A (2:12)

Bit about football, brings us into it and then, and then we can just crack on.

B (2:16)

Yeah. Well, do you think Arsenal can catch Liverpool?

A (2:19)

Are we on?

B (2:20)

We are. We're recording.

A (2:21)

We've started.

B (2:22)

We're recording.

A (2:24)

Anything's possible. Do you know what? Anything is possible. It was like when the election Came when the election was called. I sort of thought to myself, do you know what? Leicester won the Premier League and if Leicester could win the Premier League, then there's every possibility that Reform can get MPs and that's what happens.

B (2:40)

I, I, I think you're doing reform of disservice there. I think Leicester was outside 5,000 to 1 odds. I think reform, they're in the game now. They are, they are. They are in the game. Every I was telling somebody about the other day. Yeah. A year and a half, a year ago, year and a half ago. I wouldn't reform a first starting to kind of make inroads. People didn't want to admit they would vote reform or liked Nigel. It was quiet whispers, little side conversations. Now people are just opening, saying, oh, I'm voting reform. These guys, Conservatives, Labor, I'm bored of their. I'm bored of high tax, I'm bored of being lied to. I'm voting reform. It's become an acceptable mainstream party, weirdly.

A (3:23)

But what's the first sign of madness? Yeah, what is the first sign of madness? You keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. And you know, this is where we all are but, you know, with, with us who've been voting Labor, Conservative. I've never voted labor in my life.

B (3:37)

Me neither.

A (3:38)

Yeah.

B (3:38)

But, you know, I'm not a communist.

A (3:41)

But, you know, look, in my view, I sort of think to myself, if, you know, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome, it's just not going to happen. And ultimately it's us who have to take responsibility for where this country is because we've been voting these people in and every single election that's come up manifesto we've been lied to. Then someone would go, oh, you know, don't worry about it. You know, that was then, you know, I'm the new leader now and things are going to change. And what changes? You tell me.

B (4:07)

Nothing changes.

A (4:08)

Nothing changes.

B (4:09)

Nothing. Nothing changes from Labor, a conservative. It's the same nonsense from. Do you feel that? Are you feeling the momentum from the inside? Because you're kind of inside the party. Do you feel the momentum? Is it exciting?

A (4:21)

Do you know what? There's a vibe, there's an energy, you know, there really is. And then obviously in the general election when I was out campaigning, you know, I, I could feel it from people, you know, people were really passionate about that election and, you know, I think it was just shy of God, 8, 000 people that voted for Me, in my first ever election that I stood in, came third. I wasn't really even beat the Liberal Democrats, but I did, you know, I kind of blew them away. And when I was out knocking on doors, speaking to people, you know, they were super excited that we were offering something different. And. And obviously the big one is immigration. You know, immigration, immigration, immigration. Nobody was talking about cost of living. Nobody was talking about anything else. They weren't even talking about the stabbings that were going on in the areas. I was like, do you want to talk about stabbing? No, no, no. I just want to talk about immigration because this is really affecting my life. So we are the only political party that's talking about IMM and illegal immigration.

B (5:16)

Not now. I mean, you were. I mean, this is. This is what reform's done in that reform were the ones talking about it the most, but labor talking about all the time. Now, we had Mike Tapp, an MP in here, MP for Dover, he was talking about immigration. Labor are putting out a lot about what they're doing with deportations at the moment. Conservatives are talking about it, but I think reform drove the conversation. What was the winning count in your one? I mean, you. 8, 000.

A (5:41)

It was. It was just shy of 8, 000. So I. I got just under 18.

B (5:47)

You got half of what labor got?

A (5:49)

Yep, got half of what labor got. And the Conservatives. And like I say, that's been a Conservative stronghold for like, 24 years. So Mike Penning, he was the MP there and, you know, he was consistently voted in. But the big one in Hemel Hempstead, which you might know or maybe you might have heard of, is the hospital situation.

B (6:07)

No. What's going on there?

A (6:08)

Oh, God. So the. The hospital was in, in essence, has been getting closed down over a long period of time. So labor closed it down. I think it was back in 2008. They lost their accident and emergency, and then you could only go there if you were referred to the hospital. And then all of a sudden they started selling it off to build homes on it, and that's where we are now.

B (6:29)

So where are Hemel people going for exactly?

A (6:32)

Watford.

B (6:33)

What? How far is that?

