主播大秀

How about contraceptives in the water? Once you can prove you are a responsible adult, rather than simply of an age by which you should be responsible, you get access to the antidote.

In the longer term this would also help reduce carbon emmissions.

To blame the government on this is ridiculous. I listened to the news last night which had a faily friend saying the government should do more. The government has already pumped millions into the area the people who need to take control are the parents who allow their children to run around like wild animals

This all sounds depressibgly familiar.

Under Thatcher it was single mothers.
Under Cameron it's feckless fathers.

Yawn.

We have a moral vacuum. The dismantling of Christian values and the culture of "rights" means that there is no sense of responsibility and no moral compass.

The Psalmist says " man in his prosperity forfeits intelligence, he is one with the cattle doomed to die"

American feminism sold Britain the idea that patriarchy meant the oppression of women. South London and the rest of Britain is now paying the price.
Anthropologically,patriarchy has much more to do with the control of the adolescent male.
Women are quie capable of controlling male children from birth until puberty.....during the adolescent years,only a male can control an adolescent male (preferably not a step-father!)
The absence of a father in so many British homes is the cause not only of criminality in the adolescent male,but also of the high teenage pregnancy rate,since adolescent girls,with no experience of a male in either their home or in their primary school,are subsconsciously using their early sexual experiences to seek out an adult male they might be able to trust.

I am an English dad, living in Finland to be with my kids. I was divorced last year and worked hard to agree an almost 50-50 sharing deal with my now ex-wife. This is not unusual in Finland. I cherish anytime I can get with my kids. I can't understand how any parent would willingly want to be absent from their kids.

Here, in Finland, it is completely normal for both parents to have a very active and equal role in all aspects of their children's up-bringing. I think things would have worked out differently for me had I still been living in the UK...

A child should be treated like any other 'possession'. If your dog bites someone, or if your car rolls down the hill & injures someone you are responsible. If your young teenage child shoots someone you should be held responsible for that. Fathers should worry about the liabilities that their children are potentially causing them. That would make them take a greater interest.

Great, I'll vote for him.
Illuminating.

As usual it's the males who are at fault. How about the females who desert their families. Is there going to be any in depth enquiry as to the cause of the split when either parent leaves?

Cameron as usual is looking for votes. It was hug a hoodie until he realised he was talking through his nether region, now it's feckless fathers. What will tomorrows vote catcher be.
Lets hope it's not,
'Trust a politician'.

I don't think you can throw money at parents and expect them to keep up a fake marriage, whilst teaching their children decent morals and behaviour. If one parent is not committed to the family, then that parent is not fit to have around the family, and should not be given monetary incentive to hang around.

I think this attitude lies at the heart of the problem, by constantly looking for someone to blame, be it one group, or minister, or deptartment or what have you, it's avoiding the real heart of the issue. The inequality in society, and the sheer pace of the 'feckless' anglo-saxon economic model is the real root these questions. The day we stop looking at people, parents, and children as economic units, is the day these issues start improving.
How about finally fully implementing the European Working Time Directive to give parents more chance to see their children for a start?!

Regardless of birth control campaigns and freely available contraception, many young men will conceive irresponsibly. And as long as young women see having a baby as their life's goal so it will continue. So rather than think of compelling unsuitable fathers to stay with their children - which also ties them to women who might not want to be tied - it's time to do something about all the of disenfranchised girls and young women whose education and home life offer them no other aspiration except early single motherhood and a life on the breadline. An enforced mimicry of David Cameron's ideal marriage scenario would be impossible to enforce even if it were desirable. Convincing girls that they deserve a partner who wants to be part of a family is no easy matter but as a long-term goal it has to be a better bet.

You cannot compel anyone to stay with people they don't want to be with.

There are many parents both men and women who stay with partners and kids and who are not any kind of good example of parents or children. You can be good parents together and apart. You can be bad parents together and apart. You can have good or naughty or troubled kids regardless.

Compelling anyone does not make relationships better or parenting skills better or role models better.

firstly, I do not think that this is possible to tie someone down to committing more of their time to something they would not naturally do anyway. some men feel that providing for their children means going out and making money. there is nothing wrong with differences of opinions and it is only that, an opinion - that marriage and spending time with the kids means better quality of life for the children.

Secondly, making a marriage financially more 'benefitial' would simply be unfair to those people like myself who make their decision not to be married to have children. I do not like the idea of having to make an 'economically' influenced decision whether to be with someone or not.

So why should the government force a mother and her children to put up with some yob who can't be bothered to stick around in the first place? It's supposed to make things better that this chowderhead is going to be forced to stick around the house and beat his family instead of being kicked out?

How about we provide the support required for Mum to stay home and take care of her kids instead of having to go out and work all day and leave them in daycare (if she can afford it) or alone at home (if she can't)? How about we provide free in-home teaching and skills training for Mum? How about we educate all these lads and teach them to use condoms? How about we ban lads' mags, which glorify responsibility-free sex and objectification of women? How about we turn the schools into places where children are educated, instead of the zoos they are right now?

How about we be Sweden?

As a mother of two and victim of domestic violence, I find this suggestion appalling. There are cases where forcing a father to make direct input into his family, could have devastating consequences.

I have never recieved a penny in child maintenance and I like it this way. Sometimes the paternal link needs to be broken for the safety of the child and legislating to force a man to provide for him family in any capacity, could surely compromise the work of agencies such as the police and social services, who strive to protect vulnerable families.

If my ex were forced to have any contact with my family I would fell unable to cope, him not knowing my address, for example is something that is a priority in my life.

My children are happy and well adjusted and have other male family members who greatly compensate for having no paternal input. It is far from an ideal situation, but is surely infinitely preferble than enforced contact with an unsuitable parent.

We would be better to teach parenting skills in their teens, to better prepare them for the responsibilities that fatherhood will involve.

Marriage is a fantastic institution when both parties are sane and stable, but it should not be forced on us.

I finacially support my family and if I found myself unable to work I would sell my house and move in with my parents, anything rather than accept anything from a man who does not deserve to be a parent.

If a boy hasn't got a decent father figure as a role model, or no father figure at all, it becomes incredibly difficult for him to become a decent father himself. The lack of decent fathers has become a vicious circle which gives young men no chance of providing good parenting for any offspring, let alone engendering them with any sense of responsibility in producing these offspring in the first place. Schools could have much to do in this (if they weren't so loaded with getting exams results and passing OFSTED inspections) but society as a whole needs to value the role of parents more, and provide more emotional support to those who are struggling. Love, attention and respect are what children need, and how can anyone give that if they have never received it themselves?

Dad or mums or kids or anyone cannot or would not like to stay in a group called "family" if they don't love enough their members. It is sad, but the lack of LOVE and COMPROMISE with the idea of being a "family" group is what makes people default. If a father loves his kids with all his heart and would give his life for them, then nothing will turn him into a feckless dad or separate him from his kids, his family, his compromise to be their support in every moment of their lives...That simple. So, men, think twice before becoming fathers. It is a job that takes a lifetime. You don't want it? Don't have kids.

the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" comes to mind with this idea - I'm sure ways can be made to make "feckless" fathers stay but can you make them care? and more importantly is it anyone's place - let alone Cameron's - to suggest such things?

When some Tory Politician started a campaign called Families Need Fathers, I wrote to him saying it should be changed to Families Need Good Fathers.He didn't answer.
I know all the arguments against women & kids having The State as a Father but I still think it is a necessary safety net in the case of feckless men who run out on their responsibilities...which I suppose your programme is dealing with...BUT some resident fathers are as bad and as damaging to children as an absent one. And Stepfathers who may be fine with their own kids, often deal harshly with stepchildren. Family Life is more complex and needs more than Cameron's quick fix. Fatherhood, unlike Sex, is not instinctive behaviour and needs to be learned, ideally within the Family...but if not at school...Personal and Social Ed..does it still exist in the Curriculum? It should and it should include Parental education.

My mother works with employment trainees. They are not classified as having learning difficulties, yet they have managed to get through the school system illiterate and quite shockingly dumb. One - ambition, to be lifeguard in Miami, not discouraged by fact he couldn't swim - was 20 and already had 3 kids to 3 girls. He wasn't with any of them, and I can't see how it would improve matters if he was. People like Cameron, the millionaire son of a millionaire, have no conception that people like this even exist , yet on the council estate where my Mum works - with the highest underage pregnancy rate in Britain - they're becoming the norm. The only solution is to tackle the teenagers before they become 'fathers' - at the mo, their main activites seem to be smoking skunk and screwing (and if they won't act responsibly, how about contraceptive implants till they're 20?). Otherwise, in 14 years' time, their kids will be fathers, too.

"Compelling dads" is this story for real? I was of the understanding that relationships fail for a number of reasons and the cause of those failures are quite evenly distributed between men and women. Forcing a failed couple together can't be a healthy thing for any party involved. This is an ill thought out idea that would be pretty much unworkable. However taxing people with kids more than those without sounds like a good plan to me though!

I have been waiting for a politician to say these words for such a long time. I think many people are totally fed-up with the PC labour party dumbing down society by lowering the status of marriage in various ways. Bringing back financial rewards for people trying to do the right thing by their children and society as a whole will be a step in the right direction as far as this 'bottom of the league table' country is concerned.

We should allow fathers to stay with their kids.Actually any family with the absence of its father is useless.Parents availability usually of great concern.

Unfortunately you chose to focus on the headline, rather than on the overall context. What David Cameron said on the 主播大秀 this morning was that a culture of responsibility rather than churning out policies and throwing cash at a bottomless pit would help cut crime more effectively. I agree. He also said that fathers should be compelled to support financially their children if they fail to do so out of their own accord. I agree with this too. In my view he provided a solution, sensible, down to earth and entirely possible.
Please tell the whole story about gun crime, and show the whole interview with the lady and her 17 year old son.

,Who is this person hes a complet idiot, just look at him , hes a puppet, a drone, im paying him to stay out of my life and its costly, unfortunatly he still keeps comming into my feild of vision........gastly man, he has no real concept of social cognition on a normal level.what is this society that we live in? are we all mad , free your mind , look out side of the box and see whats really going on.

