing Road Tax and Fuel Duty, these roads are not the governments not the councils, they did not pay for them, We did and as such we own them.