A (6:35)

God, it's a good sort of 20 miles away.

B (6:37)

I mean, that could be the difference between life and death.

A (6:39)

Absolutely. And then one. One factor that they're not considering is that the football. Sorry, the hospital is right next door to the football stadium on Vicarage Road.

B (6:49)

I know, because when we went. I remember when we went to. During the year, Liverpool won every game and they had Their first defeat. That was. It was the COVID year where they won the league. They were just.

A (7:01)

When there was no one in the stadiums.

B (7:03)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. When. When people just first came back Liverwood win and we. They're winning every game they. I think they hadn't lost, had they? And so I was like me and Connor like Liverpool. I was like I'm going to take you to game. And I know a guy at Watford, he got us tickets and we went. And Liverpool lost. 3 nil. First game they'd lost.

A (7:18)

Was that against Watford?

B (7:19)

Against Watford.

A (7:19)

You know what? I was at that game.

B (7:20)

Were you at that game?

A (7:21)

I. I actually went to that game, yeah. Because one of my mates has got a season ticket and he said no, do you fancy coming? So I was like yeah, why not watch Liverpool Watford. And I couldn't believe it. Watford done. Liverpool three zero.

B (7:30)

Yeah. No, we ended up. I ended up on the radio. Throw up ra video 5 live. I was like. Which first came. We'd been two and they've bloody lost. But I remember at the hospital because I hadn't. I'd been to Watford before. I hadn't noticed it but because of the COVID area. It was in the COVID era. They had all the signs of all the masks and all the way. We were being detoured around the ground to get into the ground and so that. Yeah, I know. And if you've got a match. So if you're coming from Hemel on a match day and going to Watford to try and get an A E that's.

A (7:59)

Yeah. I mean look, when. When I started looking into this, how hospitals are allocated and stuff like that, it's actually decided commission. So I learned a lot over this whole kind of journey of my political life that it goes to a commission and. And what they actually do now, they. They cite hospitals and resources to where potentially there could be a catastrophic event. So they were looking at an area in Hatfield. Yeah, in Hatfield. They were looking at like a super hospital in Hatfield because you've got all the emergency routes that can access it very, very quickly. And then I suppose that they're looking at if there was a catastrophe at Luton Airport, the shopping center. That's why I think that they're allocating resources to Watford General Hospital. Because look, you've got the football stadium there, you've got the Harlequin shopping center, you've got all of those sorts of things. And you know, when you look at it, the blue light emergencies, you know, getting to the scene and. And all that sort of stuff. So I found that side of it really, really interesting when I was actually looking into it.

B (9:05)

Imagine they run the vote again today. Oh, more than 8, 000.

A (9:09)

I'd be a lot more than 8, 000. Yeah. And I remember when I first did my health hustings. Oh, my God. That was a daunting experience, that was.

B (9:18)

Yeah. How come?

A (9:20)

Well, they weren't fans of reform that were in there, let's put it like that. I mean, the dirty looks that I was getting when I went up and I just pointed out the obvious, you know, when, when I st. One of the reasons. One of the reasons why our NHS is buckling is because of mass migration. You know that. That is a fact, isn't it? You know, if you. If you had a party for your children or, you know, you were running a nightclub, you have a capacity, don't you? Yeah, it's just basics, you know, we've had an influx of millions of people coming into the UK that need to be fed, watered, health provided for them, and if we've not invested in that infrastructure, then subsequently the NHS is buckling, which is what is happening now.

B (10:09)

I think it's definitely a contributing factor, but I think it goes deeper and worse than that because I think prior to Covid, prior to the mass levels of immigration we've had now, Was it net 1.2 million we had in the previous year? We saw the chart, we had Matt Goodwin in here. I think the NHS was collapsing before that. This has exacerbated the A problem. But I tend to go wider. I look at the percentage of our income that's taken by tax, which is growing every year. We're nearly 50% of the country's GDP is tax, so we're taking more money on tax. But all our services are getting worse. They're cut and bust services. The NHS has huge waiting lists. I'm like, what's going on here? What is this decline about? And I think it's a lot deeper than just. I think immigration is an issue along with a bunch of other issues. But I think. Which is, I think, where we get to the main issue we're going to talk about. I think we have a massive incompetent civil service that is incapable of running the parts of the country it's in charge of, because everything's shit.