I guess it must be a slow news day for the 主播大秀 as it seems to be giving Cameron an extrodinary amount of coverage (yet again) for total non-speech. I herd his interview on the Today program and it was simply laughable, he contradicted himself about three or four times.

It's very simple to say you want to 'make marriage financially beneficial', but yet agian the Tories make no mention at all where the money will come from to pay for these so-called tax break? Will it come from efficiency savings or cuts or tax rises else where? As the Times Economics Editor said at the time of Cameron's conference speech he is fast developing the 'longest shopping list in history' yet there is no mention of how any it will be funded.

Getting married? Very easy.
Getting divorced? Very easy.
Getting a mortgage? Very easy.

Economically, morally, any way one cares to look at it, modern society is geared around making it easy for people to make big changes in their lives.

Feckless fathers? Given the prevalent conditions, it's very easy for people to drift through life with no real aims: any way the wind blows...

What can the government do? I can't see that there's much to be achieved by a legislative approach alone.

TVs, video-games and computers are ubiquitous: most non-interested parents have plenty of resources to make sure children are "seen and not heard".

I'm not sure where the answer lies, but I'd be tempted to have a look in the direction of schools and IF there's to be a legislative approach then, perhaps, a mandate on parents' involvement in their children's education MIGHT be an interesting staring point.

in these time's it's noting other than Eduacation that will keep Father's with their Children'as well meaning as Mr Cameron appear's to be
Father's who walk away from their Children very often have Child like
personanlity themself's and come from
disfunctional background's'what need's to be done should have happened to them a long time ago'getting them to pay up is the easy part'reeducating them all over again is the tough part'should they be found'

I would like to comment that we blame on Social workers who destory father's chiildren case also Social worker forced father's children sending to the adoption parents and foster parents. Most social worker who have creating making up idea story on the case who against fathers. I've seen many boys who without father as unknown who the father is and where the real father is. That's why many teeng's who are despress and suffered also get drug for "fun life". Many teen's who listen to adult from 18 to 30 ages who bad influnue to the teeng's. Most father's who lose thier case by the court. Father get another new child by another new women for new life but father's who knew have real son from pervious that sad to miss see real son have no record by social worker who hide things. IF son or daughter will miss real father but both are strange not know each other before who blame at who...Father's who decide not giving the money to their previous children as focus to father's who new children which more than previous children bec of no contact real children in the past.That is reason. That blame at Social worker who not professional behaviour and need their salary is which more than work.
I knew this been happening since 1995 which grow worse in UK from 1995 grow to present. I knew will be worse in 2007 from now to the future. I need the Laws must change for tough.....Gun laws for not give to teeng's ages also shooting club and shop. Also anti-social behaviour. Look worse in 2007 than last year. Please awake for Terror for Drug, Guns, Bomb, Theif,fraud benefit,stop fake marriage from aboard bring to UK also stop immir to UK from East Europe and USA, Paskitan, Iran,Iraq,South Korean, Japan, China, Russian, Romaina, Bulgria, CZ,North India,Thailand, Phillipina, Austrailan, Poland,Italy and Africa. This because many who know about Uk have good benefit than other country also 2 years after get benefits also fiddle benefit. most important number one is PASSPORT. I've seen many people from aboard who got fake UK passport that can come to UK for benefits things also married. I have meet many country like east europe lativa and Luthi women who married to africa and USA and Austrialia and Iran and pakis can become UK go to UK. This is warning. if I was MP and will be new Laws for tough. I am just tell you that I am Asian and born in UK.. didn't matter what skin colour but need to protect UK and not want to damaged to Uk in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email..
Sorry about mix up with English...My mind have injure by gang hit at my head since also little suffered my health that effected my brain.. that's why...hope you understand what this email....

Take care
God Bless you all

Is compell not the same as encourage. Is providing encouragement not the same as outlining incentive? Is outlining incentive not the same as pointing the direction to a different, better way of doing something?

I agree with Jenni in point one, and can also speak from personal experience. Both as a son as as a father. But at the same time it is all too easy to take the quick way out, when we don't want to knuckle down and live through the commitments we made; commitments our children - and spouses - rightly expect and deserve from us.

So for me it comes down to this; mutual respect; not being afraid of the word submussion and serving - where husbands, wives and children learn to submit and serve one another within the family unit that they defend with all their strength.

This is not easy - but what in life that is worthwile comes without effort? Fathers need to learn to put their wives and children before themselves. To ruthlessly root out selfishness in their own lives. To humbly lead the way way in love.

In the sage words of Paul, "love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast; it is not proud or rude or self-seeking; it is not easily angered. Love keeps no record of wrongs. It does not delight in evil but rejoices with the Truth. It always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Perhaps we should all get back to love...

I object to this. Cameron assumes that all absent fathers are irresponsible yet there are many 'responsible' dads out there who have been denied being part of their kids upbringing by the mother and the family court process. Just because a dad doesn't live with his kids, it doesn't mean he's feckless -he may have tried everything in his power to make the family work. Sometimes living apart is the best option - if people have fallen out of love forcing them to stay together for money won't make them a better family unit. Family breakdowns are rarely simple - what if your partner has become abusive or has been unfaithful - should they still stay together then? I was considering voting Conservative but not after these ill thought out and naieve comments from their leader.

A feckless father is one thing. Can we think of another label for father's who do pay their child maintenance but are unable to see their children because obstructive mother's are not compelled to abide by court orders which indicate that they should see their children?

The root of feckless is 'effectless'. So maybe 'effective fathers?'

what about the fathers who do want to be with their kids but whose wives have, for one reason or another , decided that they are no longer welcome in the family home? the odds are stacked against their gaining access/influence etc. Not all absent fathers are such through choice!

We will never get proper emotional, physical and social childcare right while politicians take such a backward-looking view, wringing their hands over 'feckless' individuals. Is there nobody in parliament who will work with the status quo, ie of multiple partners and families, to help it evolve into something that serves the children and does not force them into gangs to find protection and identity?

The only thing government (the king) can do for the citizens is to provide a good example by their own behavior. Legislation is more or less useless. People will do what they see their leaders doing. If the leaders are scum, the people will be too. You can't say one thing and do another, and expect to be followed. Leaders need to be religiously trained from birth, otherwise how will anyone know the right path? The right path is the best path because it is what everyone wants to do. No one can do anything when there is no taste. The king must protect the citizens by providing not only secure borders but also by providing spiritual direction.
Spiritual direction comes from saintly advisors to the king.

Every individual involved in divorce or separation should take extra efforts to stay together. Didnt we all struggle to learn our lessons in school. We stuck to it to make sure we had good education and nice jobs. Similarly take extra efforts to make your relationship a success. We learnt how to eat, drink and play. Now you have to learn how to stay together. not just for your benefit, but your partner and children. Be a role model for your children.

People should not be compelled to stay in marriage or relationships that are abusive.

That said, it should not be so easy and advantageous for couples to split and for the fathers, who are willing, to be disregarded with regard to having custody, shared or otherwise, or maintain meaningful contact (not every other weekend!) with their children.

That is the true failure, that society views raising children as the responsibility of the mother and the law upholds this.

Let's make it clear fathers are essential in 99% of cases.

There are exceptions, I am one myself.

Maybe it is neither single mothers nor feckless fathers but broken homes? Shame it isn't alliterative, really...

Anyone with eyes to see can see what a difference a good father makes to the children in a family. Boys benefit so much from an older friend, trusted confidant, and a positive role model. In a happy partnership, they learn so much, and make fantastic men and excellent partners when they grow up.

But introducing compulsion into the equation seems to defeat the object. Anyone who is compelled to be a parent, whether male or female, is unlikely to be a good one. It's a role which needs genuine selflessness and a desire to put the interests of others before one's own. This is not a quality which can be compelled.

Men have all too often lacked a meaningful role within the family. As women gained socially and economically, men were often marginalised. Being male was often portrayed as a social defect. Men in families often felt superfluous to requirements, apart from that of financial and sperm contributor.

If their real contribution to the health and wellbeing of their children was recognised and celebrated, perhaps men and women would appreciate the true value of fatherhood. Then being a good father would be a popular ambition which turned women on. Biological imperatives don't need that much help, just the right cultural climate.

And we might then find - perhaps -

that Bob's your uncle!

I think Non resident fathers that would like to see their children at anytime(within reason) should. Just because a marriage or relationship breaks down does not automatically mean the father gets alienated from his offspring.

I think current family law should be looked at more closely and scrutinised carefully in favour of all family concerned. This uncludes uncles, aunties, grand parents etc.

I think when a relationship breaks down then immediate 50/50 access should be granted. As long as there is no risk to the child.

If government policy was not so money minded and against fathers i think that more absent fathers would take up the responsibility of looking after their children very seriously.

Fathers have so much more to offer and 9/10 always put their children first. Thats human nature and you can't argue with millions of years of evolution.

i think that econonic conditions that is less favourable to us in poor countries like nigeria where i am from has made it incresingly difficult to fulfil our roles.this has made us seek outlets to relive the tensions and presures

Feckless dads would inevitably include those who, in addition to being poor fathers, are quite handy with their fists. Do we really want to encourage such a pressured situation which insreases the risk of violence against women?

If these fathers are so feckless, is it good to have them around to be feckless role models? Many single parents cope better without their dodgy partner of either sex, but the infrastructure is not always there to help them do well i.e access to decent housing, schools, food, affordable childcare,flexible working AND common sense policies from agencies designed to help,like social services, police and youth leaders. It needs major financial investment like a new business would- why does every politician want a supply of 'good working class people' for free?
The disaffected youths are looking for ways to belong, to be important, in a scary competitive world- give them support to do this in a better way.

MIke Carter's comment is typical of the liberal left , yawn at real problems being addressed by the conservative leadership , and support specious arguments from the labour leadership about taxing concerned parents in large family cars etc, Whilst the hard working families the labour party calim to support foot the tax bill for the reckless and feckless single mothers and absent fathers get real and stop yawning !!!!

