About me
Archive
About me

Tagging non-paying parents

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 14 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 14 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and write about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 14 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

I read today that the Government is considering electronically tagging parents who fail to pay child support (rather unfortunately phrased as ‘those dads who are not paying for their kids’, but let’s not get into that).  A simple question: Why?

The idea is to restrict the movements of people who don’t pay up.  How on Earth will that help?  Dad doesn’t have any money to give mum, mum doesn’t have any money, the child grows up in poverty.  What does tagging achieve?  Dad doesn’t have any money to give mum, dad’s movements are restricted and employability reduced so he has less chance to make some money, mum doesn’t have any money, the child grows up in poverty.

Yes, there are some parents who refuse to pay child support on principle.  But they’re already able to be sentenced to six weeks in prison.  Surely tagging is a lesser threat, and hence less likely to make people comply?  Of course, the politicians seem to be suggesting that it’s ‘easier’ to tag someone than to send them to prison.  Certainly for the CSA itself, it should make no difference, as a prosecution in a Court of Law is presumably needed for either, and given that tagging is supposed to replicate the loss of freedom in prison, surely a similar burden of proof is needed.

The CSA has never really worked properly in its entire history.  It currently costs £1 in administration for every £1.85 recovered, and that doesn’t include the cost of the prosecutions handled by the judiciary, which also comes from taxpayer’s pockets.  All in all, it probably costs more to recover the money than it would to just hand it out.  Even Mr Blair, who rarely dares admit such a thing, says it doesn’t do it’s job properly (though why it’s taken him eight years to find that out is something of a mystery). Can we not just put it out of its misery? 

Well, under a Labour government, probably not until they’ve come up with something even more bureaucratic to replace it.  Why not do the simple thing of handing the job over to the Inland Revenue and taking the money out of people’s pay packet directly?  Then there’s no chasing to be done, and far less administration, and far less chance of people failing to pay.  But then, that’s probably too simple a solution.

This 785th post was filed under: News and Comment.

Recently published posts




Random posts from the archive

Photo-a-day 6: Handmade Burger / 06 January 2012

Photo-a-day 77: Killingworth Centre / 17 March 2012

A bit of County Durham / 29 January 2019

Swing Update / 26 April 2005

Review: The Lifeboat by Charlotte Rogan / 03 October 2012

Why does it work? / 04 October 2006



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.