A (11:13)

Do you know? Yeah, I get that it's an interesting point that you make, but they've been consistently incompetent for years and years and years. And, you know, when I come from a military background, Being incompetent, it's just. It's just not accepted. You can't be in.

B (11:32)

What did you do in the military?

A (11:33)

I was in the infantry.

B (11:34)

Okay.

A (11:35)

So, yeah, deployed, yeah, I've, I've deployed, yeah. On ops. For my sins. Yeah. Do you know what? I've got to be honest with you. I think the army made me the man that I am today. You know, it's a very, very challenging but very rewarding career. You know, what you put into the army is what you're going to get out of it. I'm still in the reserves now. I've always been in the reserves because that was just my choice for me, the regular army, it just. In terms of. It's a great career, but the money was just never there for me, you know, And I, I, I kind of thought, well, I can have my civilian life and then I can have my military life. And it's the best of both worlds. I can do as much as I want in the military or, you know, do as little as I want.

B (12:14)

Yeah.

A (12:15)

And I really, really enjoyed it. And when you go to the. When you go to Brecon and you do, like, your command courses there, my God, you hear about this, the Brecon myth, they keep saying, oh, it's a Brecon myth. When you're there. The sleep deprivation. My, is this just brutal. I remember, like, when we went on exercise, the first sort of 48 hours of that exercise, just no sleep at all. And it was just digging, digging and digging trenches and orders and. No. And then people. And then, like, you know, the lads that are going on those courses, like, after you, they want to find out from you, and you're like, you know what? I can't remember because I literally had spent the whole of that course like a zombie. So my learning capacity, I have no idea how I learned, because you just literally walk around like a zombie. So the five days that you actually do on the exercise, and I think part of that we had to do the fan dance as well.

B (13:12)

What's that?

A (13:13)

Oh, God. Where you go across penny fan and with all your kit in about three hours or something like that, it is. It is really rough, but I think it made. It's made me definitely the man that I am today.

B (13:26)

What would. Discipline.

A (13:28)

Discipline values. Understanding you're right from your wrong just gives you that balance in your life as well. Yeah. And just when you see something that's wrong, what. What is it? The Rupert keeps saying, we need warriors to come forwards, and that's what we Need.

B (13:47)

We had Liz Trusson in. I read her book is up there.

A (13:49)

Yeah.

B (13:50)

And she talked about unless you have strong conservative values, everything swings to the left. And my main issue with government is I think government and government departments are usually shit at everything because they don't have the profit incentive. When you operate a business, you have a profit incentive. So you're incentivized to make sure you run a lean operation and you can make payroll at the end of the month. I think it drives success with success or failure. But every business you have, you have that profit incentive and without it you're screwed. And government doesn't have that. They don't have the profit incentive. They've got infinite money they can access and they have very good pensions and it's very hard to get rid of people. And so I think it attracts a lot of people who are just shit and incompetent. And so I think with government you want to keep it as small as possible because they fuck everything up. And look, we're going to talk about this scandal, which by the way, it's just shocking. And I can't even figure out why this isn't being spoken about at much higher levels. We'll get into the details. It feels worse, a lot deeper and a lot more of a scandal than the post office scandal. And that's a big scandal. We're going for fucking scandal to scandal in this country.

A (15:05)

But we accept it. I don't think we are anymore.

B (15:09)

I think we start people. We have accepted it. But I think a lot of the mainstream media haven't done a good enough job. They didn't want to talk about rape gangs because it's uncomfortable. They didn't want to talk about the fact that some of the rape gangs came for. A lot of rape gangs came from specific Pakistani communities because they're uncomfortable. They didn't want to be called racist. I just think the mainstream media are scared of talking about things. But now at least you can go on X and have a voice or you can go on podcasts and talk about someone like you can uncover a story and talk about it. But I think this turn is coming. I think people are kind of sick of every direction they look in. There is incompetence in government, there is scandal, there is high tax, there's high inflation, stagnant wage growth. I think the country has been pushed to its limit, hence the success we're seeing with reform. But I really want to get into this story because the statistics are mind blowing for the people listening who don't even know what we're about to talk about. Give a summary of the story we're about to talk about and then give a summary of the statistics on the suicides because to me, it's. It's shocking.