We were the generation who were made so miserable by the demands and discipline of our parents that we spoiled our own children - and are now made miserable by their demands and lack of discipline.

An unhappy two-parent home environment can be much worse for a child than a happy one-parent home environment. Simply compelling parents to remain together sounds like a recipe for child abuse.

I would like to see more emphasis placed on relationship-building skills during and beyond school/college, so that children and adults can learn how to sustain and deepen meaningful relationships instead of allowing them to fall at the first hurdle.

Well said, Sean.
Government has interfered more and more in our lives during the last 50 years or so to the extent that individual responsibility has been abrogated in favour of a vague entity called 'they.'

"They should do something about it!" is the general response to any perceived problem. Who are 'they?' If 'they' really means the mass of weak and woolly politicians too terrified to take note of their constituents' views, then we are in real trouble. The best thing they can do for a start is give us back our right to decide. Allow us to say, "We can do something about this!" without fear of our laws or our children.

There is a culture in our society where young men callously make young women pregnant without ever intending to have any involvement in the child's upbringing. The same young men repeat this behaviour several times in their lives. This is particularly common in specific sections of our society,we all know where. It has been happening for years and nobody is prepared to admit or confront the problem. This is the main, not the only,breeding ground for our disaffected children.

An Argument some two decades late, with the institution of marriage and the family as we used to know literally non-existent, it will be almost an impossible task to do anything about feckless dads. We need to go back to basics; young men need to understand that it is a duty not an option to play crucial part in the upbringing of their children.

The state also needs to stop sending out the wrong message as well; the nonsensical stance courts take 鈥� arbitrarily giving custody of kids to mothers and ignoring the merits of the case allows too many men to find an excuse to jump ship

Every form of 'Freedom' as a price - maybe this is one we have to pay for the 鈥榤iseducation鈥� of Feminism and this concept misunderstood and misapplied

An Argument some two decades late, with the institution of marriage and the family as we used to know literally non-existent, it will be almost an impossible task to do anything about feckless dads. We need to go back to basics; young men need to understand that it is a duty not an option to play crucial part in the upbringing of their children.

The state also needs to stop sending out the wrong message as well; the nonsensical stance courts take 鈥� arbitrarily giving custody of kids to mothers and ignoring the merits of the case allows too many off the hook.

It appears Mr Cameron and cohorts are heading toward the end result where "Dads" are taken out of the equation altogether.

That is, a Britain in which the State administers compulsory defertilisation where each male is castrated and each female hysterectomied prior to puberty.

Instead, tissue samples are taken and children grown in the lab are issued to couples who prove to be somewhat less than feckless.

And you guys who read this shouldn't scoff - 'cos governments are always looking for new ways of population control. What better way to achieve this than to genetically manufacture your perfectly healthy baby to order while ensuring all the nasty wee crippling, disabling and recidivist genes are removed.

And the cost would be affordable with reductions in crime, and health care provision.

Hitler would be proud of us. We are on the verge of the eugenics programme he was so keen on. And Cameron's suggestion is just the beginning of our 'brave new World'.

Make both marriage and divorce more difficult and licence people to have children!

Fathers who neglect their parental
role should be encouraged through
counselling to live up to natural
calling. The Bible says in Prov. 19.22 that"train a child in the way
he should go. When he grows he won`t
depart from it". Similarly, Deut. 28
(not sure of the verse) says we should train our children while sitting, standing, walking, etc. with
the children. These verses encourage
good companionship between parents and children as a means of training
and emulation. No wonder people would
say like father like child.
In my countryside, some fathers reject a child for not resembling him in character. "Bastard", he may
roar. Such children would ran their
to the mother and demanded to know
who his father is. This type of family embarassment can be avoided
through close relation and teaching
by the father.
The environment is a strong factor
in child training. Fathers must not only provide a good environment, but
must note that their presence makes
that environment richer and better for for training. Only then he can
give his child the required "second
birth" to be like him physically and socially.

Cameron is becoming yet another control freak. Time for the Conservatives to ditch him. Time to urgently find someone who can display a little more wisdom than a toothbrush.

There are 'broken' families that work perfectly well and it seems to me that the one thing they all have in common is that both parents can communicate well together. It could be an idea to have 'break-up counsellors' who could help parents work together better once they've split up. This could help both parties agree on things like access, maintenance and responsibility in a neutral environment. At the moment, it seems that the only time intervention (courts, CSA etc) happens is when it all goes terribly wrong, which is not only too late, but surely more damaging in the long run.

Compel fathers to stay with families? What a dummy the man is. Make them pay, yes. We should take that further. Single parents who will not name the other parent (and so do not claim support) should be required to repay the childcare benefits they receive, after the child(ren) is/are independent. Personal responsibility with compassion should be the basis for social policy.

Bringing up children is THE most responsible job anyone can have. It is not a part time job suitable for a single parent.
Making a marriage work isn鈥檛 always easy and has to be worked at. There should be tax allowances for couples that stay together.
Child benefit should be collected by the Inland Revenue from ALL working parents and paid to the person responsible for the child.
If the fathers of a single parent child are not disclosed to the Inland Revenue the child benefit should be halved. This may be very hard but it is the only way to make people act responsibly.

I grew up in England without a father and now am a parent my self with two wonderful boys. This is a very hot topic in my book and family is key. Society in general has to much emphasis on the work culture than family culture which has been erroding for decades. With two spouses working to make ends meet its no wonder there is a parent gap.

All I know is that my grandparents on both sides of the family had the right values and family was the most important thing. You cant make fathers be with there children and to do so is dangerous and can cause more conflict. I think a vasectomy credit would be a good idea for wayward Dads

Moral's and family values are important in this debate, which seems to be lost in todays society. If fathers cannot financially provide for their children, then they should at least provide support in other ways - emotional support, love and affection and so on. However, with some father's there is little attempt to rectify the situation as in most cases the state is there to provide for the short comings of the single mother and child, in financial terms however small. It leads me to believe that some men have children in order to show machismo. The more children you have, the manlier you are. This is why we have neglected children in poverty running around the street killing one another. There is no family structure and some mother鈥檚 find it both financially and emotionally difficult to cope alone. Men want 鈥榩arental responsibility鈥� but do not wish to be responsible.

Child rearing is a way of life and an art. The touch of it is lost to a world devoured by consumerism. Values are lost in the never-ending search for 'fun'. Governments can do a lot in re-structuring social fabrics for a more constructive network of protection. To do so, basic economic changes are needed. Providing parents opportunities to spend more time and re-educating are good programs to begin with.

Wantonness in sexual relationships and unanticipated parenthood are problems created by modern society itself.Excellent leadership setting high norms by those who run governments would go a long way.

So fathers are the problem...it all seems so easy as soon as someone can be identified as the problem. The young men who are killing/being killed are a small minority of the young of the areas that are presently effected, and an even smaller proportion of the young people being raised in families where fathers are absent - either in South London or more widely. So there must be some other factors that have led to this criminal behaviour - while the stability of home life is undeniably a critical factor, maybe the overall environment within which these young people live plays an even more critical part in shaping their behaviour: the quality of schooling, the availability of, and access to youth provision, the built environment - large rundown estates and open space.... but I can't help thinking that the problems have their roots in the past: no I'm not going to blame the 60s, I want to focus on the 80s - "no such thing as society", disinvestment in public services, large scale, long-term unemployment, and the all pervasive culture of 'look after yourself, don't worry about anyone else'. 'We are not interdependent', there is no 'common good' - that's for fools. And so it came to pass that life is cheap and of no real consequence.

So just what would an incoming Cameron government actually do? Even tagging these errant fathers will cost public money. I'm happy to see public money being spent for the common good, but keeping people in relationships that don't work doesn't seem like 'smart spending' to me.

We are living in an extremely selfish society - even down to the way people behave in marriage/'permanent' relationship or as parents. Few are prepared to put anything into their marriage or family - only want what they can get out of it.

No-one should consider bringing a child into the world unless s/he is prepared to stay with her/his partner and give of her/his all to look after the child. Even within a 'normal family', parents are very self-centered - placing careers before their children. Putting young children into nurseries and giving older ones front door keys is not good parenting. This is the result of the 'Women's Lib' culture that has been gnawing away at society for the past quarter of a century. Where is it going to end?

You can't compel teenage men (or older ones for that matter) to become good fathers. To some extent the problem starts with feckless girls/women and it would be easier to do something about it by concentrating on the girls. They need to be taught in school what abortions are and that if you don't believe in them (and aren't prepared for the adoption option) you have to follow these rules in life:
1) You shouldn't have sex at all until you're mature enough to be a good mother.
2) Even if you think you are mature enough for motherhood you have to be very careful that every man you sleep with will be adequate as a father.

Demonising fathers is no solution. As it happens, the Conservative Party is very sensibly supporting shared paretning legislation, as exists in the US, Australia, Belgium etc. Sad that David Cameron did not mention this policy. Both parents need to be involved in a child's upbringing, after divorce as before. The website of 'Families Need Fathers' has a paper that puts the case.

Another great wheeze from the Boy Cameron.

What does he suggest for feckless fathers who have multiple offspring with different mothers, as they often seem to ?

And what about feckless binge drinking young women?

As usual, the "all things to everyone", opportunistic Mr Cameron has waded into an area in which he feels he can pick up cheap and easy votes.

I hear no major political party talking about the rights of both fathers and children to even have a relationship. Thanks to long periods of no contact with my children due to court orders being frequently broken and the accompanying brainwashing, my once excellent relationship with my daughter no longer exists (I was for the first nine years of her life the primary carer). For my son, who lived with me for the last four years, there is no such problem. He knows his dad is not the monster his mother described.

Politicians can rarely be trusted but Cameron is turning phoney opportunism into a fine art. Marriages break up for good reasons, this is not the business of government.

I'll expand my comment for the benefit of John Mckee (26)

Under Thatcher it was single moms
Under Cameron it's feckless dads

Under Blair it's the middle classes
Under Gordon Brown it'll be something different.

Yawn.

My contempt is for vacuous soundbites of all hues.

Money isn't the only thing that matters in families, but it does matter. One of the most destructive things that has happened to families in my lifetime is the change in the mortgage rules to base a mortgage on two people's income instead of just one. That pushed house prices to ludicrous levels and meant that young parents (mothers AND fathers) simply couldn't be there for their young children. Children need parents - to read stories, to instil values, to share play, to observe development, to set an example, to enforce the rules, to have fun together. This is called upbringing, and it needs to be done by people, not institutions.

Too right - Ive heard of teenagers even at posh schools who end up smoking drugs and taking coke - where are the fathers I have to ask?

Parenting classes might help plus some financial incentives to stay as a family. However, if couples don't want to be together, they cannot be forced to be without harming the children.

Perhaps you could compel fathers (legally and/or socially) to play a part in their children鈥檚 lives, even if they had separated from the mother, but what good would it do? If a father isn鈥檛 interested in his child, forcing him to see that child every week or fortnight will make him even more resentful and certainly won鈥檛 compel him to be a loving father adding to his child鈥檚 wellbeing.

I never knew my father, he never made any attempt to know me (I鈥檓 sure of this before anyone thinks differently), what good would it have done me to have a father who felt obliged to spend a few hours a month with me or worse, obliged to stay with my mother in an empty marriage?

With reference to these boys in South London and other urban areas: yes, the lack of a strong, positive male influence (not necessarily a father; a brother, uncle, or even family friend) is often part of the problem, but in the context of their housing, expectations, education and how they鈥檙e treated by the media, the police, the local authorities and the rest. Unfortunately this is just the issue of the day until something else comes along and the politicians loose interest. They lost interest a few decades ago, and now look where things are. It鈥檒l take decades to get it right, but politics, being a short-term game, won鈥檛 help.

Feckless fathers with no energy and enthusiasm are unlikey to be compelled to do anything let alone be motivated parents.

The release of the UNICEF report "UK children bottom of the well being league" coinciding with the 3 or is it 4 juvenile shootings is a tragedy putting children and parents in the spotlight.

I have checked the UNICEF report and it does not mention feckless fathers. It does mention unemployment, income inequality and other things that are more squarely within Mr Cameron's mandate which he did not comment upon though.

Anything was better than having to put up with listening to my Mother-in-law and wife pestering me ? .... I went back down to Pompey and stayed in Royal Naval Barracks .. instead of coming home to Burnley ..

Regards

Norman Tomlinson
Lancaster

ENDS
+++

Politicians do not have the answer, although they pretend, by saying simple mantra-like soundbites; "feckless fathers".

Money is the root of the evil, along with the "me first" syndrome. The Anglo-Saxon and his endless competition, material acquisition, ego and the image it is trying to create. There is a lack of insight, because selfish people lack this. Poor communication skills replaced with violent acts and words. Impatience, willingness to get into huge debt. It all adds up and the cycle will be repeated.

I'm certainly in favour of people having to honour their obligations - to society, children, and so on. So ensuring that parents (of both sexes) provide for their children seems right and proper.

As to forcing the "feckless" to go on living with their partner / kids ... how exactly would you do that and would the results be worth the effort?

There is plenty of evidence that children learn many of their social behaviour patterns from their parents so personally I'd fear that they will simply learn to be feckless too. Bringing up kids to be feckless does not sound like much of a plan to me.

I'd rather hoped Cameron had given up scraping away at that one stringed fiddle so beloved of Tory leaders. Social problems and social costs are a greal deal more intricately entwined than he seems to understand. By all means address them, and by all means work to reduce the costs to the benefits system but can we please have an intelligent proposal instead of this twaddle.

As important as I believe it is to maintain the family unit, there is nothing that can compell a father - or mother, for that matter - to stay in a bad relationship or marriage for the sake of the children; nor should they. A loveless and hostile invironment is not a great place to grow-up in.

That said, rather than forcing fathers to stay, it would be better to instill sound parental values early on in their lives--training them at an early age to be responsible and effective parents. Theaching them the importance of maintainging the integrity of the family unit.

Sir/Madam,

I have spent ages trying to get access to my child who is overseas.
His birthday is this Sunday and he will not even be allowed to receive a phone-call from him. My wife left me for another man, receives mainrenance from me and squanders it.

What about a few words regarding reckless mothers????

Paul

What is it with the 主播大秀 and the word "kids"?

Is it so hard to refer to them as children or is it because so much of the 主播大秀's output is destined for an American audience? Maybe that's why a lot of 主播大秀 news footage has that strange, green hue.

Politics is the source of divorce..

..compulsion makes situations too simple and much worse...

Cameron's job on this topic may be to reduce divorce by reducing politics..and compulsion... working through the socialist politics that cause it and creating a world of understanding free from compulsion...

... compulsory this that and the other is a reason people cannot get on...

By eight my parents had divorced over everything other than the love of family...and I had become rather intrigued by the differences in row leadership..every debate had been decided opposingly and they were mad with it ... my dad left.. my brother grew up... and I became the man of the house lord of the manor..but could continue to get on with either one on my own terms but not with either of them on theirs so was happy to go to boarding school and continue to ignore them..

Her Majesty seems to create a world for the potential of man and I am a fan ...a world free from political compulsion is what is needed...and when that happened we all had fun...

Because of politics many are f#less and misfortuned...without politics we would all be free to explore our own ways..that should be his aim...

We should compel politicians to let each other be different... the best behaviour is when their is no behaviour...

We look forward to media leadership outclassing him again!!

A two family man will always have a reason for doing what he is doing . Ruining his first family and then starting another . If their are children in each of his feckless ways. It is still his burden; and no other is to blame . He now will have two unhappy families . and a disgruntled taxpayer .They will always quote unhappy marriages as an excuse and not their own miserable attitude to their own fecklessness RB

Please Mr Cameron! Get out of your ivory tower and down to common people life before opening your mouth!

Under sex discrimination act, isn't it an offence to believe that there is such a difference between man and woman? How many men would like to get custody of their kids when the couple breaks down?

First from the couple perspective, two people stay together if they have something to share on a personal level. If Mr Cameron wants that to be a financial deal, it won't help the welfare of the other spouse neither the one of the kids. Marriage as a solution! Drop it. The level of fidelity in homosexual couples (two who want to enter a long-term relationship) is as good as the one of the heterosexual, which means that marriage is irrelevant. Therefore, financial incentive on married couples will not make fathers (neither mothers) better being, but just the deal (i.e. marriage) stronger: is that enough.

Second from the society perspective, it seems often normal to expect more mobility from men on the workplace. As long as the society will not accept that raising a kid is the work of two, so that accommodation should be allowed for both regarding kids, the problem of the couple will remain. It is not only a matter of regulation, but regulation will force the change in behaviour and create awareness and consciousness. How many employers and colleagues will accept without prejudice that their male employees stay at home for kid's sickness, because their spouse has an important matter scheduled.

Overall, feckless fathers' matter is not about fathers, it is mostly about priorities in our society. In our environment, we are everyday offered to shop around and change when it fits us better. Financial incentive is the same as loyalty scheme, but nothing to do with be loyal. But that being said, does the tax system (in other words us) work properly to avoid people to feel better separate than together? Children might think that their parents are feckless, therefore should the state provides incentives to children to remain nicely within the family? It sounds stupid, doesn't it? So, would it sound clever to reorganise the work environment so that parents commute less and have more present time for the children homework, lunch/dinner and leisure time? If you think that I am not correct in my analysis, why is it that so many Brits (who can) go to buy abroad, in France or Spain for instance, because of a certain quality of life?

So Mr Cameron, I do not think that riding a bicycle is enough to pretend being greener than your opponent. But, pretending that 鈥渃ompelling fathers to stay鈥� is a possible solution, sounds just fanatic as if the words were the ones of a Bush can have clash of civilisations, a Pope on abortion, or a Bin Laden on humanism. But after all, this is maybe just the new face of conservatism. Now with that said, it does not make Mr Blair a saint, just as dogmatic.

I am a father and I do not live with my son or his mother. I love my son dearly and do everthing I can to ensure his upbringing is as happy and fulfilling as possible.

Being a separated parent can be tough at times, it requires a different type commitment; a great deal of organisation and an acknowledgment that your child's needs will require tolerating circumstances that are unpleasant for you personally.

But, am I a feckless father because I chose not to stay in an unhappy relationship? Should I be penalised, tagged, taxed or even compelled to restart my relationship with my ex-partner?

Whatever the good intentions behind this latest pronouncement might be, if fathers like me are affected negatively by any action taken because of it, then it could do more harm than good.

Nonetheless it still just seems like politico grandstanding.

Amazing - The problem in our society is
stress brought on by the heavy burden of regulation laws heaped on every one and in particular the bewildering taxation system. Most people work too hard and long to keep up and then pay the real price - lost family values.

"Compelling dads" is this story for real? I was of the understanding that relationships fail for a number of reasons and the cause of those failures are quite evenly distributed between men and women. Forcing a failed couple together can't be a healthy thing for any party involved. This is an ill thought out idea that would be pretty much unworkable. However taxing people with kids more than those without sounds like a good plan to me though!

I want to say that societal public disorder should not be encouraged on ground of sentiment. Fatherhood is a responsibility voluntarily and decisively entered into, and children not catered for constitute societal nuisance attributablr to such fathers. Any father who does not stay with the family shold risk imprisonment backed by law.

It is definitely important for father to have time with their kids, it will help to reduce some of the misbehaivious happean in our communities from the kids side,and becayse fathers are in position to compare what happean in their time as kids and discuss such issue which will have positive impact on the life of the kids and it will generate more understanding with the family relationship and aviod have bad mines for the family memberor any individual who is a human being.