A (16:15)

Yeah. Okay, so the actual topic that we're going to talk about today was formerly the Child Support Agency. So the Child Support Agency was set up back in the 1990s and it was set up under, I believe it was the Thatcher government at that time. And obviously what the Child Support Agency was there to do was set up in principle to support single parent families. So what was pumped out through the media was what we're going to do is force deadbeat dads to pay for their children. So we're going to introduce legislation and an act of law, which is what they did. And then what we're going to do is give this agency a whole host and a full armory of enforcement powers to go with it as well. And these enforcement powers are used with no accountability whatsoever. So the Child Support Agency ran from the 90s to 2012, and because of the large volume of complaints, which we'll go into soon, because of the large volume of complaints that they kept receiving, they closed the Child maintenance, sorry, the Child Support Agency down and then they introduced the Child Maintenance Service. But what they did is they changed the regulations, they changed a few members of staff, but in essence it was the same peak, just different lipstick. So it just continued what everybody had been complaining about for years and years and years. And it eventually got to a point where the National Audit Office said, you know, these figures are just completely out of control. So I think what we need to do is look at Noel Shanahan, where in 2011 he was the Child Support Agency director. So he was the director when they transitioned from the Child Support Agency over into the Child Maintenance Service. And what we'll see, even though this is a legacy of debt and it's historic, it still to this day is an issue. And that's why when we talk about this historic, this is, this is the issue of what we're seeing now and the large volume of complaints that I see, testimony that I see, statements that I see, people coming forwards, making complaints to me because they know that I'm campaigning on this and they also know that Reform is campaigning on this as well. And Reform has been talking about it. So I originally took this to Richard Tice and after a period of time, you know, he started really getting on board with what was going on. Because what we're gonna Sort of, you know, see, today is just an overview really, of what's going on. But once you actually start digging into the detail, and I always say the devil is always in the detail. And that's what I do. And I don't know whether it's. I've just got an analytical brain or what. I have no idea. But I tend to just read things and really see the picture in, in. In black and white. And when I started reading. Because when I, When I started reading all of these sorts of things in my mind, I'm thinking to myself, do you know, that's not right? That's not right. And that's not right. And then you start piecing it and mapping it together and it paints this picture of what I'm gonna be talking about today.

B (19:35)

And before we start unpacking it, just so people understand that, like the summary of the scandal is, is that large number of parents were being overcharged, being landed with huge amounts of debt, leaving them little money for them to live on themselves. An inability to get rid of that debt or, or contact the service to get it reevaluated and. And a high number of people ended up committing suicide.

A (20:07)

That's pretty much the. You've given the overview and then what, you know, how, how I was going to do this today was that we could kind of go through everything and then piece that together. So you can see. But that is pretty much the overview of what's. What's gone have this legacy of debt that goes back, you know, a number of years, which we'll see today from parliamentary footage. And I think it's really important that the public see the parliamentary footage and the reaction. That was the thing when I first saw the clip that we're going to see in, in a minute. We've got Noel Shanahan, who's the director, who sits there and says that the child support agency routinely used to inflate incomes by 300%.

B (20:48)

Well, this is the thing that made me think of the nudge unit.

A (20:50)

Yeah.

B (20:51)

So we had David Heilburn in here from the Nudge unit. He talked about how when government wanted to get things done, they would come up with nudges. I'll give you a good example. Lots of people don't have pensions. They can get pensions through their company. So employees of my companies can get a pension if they ask one. We can. A percentage of their income goes to the pension and we have to match to a certain percent. A lot of people weren't taking that up. So now we have to Auto, enroll everybody over a certain amount into the pension and they have to choose not to have it. That's an example of a nudge. You've nudged them into the pension so they've got it. And because there's a friction to remove themselves, more people end up with pensions. That's a nudge item. When I heard of them inflating the numbers, it was the statutory. What do they call it? Could have written my notes. What was it called? Con. Remind me in the enforcement notice.

A (21:52)

Well, sorry, what's this regarding? Is this regarding.

B (21:55)

Yeah, the demand for the payment. This was it punitive agreements to choose. Yeah, but it was a statutory. Like what was the actual demand for money called?

A (22:04)

A liability order?

B (22:05)

Yeah, it was called something else in the thing. But anyway, so. Yeah, so, but when I heard they were inflating it by 300% before they knew the number. Right. It was like.