It really isn't simply about fathers and their responsibilities. It begins with the initial act of sex before marriage and sex without accountability. Our Christian Heritage gave us standards to adhere to which are no longer respected and we are seeing the break down of the family unit as a direct result of this tragic situation. Muslim people have watch our community and they are growing from strength to strength beacuse we have not been responsible Christians. People sleep around with many partners live together then move on and we have seen the demise of marriage and the rise of divorce. All of this is from living without Christian values and standards and unfortunately this also includes many "Christians" who are not really Chriatian at all but simply visit religous meetings and carry on like everyone else afterwards. We are on a
slippery slope and I see no other alternative but to return to Biblical bbasics. People will then have respect for each other and for God's laws life will be cleaner more balanced and crime rates will be amended. Wake up and smell the coffee...it's not about the fruit ie the problem it's about the root ie from whence the problem comes!!!!!!

Whenever a leading poitician launches a moral crusade, he or she is on a hiding to nothing. People are fallible, unpredictable and just too damned human for political purposes. Anyone remember the storm of revealed infideities that followed on from Major's "back to basics" campaign? What's the betting we're about to see a repeat of that?

On something of a more relevant note than Cameron's attempts at canvassing on a social engineering ticket, the fact that he demands the right to a private life (with regards to allegations of earlier drug-based misdemeanours) sticks in the craw somewhat when he clearly plans to interfere with the private lives of millions of others. But then, I bet he's not thinking of reprimanding old Etonian fecklessness, just the kind he sees as coming fom council estates.

Not all absent fathers choose to leave the family home or to be separated from their children. I have my children with me 50% of their time as I would not wish to be a weekend Dad or less, as happens at times.

Anyway, what about feckless wives who choose to leave the marital home. Is Cameron a sexist or what?

None of the State's business.

I work for a big metanational corporation, am happy to have a job to support my family, but they demand so much unpaid overtime just to compete with Bangalore that I can't spend as much time with my family.

Not much choice. I cannot imagine that a father who actually HAS some free time not pre-empted by a US metanational corporation would want to do anything BUT see his family.

But the real nightmare would be having some government "social worker" invade our household. As I said, this is private family life, and none of the State's business. The State should be thinking more about controlling these runaway corporations, than micromanaging families and children.

What a load of nonsense. If this is the shape of new conservative thinking then how square and inside the box is this!
We cannot compel fathers or mothers to stay in relationships that don't work. What we need to do is maximise prevention on children born out of unstable relationships in the first place. This means better education concerning sexsual relations, family values and the responsbility of parenthood. Social problems need cultural change. Young people need to be seen as the solution not the problem. Then we can get somewhere.

1. Children need both parents in their lives even if parents are no longer living together.
2. Fathers (who are not supporting mother) often apply to Court for contact with their children - mother often oppose.
3. Courts usually (and correctly) overthrow mother's opposition and order that fathers should have contact with the child(ren).
4. There is a weakness in our legal system in that the same Court does not have powers to require father to contribute to the upkeep of the children.
5 I'm a man professionally involved in these matters, no personal axe to grind, and would say that mothers must feel to be in a lose-lose situation - children have a need and a right to see their fathers but fathers have a similar responsibility to support their children.

There's no easy fix as the root of the problem lies in the age old concept of respect, which only seems to apply if you're holding a gun. I'll get shot down by the loony liberal brigade but how about making the father responsible for the action of his children, ultimately with custodial sentances rather than unpaid fines. The potential loss of his freedom might make him take a bit more interest in what his kids are up to.

When people start spending less time at the pubs and devote more attention to the family we shall have a children well brought up with good manners but how do you expect a good upbringing with absentee parents? Cameron is right and deserves every support.

I'm 17 and not a huge fan of politicians. To become leader of a party in this country you must be arrogant and egocentric. We have lost political idealism and anybody who steps into politics with genuine and true intentions is destined to fail.
I am still in a state of shock that one labour spokesman's response to the UNICEF report was that he believed some of the data to be out of date. What young people need is a politician who is genuine and prepared to admit mistakes; it is easier to relate to someone who is willing and humble enough to let down their guard.

I am not sure quite how contrived this idea is but...perhaps somebody like Richard Branson is the only person that could sort this country out. By and large his ideas work so perhaps somebody should ask him what he would do to solve the problem of "feckless fathers."

How about Mr Cameron getting to grips with the bigger fish he needs to fry.
This smacks too much of the old Thatcherite "Victorian values" agenda.Would it include weekly compulsory Parternal visits to children at boarding school?
Women only at Pubs on say a friday night thus ensurring that fathers stay at home with the kids?

He needs to sack his current policy thinktank.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that they should sort out the sexual discrimination in the secret family courts before complaining about those who can't be bothered. I have been through seven years + of pure hell through the courts to see my daughter, and would give my right arm not to care, live longer, not hurt every day of my life. I can totally understand how some know that it will kill them if they go through this, and so give up.

So, sort the courts, make shared residence as a norm, THEN deal with wasters, as you will know who they are!!!!!! This present society is sick, in more ways than one. I don't know a divorced dad who has not been seriously ill in some form or another.

Dan

I can hardly believe that David Cameron can advocate compulsion to absent fathers - though it might sound tough. This compulsion would effectively be applied where a father was intentionally absent. My view is that it is somewhat impractical as this state compulsion would hardly be likey to improve things, and more than likely worsen things. There are alternatives, for example incentives and/or persuasion - but then, who knows, perhaps David thinks he needs to sound tough to the electorate and must not be seen to be too Tory!

I've noticed thar parents always ask me what I want my 3 year old to be or to achieve. Nobody ever sasks me if he's happy. I retired at 60 to look after my boy. I work on the principle that a happy optimistic child will learn, develop and is unlikely to become an anti-social psychpath.

And what of feckless mothers? Those who have wilfully and cruelly denied us access to our children. This is not a one sided arguement.

Well since it is women who, encouraged by grasping dishonest lawyers, force the collapse of most marriages (I think its 2 to 1 in favour of women) and then seek to get the money and keep the fathers away from their kids, it seems Mr Cameron has done as much 'research' as a typical Oxford PPE student...

The divorce laws should presume a 50:50 caring of children and a 50:50 disposal of wealth not as seems so common today the woman gets 80% and forces the father away.

Yes marriage needs to be supported financially but it was Mrs T who ended all the fiscal benefits!

We also need to ensure that lawyers are kept totally out of the picture as they are causing the most incredible hardships to the children, then the father.

We also should not support the huge feather bedding of single mothers... After all the 'products' of single mothers are the children who are populating our prisons and causing almost all the crime. Any woman intending having a baby out of marriage should be told she gets no benefits and no jump to the front of council housing queues and unless she has say 拢200,000 of cash assets to support the child for say 5 yrs will have to undergo a termination.

Just go into any criminal court and you will see it is single mothers who are producing nearly all the criminals today!

ie the divorce lawyers produce the work for their criminal lawyer mates in 5-10 yrs time, while meantime we law abiding citizens are the victims of these kids

I can't help thinking the part of the problem that society is facing is a result not only from a promotion of individualist values, but also feminist social changes, appearing after the 60's. Prior to the 60's, the husband went out to work, while the mother acted as a housewife. The feminist movement revolutionised this tradition, and empowered women by allowing them to work and take charge of their destinies. The value of the maternal role has been eroded by this process, and the paternal role has not evolved to compensate. The legacy of the outdated model of maternal support now needs to be updated to reflect the vacuum of social support that has occurred. As a consequence of the increased demand of the role of the paternal father, the father does not have the maternal instincts in the same way as the mother. The paternal role has to be learned to some extent. Surely the solution involves providing fathers with the ability to provide paternal support so that they know how to care for their children. The culture which they are adopting is based on outdated models of society. I suggest providing paternal advice centres, and promoting a peer network of fathers who will feel valued by society and able to relate to other fathers to discuss their common experiences. Without this, the only alternative is a "natter down the pub and a game of pool and darts with the lads after a game of footy". Hardly any benefit to their child.
I can't but feel that young men are being demonised and blamed for the problem, and the girls being seen as sugar and spice and all things nice. I think the frustration is leading not only to rebellious children, but also to fathers who are frustrated with not knowing how to be a responsible father, and become aggressive, abusive, and consequentially fall out with their spouses.

The importance of the father figure in the nuclear family home, whilst functioning in the most psycho socially productive fashion, that is to say, he has incorportated the most productive aspects of nuturing his progeny, in a comprehensive parenting model.
This is the father who represents the ultimate role model. He has chosen a woman with whom he would like to reproduce his genetic code with, henceforth sharing all that has transcended his space in time.
The father who is in the best physical health, who has achieved an intellectual ability to impart his gifts, his fun, his laughter, and his protection to his family.
He is the father who is engaged emotionally with the needs of his wife, his children, his relatives, friends, neighbours, and other aquaintances.
He is the father who has intentionally planned to impregnate his partner who will share her genetic endowment with his.........
She would be his spiritual compliment, sharing her genetic code with his, to reproduce a child of their own atomic parameters.
Care must be taken to ensure the genetic code in in the optimal condition, that the health, and the emotional maturity of the parents is complemented within our society perspective so that parents can plan to offer one another the optimal reproductive life that they will share together in their devine reproduction, which has been given to all people, as our eternal heritage moves forward together, and this is where people get lost........
They just don't get it.........
That is why there are so many social problems.........Marriage as a familial institution has been largely neglected due to the lack of focus on amelioration. One strategy might be to develop more opportunities for programming to teach many of the myriad of skills that are essential to a happy, faithful and satisfying life together, which are really multi-faceted concepts.
There are so many issues to address and concepts to teach the prospective new bride and groom, many of which are never really covered in secondary school. We could deal with many of these issues by developing some programming to discuss the various topics that impact on families, as well as develop our web-based technologies to teach young fathers about their respective role in the family, and just what the societal expectations are.
So many children are abandoned, by fathers who really are ignorant, and in need of guideance to develop more resources and skills in parenting.
Love of course remains the essential ingredient, however, we have all heard the horror story of the mother who killed her child by putting too much salt in the baby food for too long a time, or the loving mother who drank too much during pregnancy and gave birth to a creton, or how the food manufacturers are killing the people with too many fats, food additives, and so forth, or how the alcohol industry pickles peoples bodies, the toxins, the pollutions........the time constraints......there are really many social problems for some segments of the population and less for others, mainly the upper social classes, since we are observing the positive impact of education, and optimal living and environmental conditions therein.
We must strive to improve the family strength for life is truly for loving and sharing and we can always help fathers to understand, by what we teach and what we, more importantly VALUE.

If parents are responsible for young persons until the age of 18 then whatever happens to break up the family should not be an excuse for such parents to abandon their duties to that young person. For too long our youngsters have been allowed to behave badly, even criminally, without any serious form of punishement being given to them. They just give two fingers to all forms of Authority because no one can touch them - and they know this to be a fact.
I wonder if anyone has thought to punish BOTH parents of any youngster that behaves badly or criminally. If BOTH parents know that they will be prosecuted for their child's crimes or misdeamours it may help them to conduct family life in a better way. It would oblige BOTH parents, even the absent one, to be aware that they still have full responsibily for the conduct of their child. It would also ensure a continuous contact with the absent parent. I am sure that N.I. Numbers, etc, could be used to maintain contact with the absent parent.

I have read the mail on tonights programme and realise that as a 44 yo gay man, it doesn't make any sense. I would love to be a father, but feel, as many do, that a child should have a male and female influence and therefore look from afar. The comments so far are so so sad. Please remember that there is a child at the heart of these arguements.

In my earlier life, I would have whole-heartedly agreed with the 90% of comments here moaning about feckless, absent dads; instead I'm a woman who has seen the devastation of broken families from the heartbroken dad's perspective and it horrifies me.

My partner and his ex broke up when his child was a baby: no big arguments, simply they agreed they did not want to be together anymore. Since then he has had to fight tooth-and-nail to maintain basic fortnightly access to his son; has had to agree to the most ridiculous, and frequently insane (literally, as was recently diagnosed) demands she has placed on us for 9 years; mutely refuse to rise to her threats to cease access on a whim/move elsewhere/ tell his son lies about him unless we give her extra money (cash-in-hand so as not to upset her benefit/CSA payments), and absorb without complaint anything and everything she has thrown at us.

Our lives have been on hold, never under our control, as she changed weekends when she felt like it, going out on purpose at times he was due to pick his son up, leaving us anxiously waiting for her next demand, threat or change of plan.

We knew that to rise to her threats, demands and petty tactics, and to take her to court to compel her to give us regular access, would so infuriate her that ALL access would then be denied, and family court would be of no help to us once this happened.

Why? The mother is almost always allowed to renege on access agreements without any fear of real sanctions from the courts. What can courts do to compel mothers to comply with access agreements? They can find the mother in contempt of court, but what then? Cut the money to the mum (and by extension the child)? Jail her for repeated failure to comply? What responsible father is going to go to court to jail his child's mum so he can see the child? It took until my partner's ex became a physical danger towards my step-son for us to even to have a chance in the courts for anything more than weekend access.

This heartache is because Family Law gives the man no legal RIGHT to see his child along with his obvious responsibility towards that child. Essentially, mothers can act however they want about allowing access as no court is wiling or able to sanction a mother's feckless and damaging behaviour until it becomes a physical danger to the child. Rights and responsibilities towards the child need to be applied equally to both parents. Society will feel the benefits.

My partner is not alone, we know other men in similar - and worse - situations. All these men are broken shells: desperate to see their kids, willing to put up with anything thrown at them by the mothers and the courts in order to maintain irregular, inadequate contact with their beloved and much-wanted children.

The difficulties many men go through to see their children are not widely understood - Family Courts are unfair and hidden behind closed doors - and the men involved are in contempt of court if they speak about their case, even to their own friends and relatives.

This inequality of rights and responsibilities, and the heartache and problems it causes are one of the reasons some - but by no means all - men eventually give up fighting to see their children. Not all separated fathers are feckless, nor are all fathers absent from their children's lives through choice

I was married for 12 years to a 'feckless' man who left me when my daughter was four. If he had stayed I would have had a terrible life - he was an alcoholic, a thief, violent and bone idle. Because he left I made my own life - bought my daughter up, re-educated myself, went to university and got a BA (Hons) and now work as an administrator. I am now married to a wonderful, hardworking, kind and intelligent man - a brilliant step-dad to my daughter and even more brilliant Grandad to our three year old grandaughter. Sometimes we make mistakes but we don't want to have to be stuck with them forever. Cameron is a Tory and I lived under the tories during that 12 years. He ought to go and live in the real world!

I spent 拢80,000 getting access to my son (and the mother was violent...which does not matter in my book), why is there no presumption of automatic contact for BOTH parents on separation? That would ina stroke, help. Most cannot do what I did.Do you wonder 60% fathers lose access in 2 years of separation. The secret system does not work.

I would like to say that fathers are not to blame for not being able to or not wanting to support there children.

The fact is that many children are now from separated families and this country seems to think especially the politians that fathers are to blame when the problem is that most fathers are denied access to their children by ex-wives by law.

Good evening Gavin ..... I'm listening to 'Newsnight' at the moment and I'd like to put a question to your panel ... have you stopped and thought why young men don't become 'Sperm donors' these days ?..... the answer is .... the CSA can demand that the natural father pay maintenace towards to child .. ABSOLUTELY CRAZY ....

Regards

Norman Tomlinson
Lancaster

ENDS
+++

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's with the emphasis on fathers? Is it not an issue with single-parent families in general??

The fact is that we (as parents - I am one) are hamstrung by the current moral society, where we're told we can't do this, we can't do that; we're effectively unable to control our children for fear of being taken to task - let alone other children. Adults are pretty much living in fear of current youth - and we have only ourselves to blame.

Why blame fathers, the single mother club has grown enormously since the Polly Tonybee generation started wearing "I'm a Single Parent" Badges. They pushed and pushed and managed to get the sympathetic ear of politicians. About time this was thrown back at some of those women who now prefer to live by themselves and change partners like fashion accessories. Having said that, there are many women who want to bring up families in the traditional way, with a breadwinning husband to support them during the early years of motherhood when most would prefer not to work. Unfortunately they are spurned by the sisterhood who control the classrooms and newsrooms of this country, supported by the feminised males who never question their motives. When did the 主播大秀, Channel 4 or other media last show succesful boys at exam time, its nearly always girls jumping for joy with success. I wonder if that is to do with women teachers telling the girls you will have to support yourself, don't rely on getting a husband. Boys seem only ever to appear when there is something nasty to say. A lot of men want to be good fathers but the way the world has gone in recent years girls are often financially better off living alone with state backing. Make it a bit harder and they will start to look for good reliable men. There are plenty out there. If boys know they may have the responsibility of being a breadwinner they will start to push themselves more in the classroom and university. They have done it before when it was expected. seems it is no longer expected. Lets start getting the world back on track, people denigrate the nuclear family but in the main it did work. Unhappy marriages are so easily put as the reason for wives to take the kids and whatever else they can obtain from their husbands with the support of the oh so biased legal system and media. Men are no angels I know, there are rotters out there, but my worry is that it is likely to get worse if the sons of today see their mother bring home a string of fathers during their childhood. They will see that as what men do. Give men a break. As one of your guests said the other night, men are all made to feel like paedophiles and rapists, this feminist society must be shown it has taken the wrong path. I could go on and on, I really do feel so sad for many of the young men of today being castigated all the time and not being able to realise their dreams of manhood.

What is the point of discussions like the one tonight on parenting? The guy who works on community projects thinks there should be more community projects; the left wing theorist brings in a lot of irrelevant left-wing theory; the Times columnist thinks we might all be inspired by the words of David Cameron. It was depressing.

Here we go again ! Blame the fathers.

What about the violent mothers that abuse the father mentally and physically, I suppose that's the father's fault too ? do you advocate a father should stay in a relationship when this occurs.

Wake up to "reality" for gods sake !

I think the issue is economic and cultural. Capitalism and commercialism drives everything this country does. It drives us to run around so that we can work and have a family. It drives us to drink and try and escape our problems. It drives us to mental illness and social disorder. It also drives us to behave like economic machines that work too many hours for the actual amount of work we effectively get done in a day. We work for the dream of 'becoming' successful and recognised by this ugly system- an empty achievement when you are an investment banker that has nothing else to show for your life but early loss of hair and no social life outside getting intoxicated and spending ridiculous amounts of money that could be spent on deprived people in Britain. And like machines, we begin to sacrifice time for family, friends and everything that is underlined by love. The most healing thing for this society to do, is to stop seeing exponetial growth as the model for progress, and start chopping off salaries at a point that money can be better distributed. Lets try and become more egalitarian like Denmark, where it doesn't matter whether you are a cleaner or a lawyer, but you do a job and contribute to society and your family and that is what is important.

David Cameron is right about social responsibility. People state that they 'have rights'- but what they forget when they are having a fight after drinking too much is that other people have a right to feel safe in the street. Lets start understanding that individuals are also members of society and when we use our 'civil liberties', liberty is preceeded by the word 'civil'- that means civil behaviour.

People of Britain, stop letting your government nanny you through political and legal devices- the penal system is not supposed to be the check that helps someone to balance their life, there has to be more cohesion, and that can only come from the stability that comes from complimentary roles between men and women in childcare, and a much higher value of of motherhood and women beyond a sexual object to be stared at and consumed like everything else in our culture. If money is the only way to recognise a human beings worth, as it is in our society today, then pay women to stay at home.

Here endeth the rant.

I watched with interest your programme where Claire Fox, Institute of Ideas was talking about social culture. I feel that as reading, writing and arithmitic (allegedly) are compulsory factors of education, so Personal Development is as important, if not more important at the moment, in our education system. I am a community drug worker, counsellor, in the drug service and in a school in Nottingham. In my opinion, and from my client's stories, relationships, rejection and how to cope are major factors. If coping strategies were built into our children, before breakdowns happen, ie as part of education, then maybe this may help our culture. Also if absent fathers are being blamed for societies ills, then the court system needs to change, if they make a contact order in favour of a father, then this should be upheld, at the moment there is nothing the court seems to be able to do to uphold this. I feel family proceedings courts need to be updated and given more powers, in favour of the man - (could their view as it is now be sexist? No man can have a child, they are always going to be the one playing catch up!). Julie

Once again we see a 'hot' subject being discussed on the hoof by politicians without any apparent thought being given to the words used e.g compelling, financially beneficial, change attitude.
These platitudes and exhortations are meaningless and without substance unless there is a planned and understood strategy that people can relate to.
No legislation will change attitudes only work on the ground by dedicated professionals, peer pressure and a mixture of encouragement and condemnation by friends and family has any chance of turning this problem round.