A (22:18)

It was, oh, so what you got, obviously, what you got now, you don't have the complex systems that they had then. Yeah, most of it was done clerical then. So it was a case of them just going to HMRC or asking that paying parent to send them their last, like, three months of pay slips or whatever it might be, and that's how the assessments were made.

B (22:38)

But they were inflating it to trigger them, to get. To engage with them, right?

A (22:42)

Absolutely, yeah.

B (22:43)

But in doing so, they created these debts. But that felt like a nudge. That felt like something that could come out of a nudge unit that says, well, we've got a large number of these dads and I know there's some mums but aren't paying. If we, if we inflate this number, that's going to trigger them to pay. But they hadn't thought the downstream consequences of that.

A (23:01)

Well, you see, what they tried to do was deploy the same tactic as hmrc, because hmrc, that's, that's when HMRC come after you for tax, a lot of time it will be inflated, you come back to them. But what HMRC do is that they. Once you. Once you've agreed the amount or you've proved that you don't owe that amount and that is the amount of tax that you do owe, then what they do is they get rid of those arrears. But that never happened in this case. So if they wanted you to pay, let's say, just putting broad figures out there, £100 a week, they would inflate your income to £300 a week to scare you, to contact them, to say, well, I'm not earning that amount of money, so how could I pay 300? And they say, oh, I'll tell you what, then what we'll do, we'll negotiate this with you and you can pay £100 a week. But what they never did was clear that £200 a week. So you were paying that £100 a week. So they never cleared that £200 a week. And that grew in what we would call the 1993 and 2003 schemes.

B (24:06)

Were these. Was it an interim payment order? That. Is that what they.

A (24:09)

It's an interim maintenance assessment.

B (24:11)

That. Was it the inter intermediate assessment. Okay, so before we unpack it all. Last question. Based on everything you've seen so far, you understand it, what's your general view on having something like the, the, the cms, the Child Maintenance Service? You know, having it is a good thing that. Are there lots of deadbeat dads who don't look after the kids and they should be pursued? What's your kind of general view on it?

A (24:38)

That's a, that's a really interesting question.

B (24:40)

Should the state be involved in this?

A (24:44)

You got to look at the whole picture. It's not just a case of saying we want something in place to go after people, to pay money. Why are we not looking at the support elements of things? Why has something not been, you know, this is what we're seeing here in, in the United Kingdom. We're seeing the breakdown of the family unit.

B (25:04)

Yeah.

A (25:05)

And those are our core values and our principles that we just can't get away from. If you've got strong families, you've got a strong society, but everything in Britain is broken, including all of our families.

B (25:15)

Yep.

A (25:16)

And it suits the state, doesn't it, to have everybody bickering and fighting all the time over the sound bites. They're getting pumped out. So they say, we're going to set up this unit that's going to be big, ugly, nasty. The public buys into it because we're going to go after all of these dads that don't want to pay for their children. And I'm seeing quite the opposite. I'm seeing parents that are trying to pay for their children, but they're trying to pay for the right amounts.

B (25:44)