"Men need nuns....it is good to believe in a pure woman to refresh the brain...and sometimes to retrain chosen men for marriage and paternal responsibilities..."

"...that is how we women got convents and palaces built so beautifully ...by payments in advance to do that kind of thing..."

"The Job of Nuns is to care for unwanted inventive men and turn them into the finest gentlemen suitable for marriage ..{the women go to the monks in their monasteries}..."

"Cameron should create legalities for new convent locations and government subsidies for man training ...on sorority and gentrification weekends"

From a man retrained by the prayers of convent educated young women..

If you make a father stay in a family it could lead to the most horrendous living conditions. Wives already get beat up by angry men. After a while it could lead to murder.
Murder could be by husband or wife. Money is what it is all about. Send money. Placing men or women in debtors prison for non payment of child support is crazy. Who gains?
From Virginia, USA

We are freefalling in a downward spiral that our elected leaders seem incapable of controlling. All the developed countries are displaying the very same symptoms of a failing civilisation. Successive Governments, have on many occasions, been presented with serious academic research demonstrating the root causes of this breakdown. Ostrich like, politicians continue to ignore the expert view and respond with popular clich茅s to win votes. This approach does not address the root cause of the problem. If we continue to fight symptoms rather than root causes, then the symptoms will eventually overwhelm the next generation. Of course, selfish citizens don't care about that. Do you?

I totally agree with what Jenni wrote at 12:58 PM on Feb 16, but I would just like to add that fathers, feckless or not, are also human beings and deserve to be happy. The collapse of a marriage is often the fault of neither party. But even if the husband is to blame, he doesn't have to pay for that by staying within a marriage he is unhappy in and thereby sacrificing the best years of his life. He will definitely have to be involved in bringing up his children. But when his kids have grown up, I don't think they will blame him for having left the family.

When benefits payments begin to stop falling through the letterbox and the government makes working the easier way to a better lifestyle again and working two parent families are not penalised financially for being two parent families there might be some hope for salvation.

It really comes down to the fact that so many girls have no idea of how to choose a good father.
maybe this should be taught at school?

Mr Cameron should remember that fatherhood is like politics, you are either for or against the motion and when it comes to deliberation not all members of the family are available to conduct common house affairs!

David is so young to be such an old buffoon. There are some fathers out there who are about as useful as a hole in the head; and are probably the ones who are out and about putting holes in other peoples' heads as we discuss.
A bad father is worse than no father IMO

I am with the 21 post:
21. At 01:12 PM on 16 Feb 2007, Graham Gelder wrote:
the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" comes to mind with this idea - I'm sure ways can be made to make "feckless" fathers stay but can you make them care? and more importantly is it anyone's place - let alone Cameron's - to suggest such things?

Psychyatrically/medically/justiciary/managerially..all these are perverse people.

You can't ever force someone to care, neither government nor individuals.

What you can do government-wise is create a shift in financial bias that will eventually have an affect on people's decisions and ultimately their behaviour.

At the moment ex-fathers, rich or poor, do not contribute the full financial burden of the care of a child from birth to adulthood. So they are free to start another family when the mood takes them, which is, not surprisingly, very soon after they have left the first family home.

When two people have a baby, whether married or not, whether together or not, whether they intended to or not, the realistic cost of keeping that baby into adulthood should ALWAYS remain with BOTH parents. At the moment the burden is shouldered predominantly, almost exclusively, by women and the women's original families.

When a young teenage girl becomes pregnant the state and the girl's family usually muddle together to bring up that child, but never the father, so leaving him free to procreate again without having proved himself to have been any use to a child.

If boys and men who become father's had to be accounted for, and in these days of DNA that is not difficult, then a male should have his earnings docked at source, [and NOT for the Government's coffers either, Tory party please note] but for the child's upbringing in accordance with the upkeep of that child and any other children he has left behind.

No excuses allowed with the plea, "She tricked me." If I were a man, I would be very, very particular as to where I left my sperm, and there are only two ways that you can have that kind of control if you are a man and that is by vasectomy or condoms. Those are the bald facts guys, it's time you faced up to this.

As we women know, no contraception is 100% safe. You, as we have always had to do, will have to face the chance of an accident, again no whinging, hard luck, child on the way, must pay.

What will be the affect of all this? Well, at the moment when a marriage with children breaks up men have the freedom, [space and time and finance] to seek out a new relationship and start again. Serial monogamy is the norm now. Each new wife obviously fights for the best for her children in terms of the father's time and money to the detriment of the previous wife/partner and her children.

This is unacceptable and sets women in competition with women for limited resources. My proposal turns this around and curtails the man, not the ex-wife and children. If a man must pay realistically and fully for each of his children he will be seen as not much of a catch when his next attempt at remarrying comes along with the latest fresh young thing. She will weight him up, count the number of children he already HAS to keep realistically and move on to find a man who has been a little more responsible with his sperm and looks as though he's going to be a lot more committed in his relationship.

Men and boys are aware of this cosy little arrangement that their godfathers' patriarchies have set up for them. It's time this was exposed just as the sexual double standard has been exposed, we now need to expose the procreation double standard, then we might actually get what at the moment is an oxymoron, the 'Grown up Male'. Hope springs eternal.

Has it actually occurred to anyone of those who say that one cannot compel a useless father to stay in a relationship to ask: why do these girls and women who complain about feckles males they're better off without choose to have sex and become pregnatn with in the first place?Has anyone given the slightest thought to the images which bombard teenagers, male or female, day in day out on TV and in their magazines?
They're full of sex-sex-sex: these children define themselves through having sex, nothing else.
After all, its easier than learning hard subjects.
So - blame all those who allowed this to happen, who transformed a world-class school system into the travety it is now.
As for a solution?
I think ist way too late for that - we'll have to live with the consequences, for years to come.

All this is futile. The real need is to prevent babies from being conceived by parents who are not fit to rear them.
The simplest and least dictatorial method is to provide young people with an environment which includes a 'Darwin Test' which would enable them to remove themselves from the gene pool before they reproduce.
Mother Nature used to do this for us quite well, but we have interfered a little too much through the welfare state.

I am a forty year old woman with a 2 year old son who put much effort into creating a stable home before starting a family. One year ago my partner met someone else and left us. Now I am a lone parent bringing up a young child in a way that I neither chose nor want.

I have had the worst year of my life - losing the person I loved and the family environment, I can not be with my son for much of the week because he is with his father and I have to work much more to support us. Now I face the possibility of losing my home.

On top of all that I face the prejudice of all those who look at single mothers only to stereotype them and blame them.

Now single fathers are being demonised. Sure, I blame my ex-partner - but that is for me to do, not the state or anyone else.

Why can't everyone who has no experience of the trauma involved when a family breaks up just stop thinking we will all benefit from their wisdom.

We want support. We don't want to be seen as 'problems' that can be fixed by ridiculously simplistic one-off ideas.

Please stop judging us: it doesn't matter how secure you think you are, becoming a single parent can happen to anyone.

Hold on a minute. The report didnt blame absent fathers or anyone else for that matter. Who decided thats the whole crux of the matter. Hmmm let me guess.

Parenting is only one part of the issue it goes much deeper than that. But again lets just take the men of this country and blame them while contributing further to the deconstruction of the male. Not that I condone absent fathers mind you.

Come on , this is social economic policy, a decadent society void of morals from all side of the spectrum and the pc correct brigade who will have you arrested if you tell your child in a slightly authoritarian manner 'NO". Theres a million and a half slightly deranged people out there in the civil service and the media all with slightly warped views on society pushing a thousand personal agendas because they missed out on being a hippy. (eh, actually newsnights team are one of the better mob at least 80% of the time)

Honestly I get it, Im a new man. I know we were a really bad lot not fit to wear the title human being. Im now doing the house-work, the cleaning, the cooking, thinking before I speak, accepting gay marriage and trying to be super nice and understanding all the time. I will now expect a female car sales (person) and insist on a plumber to turn up with ear rings. I know that women have nothing to do with any of societies wayward ways and am totally elated to see young women in my city centre every weekend completely out of it on booze, fighting and vomiting on the pavement.

Two of my male friends had their partners give up and leave them with the kids in search of an 'individualist' lifestyle. My friends have managed wonderfully.

Recently my friend had to attend a parents meeting at the school where his son attends. The teacher said to him with a concerned look in her face.

"It must have been incredibly difficult for you to bring up your son on your own"

"Actually no, I have found it quite easy to be honest and very rewarding"

"Oh I see"

I certainly dont mean to sound like a woman hater because Im not. I love women, I love nearly everything about them but they are not perfect in any way and their media has some of the most warped views imaginable. Go read some of those womens magazines they will open your eyes. Stuff like having a baby is the end of your life is incredibly irresponsible.

Yours Truly
A New Man

Dear Mr Cameron

You need me on board with the 鈥榥ew reforms鈥� for the above!!!

I did all that the Labour government asked me to do. I was in receipt of Income Support, and I went back to work back in 2001 with two young children to try and accommodate them in after school care. YES I was married and once I returned to work I thought that the maintenance that my ex husband was paying should now come to me only to find that this hadn鈥檛 been paid for some 23 months causing back then a debt of 拢6000. I did all the donkey work for the child support agency, in affect I did there job for them.

My children are now owed 拢32k (拢9k of that debt is the secretary of states money, that amount would help a primary school or two wouldn鈥檛 it) to cut a very long story short, after much dealings with the Independent Case Examiner who took 12 months to come to the conclusion that I was in the right I had been the victim of gross neglect and mal administration I still can not take this further.

I had an email read out to Lord Hunt on 主播大秀NEWS 24 just before Christmas (He has refused to meet me!) with regards to my very lengthy plight, he said and I quote 鈥�20 absent parents are now in prison due to non payment, we are getting tough鈥� WRONG!!!!!!!!! My ex husband had his committal to prison on the 1st December 2006 for a 拢15500 charge on his property, the CSA barrister agreed for him to clear the debt at 拢50p/m, this will take 25 years to clear. So he pays the debt at 拢600 a year and the maintenance grows at 拢5300 per year鈥�.that鈥檚 a great result isn鈥檛 it, that really isn鈥檛 getting tough with absent parents!!!! I will do a little calculation for you:

As @ 14th February 2007 the debt owed = 拢31949.24 since July 1999

Monies owed to my two children @ 拢100.37 p/w until my First son reaches 18 years old (2010) = 拢17765.49

Monies owed to my Second son @ 拢50.19p/w reaches 18 years old (2012) = 拢5922.42

From 14.02.07 to 07.09.12 monies owed will be = 拢55637.17

What the Secretary of State is owed = -拢9907.44 = 拢45729.73

Paying that back at 拢50p/m = 76 years!!!!

I will be dead (through stress) and so will there FATHER

My children will be 89 & 91 years old鈥ND THAT鈥橲 GETTING TOUGH WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

THIS IS A FECKLESS FATHER!!!!!!!!!!

David Camerons Response

Dear Lisa,

Many thanks for your email to David Cameron - I'm replying on his behalf.

I am so sorry to read about your situation and can appreciate how stressful it's been for you.
听听听听听听听听听听听
I know that David Cameron will also be sorry to hear of the difficulties you鈥檙e having. However, as you may know, there is a convention in the House of Commons that stops an MP from acting on behalf of another MP鈥檚 constituent, so; as a result I am afraid David Cameron is unable to intervene personally on your behalf.

Please let me assure you that the Conservative Party is committed to standing up for the most vulnerable in society and, while David Cameron can鈥檛 offer any individual assistance, he does take on board the wider issues raised by your case.

The system at the moment is clearly in a mess. Like all MPs, David Cameron deals with lots of cases in his surgeries 鈥� some of them are heartbreaking. A third of a million cases haven鈥檛 been processed, and the CSA鈥檚 enforcement unit actually costs more to run than it recovers.聽 We have long called for previous year鈥檚 income to be used to streamline this process, and we are glad that the Government has now come round to this. But given the problems with the current system, we would like to see this change made sooner.

For the sake of all parents who are dealing with the CSA 鈥� those currently receiving payments and those who aren鈥檛 鈥� we need to end this period of uncertainty and anxiety as quickly as possible. In the context of the review of the Child Support Agency, we recognise that getting help to lone parents is a key element of the battle against child poverty.

Conservatives support reform of the child support system as we believe the current arrangements are not good enough. We are glad that the Government plans to make the maintenance assessment process more robust. This is something that we have been urging them to do for some time.

However, we believe that the Government鈥檚 announcement will come as a huge disappointment to the 1.4 million families stuck on the current failing child support system. The Government could be doing much more for these families by fast-tracking its proposals. As things stand, these families face a 7-year wait before they can be moved onto the new system.

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to write.聽
听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听聽
Yours sincerely,聽


Alice Sheffield
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Most fathers a made to get out of their childrens lives by the resident mother because she can take a bigger slice of the capital in the marriage pot she is backed up by a biased system that supports Mums and hates dads the co conspirators are the solicetors who play the system for their own benefit this is also backed up by dame barones butler sloss who as made reports about the system it is als backed up by Martin Mears who was the elected head of the court division of soliseters who as also brought a book out comfirming what every divorced bloke in the land who as been robbed by the Familly courts

Most fathers a made to get out of their childrens lives by the resident mother because she can take a bigger slice of the capital in the marriage pot she is backed up by a biased system that supports Mums and hates dads the co conspirators are the solicetors who play the system for their own benefit this is also backed up by dame barones butler sloss who as made reports about the system it is als backed up by Martin Mears who was the elected head of the court division of soliseters who as also brought a book out comfirming what every divorced bloke in the land who as been robbed by the Familly courts

This is a very delicate issue that calls more for sagacity than talking tough. Besides I am not aware of any section of our law (talk less of the Human Rights Act) that can compel a person to behave in a "socially acceptable way".
I am very sympathetic to the plight of those women who had to cater for all the needs of their children while their irresponsible father is absent. But the issue is not always as black and white as it seems.
I personally believe, up to quite recently, that those men who leave home abandoning their kids are wicked poltrons that needed to be taught a lesson. However, my personal experience has persuaded me that while some men, like me, do everything to make marriage work, we are so unlucky to have wives that does not see things that way. Sometimes, I feel some UFO can just fly in, snatch me, and marroon me in a far off island where i can have some peace of mind and tranquility. If I had not moved out of my home today it's because of my two lovely kids that I die for (who I am actually living for, being an orphan myself).
Not to obuscate the issue with my personal anecdotes, I think the law dealing with Child Support payment should be reformed or toughened such that absent fathers can be compelled to pay for the upkeep of their children. We should not go to the extent of suggesting tagging or imprisoning these men but hit them where hurts: their purse. After all the taxman knows how to get the smallest penny out of a tax dogger without having to tag them.
The simplest way, in my opinion, is to charge the wages (or property) of these irresponsible men with the amount due to their children and ex-partners just as a mortgagee charges a debtor's property.

My partner was found in bed with another man so i left i was able to have our Son daily as she was training to become a train driver then when she passed out she took Court procedure and was given my Son now i cannot see him as everytime i try she fails to meet me and i pay the CSA far to much money. How can you help me?

Cameron is hardly in a postion to speak like an expert on fatherhood. Not because he is not a father...He is. But because he is a member of the party that started the rot for fathers in this country by slipping a little known sentence into the Childrens Act which reads: "The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished" The Children Act 1989,. Sect.2(4) ) Feminists must have has a plethora of wet dreams when this was made law and they were not slow to capitalise on it. Fathers have been demonised ever since. Will Cameron do anything to redress the balance? Will he hell! He is a Tory Mangina and a vote for him on the promise that he will restore the family is worth as much as a chocolate watch in a heatwave. At the moment there is no party of the family. The left hate marriage, God, men, family and any number of other things, including fidelity (Ay, Mr Blunkett?). The right will say anything to get elected and the Liberals will say anything and not get elected. Therefore, I shall vote, "None of the above" and wait for a time when a politician with the insight and guts to take on this damaging, expensive, single mum culture that is creating feral kids and a law breaking nightmare. Cameron is not that man as he has proved with his "bash the dad" remarks. Face it Cameron, dads have been an easy target for forty years and you lack the gumption to change it!

Cameron is hardly in a postion to speak like an expert on fatherhood. Not because he is not a father...He is. But because he is a member of the party that started the rot for fathers in this country by slipping a little known sentence into the Childrens Act which reads: "The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished" The Children Act 1989,. Sect.2(4) ) Feminists must have had a plethora of wet dreams when this was made law and they were not slow to capitalise on it. Fathers have been demonised ever since. Will Cameron do anything to redress the balance? Will he hell! He is a Tory Mangina and a vote for him on the promise that he will restore the family is worth as much as a chocolate watch in a heatwave. At the moment there is no party of the family. The left hate marriage, God, men, family and any number of other things, including fidelity (Ay, Mr Blunkett?). The right will say anything to get elected and the Liberals will say anything and not get elected. Therefore, I shall vote, "None of the above" and wait for a time when a politician with the insight and guts to take on this damaging, expensive, single mum culture that is creating feral kids and a law breaking nightmare. Cameron is not that man as he has proved with his "bash the dad" remarks. Face it Cameron, dads have been an easy target for forty years and you lack the gumption to change it!

Feckless mothers are even more at fault, out at work or socialising when they should be looking after their children. It's neglect really, but it is so politically incorrect to say so! The concept of motherhood, of selfless love by a mother for her children, has all but disappeared in modern England. This is why our children are bottom of the league. Family values, the ten commandments, loving God with all our hearts, and loving our neighbour as ourselves were once moral imperatives. We failed of course, but we tried, and this was what mattered. Now these imperatives count for nothing. In fact to most modern Britons they are incomprehensible. We are a fractured society, adrift on a sea of moral relativism. Lost.

Would it it not be possible in future to at least contact some of the many divorced fathers groups who are struggling against institutional disadvantage to be caring parents in such a difficult situation.

"Feckless Fathers" is very offensive to all us divorced dads who are institutionally penalised

i'm a so called "absent father". i found my partner was cheating just before she ran off with another man taking my daughter with her. now should i be forced to stay with my ex partner or punished because i'm not with my child.
I already have the CSA bearing down on me, despite already paying maintenance. and im sure i am already included in feckless father statistics.
In some cases absent fathers and mothers need to be made to pay/take responsiblity for their children but labeling all fathers who arent lucky enough to live with their child feckless is totally rediculous, and quite hurtful.

Does Carol Lever speak English? Isn't this part of the problem? Parenting is a human practice, not an academic exercise.

To all of the other Dads out there who have been deprived of their kids due to the iniquities Family Court system I say "God bless you because I know your suffering and it has been great and heavy". The feminist onslaught of the '60s and '70s resulted in a totally unbalanced system and children have suffered as a consequence. I agree entirely with equality, I do not agree with replacing one form of inequality with another which is what has happened in the Family Court system.

If "Dave" is really interested in a sense of fair play he should actually talk to real people rather than his Eton cronies. Cameron, on this subject as with so many others, simply doesn't have a clue. He is uttering things some focus group has told him will win votes. Let's face it (and this is sad for me as a natural Tory voter who cannot currently vote for them as a matter of principal), David Cameron just wants power and he will say what anyone wishes to hear at any given time in order to achieve an election victory.

What are our choices? "Dave" Cameron who is trying to convey the impression that he has the "common touch" when he was educated at Eton and Oxford with silver spoons regularly inserted in every orifice, Gordon (I always appear to be chewing gum) Brown who has as much personality as a Steve Davis pastiche, and Ming who shakes visibly during PM's questions! God help British democracy and British Fathers and kids.