Yeah, but, but you know, I've got, I've got experience with the service. I'm divorced. We didn't, we didn't need it. We, you know, figured out. But I, I know of his existence. But I also, I have a friend. This, this is one of the, the flip side that really pisses me off. Really good friend of mine, she separated, two kids. The kids mainly live with her. Yeah, the majority of the time she pays for everything. She's trying to get support. The way he set up and structured his business is a way that it looks like he earns hardly anything. Drives around in a nice car, lives in a big house. But the CMS haven't been ables to do the job of calculating what he really earns. We all know he earns Probably a six figure salary and I think he's put in like 12 grand minimum. And so not a judgment on that, it's more the judgment of like how, how could a service possibly deal with every single situation like this and find out every piece of financial information to come to an accurate calculation. It feels like almost an impossible task. For those of you out there who want to protect your Bitcoin, I want to tell you about casa, the lead in Bitcoin security solution and a solution that I use for my Bitcoin and my football club's Bitcoin treasury. Now if you're serious about protecting your Bitcoin, you will need a rock solid security plan. And CASA gives you just that. With their multi signature security and key management services, CASA makes it easier than ever to take control of your Bitcoin without ever having the risk of a single point of failure. Now they offer multiple levels of protection, all designed with simplicity and ease of use in mind. And that works even if you're not a tech expert. So don't leave your Bitcoin security to chance. Go to Casa I.O. and check out the services that I am using today to protect my Bitcoin so you can protect your stack and sleep easily. You can find out more at Casa I.O. which is C A S A I.O. that is Casa I.O. this episode is brought to you by Bitcasino, the world's first licensed Bitcoin casino. Now whether you're into slots, table games or live casino experiences, Bit Casino has it all. And they have lightning fast transactions, no deposit limits and no waiting on withdrawals. You can enjoy gaming the way it was meant to be, seamless and secure. Now, Bit Casino you can play with Bitcoin, making your experience faster, safer and more private. Plus, they offer some of the best rewards in the industry from bonuses to loyalty programs to keep the fun going. Now if you're looking for a top tier gaming experience, head over to Bitcasino IO which is B I T C A S I N O IO that is Bitcasino IO and please remember to gamble responsibly Zappo bank is the world's first fully licensed and regulated Bitcoin enabled bank. Zappo Bank's all in one app allows you to secure, transact and grow your Bitcoin and you can also earn Bitcoin daily with interest on your savings for both BTC and USD as well as get cashback on all your card spending. With over a decade of experience in Bitcoin custody, you can trust that your assets are safe with Zappo Bank. They blend no hold security with military grade Swiss bunkers and strict regulatory oversight to ensure your funds are always protected. And as a member you'll get a dedicated account manager who can guide you through their products and help with everything you need. Now if you want to find out more, please head over to zappobank.com forward/wbd which is X A P-O-B-A-N-K.com forward slash.

A (29:18)

Wbd well, I think, yeah, I mean it is an impossible task and I think what, what you need to do is, is look at shared care where applicable. That's, that's the first thing you know, that should be the starting point. If you decide to have a, a child in a consensual relationship, you are both equally responsible for that child. Both of you. You know, you're responsible for the financial welfare of that child, the mental welfare of that child and the support mechanisms for that child. Why is everything always got to be about money? It's always about money, you know, exactly like what you were alluding to earlier on about these nudge units. I think everything's like a nudge, isn't it? Your council tax comes through in April and it's all there in red. If you do not pay, blah, blah, blah. You know, you get a parking tick, you know, now when you get even, like a speeding fine. I got, I've never had so many fines in my life. I mean, I can't walk from here to there or drive from here to there without, without getting a fine. I've never had so many penalty charges, fines and all of this in my life.

B (30:24)

25 in the 20 zone.

A (30:26)

It's just, it's just never ending. And I got done for speeding the other, the other day by the Metropolitan Police. The commissioner is, you know, a notice of intended prosecution. I mean, God almighty, you know, you know, when you get that through the door and you're reading it, your initial, you know, have I been caught up in something that I shouldn't have?

B (30:48)

Do you want to hear a flip Side to this, I was in a five year lawsuit, a libel lawsuit with a fraud. I called a guy fraud. He was a fraud. He sued me for libel. Proven a fraud. He lost his case against. No, see, he is a really weird technicality. He won his case against me, but because he committed perjury, he got a one pound order. So I'm the successful party post my case. He got sued separately and exposed as being a fraud. So I have the ability to put in something called a global freezing order, freeze his assets until he repays my legal costs. I got the freezing order. It's been confirmed. We're talking about very significant legal costs. It's been five or six months since that freezing order has been granted. I still haven't got my money back from the government. We've sent the letter. We've lost the letter. We sent it. Recorded delivery. That person got it forwarded onto the wrong person. They've made incompetent mistake after incompetent mistake. Can I go? Can I have an enforcement order? Can I use it? No, I can't. I just have to sit there on my hands waiting for them to fix this issue. And the thing is, is they go hard on us as ordinary citizens. They treat us like criminals. They. They send these letters, these red letters scare the shit out of you for basic misdemeanors, yet they up themselves all the time. Can we do anything in return?

A (32:10)

No, no, no.

B (32:11)

I get sick of it.

A (32:12)

Oh, it really is one rule for them and another rule for us, isn't it? You know, it really is. And, and you know, they certainly don't judge us by their same standards, do they? You know, and, and they really, really don't.

B (32:23)

So where's the best place to start with this?

A (32:26)

Well, I think what we need to do first is we'll get up the footage of Noel Shanahan. Yeah. So that, that the public can see this for themselves.

B (32:36)

What was this hearing about?

A (32:38)

Okay, so this here was a select committee hearing when the Child Support Agency was transitioning into the Child Maintenance Service. And what they're doing here is discussing the legacy of debt that was left behind.

B (32:53)

3.7 billion.

A (32:54)

Yeah. So it was 3 point what? It was nearly 4 billion. Yeah, yeah, it was nearly 4 billion pounds.

B (33:01)

And actually the record needs putting right. There needs to be a clean break.

A (33:05)

From that old legacy when we actually.

B (33:08)

Launch the new scheme so that we don't carry that piece of history into a new scheme with us. Noel, you might have some further. Yes, and I think there's some severe Question marks over the figure of 3.8. I think that the work that the department has done CMEC has done identifies that going back many years we used to create something called an interim maintenance arrangement. Essentially it was a number that was brought up to say to the non resident parent this is how much you'll have to pay. Actually used as a bit of a leave home when they wouldn't give us their pay and information which we have to ask for. So actually it was inflated, it seems to be inflated by about 300%. So when they didn't pay all those numbers have gone into the arrears. So the truth is actually those arrears are somewhat inflated because of the tools that were used up to 18 years ago. That's why. The second one is that when we have done some sampling into these areas we found that actually some of these payments have been made actually a non resident parent has paid in certain cases. We've also found that actually the parent wicked doesn't want the money. Now circumstances have changed but it's still on our books, it's still accumulated over a period of time. So one, it's there, we have limited power to do a lot with it right now. But two actually in reality it's not a number that is as big as.

A (34:23)

Her and you mentioned that.

B (34:25)

Right. So what he's basically this is the transition from into the CMS there's 3.7 billion ish of debt and they're saying what should we do? Should we clean break it and forget about it and start fresh? Which they can't do because they think some is still collectible and enforceable. But a lot of that debt is actually the inflated debt from them interim maintenance orders because they've gone to a parent, they've said provide your financial information, they've not provided it. So they said here's an inflated number to scare them into providing it. That's the situation but some of it, a lot of that debt is inflated debt. Just a question on that. If they did an say I'm the dad, they chase me, I'm not giving the financial information, they inflate, they do an inflated order for me. If I then provide the information do they undo those payments? Do they reverse those payments?

A (35:21)

So what they would do is they would assess it at the correct amount but they would leave the bit in the middle, they would leave that bit on the computer system and that would grow in the computer system and subsequently that's what's happened.

B (35:40)

Would it be my liability? Why I still be due to pay it. Or they just left it in a system and it's just growing on its own independently.

A (35:46)

Exactly. They just left it in a system of money that's never existed. This. This is the important part of this here. This money has never existed at all. And nobody's actually ever been able to put a figure on the bit that has been owed of the 3.798 billion. The National Audit Office, the Child Maintenance Service. Nobody has actually been able to say, okay, a hundred million of that we can prove is actually owed to receiving parents. And what I just find astonishing here, and I'd love to get your view on this, we were inflating incomes by 300%. That is an admission of fraud.

B (36:30)

Yeah. That's making up a number.

A (36:32)

That is making up a number. Using your enforcement powers that have been given to you in good faith and subsequently you're going after parents who've got nothing to do with that money.

B (36:48)

And I just.

A (36:49)

I'd love to understand from you that nobody in that room has said. Sorry, can I just understand. What you've just stated is that you were routinely committing criminal offences.

B (37:01)

Yeah. So I go back a step and I think, okay, where's my position on this? If there's a. There's a family with kids, there's a breakup of that family unit. More often than not, it's the mum looking after the kids and the dad maintaining his career. I know it's not always, but that's. So let's just, you know, I'm not being sexist here, let's just go with dads now. So I don't, you know, keep having to put out caveats. If a dad is now separated from the mum and the mum is burdened is with the burden of raising the children, paying for the children, the dad is out there working. Do I believe that the dad should be contributing towards their kids? Yes, I do. Absolutely. And hopefully lots of dads just do.

A (37:42)

That and emotional support. Yeah, yeah.

B (37:44)

But, but they, but, you know, hopefully the parents can agree, access the kids, get to see both parents, the parents get on as best possible. And the pet and the parents are the person who has the opportunity to work more is financially contributing to the other parent to help them raise their kids. That's what I hope happens. Okay, so we get into the reality is that lots of breakups are terrible and people don't get on well and, you know, maybe they can't agree visitation and the dads aren't. Aren't willing to pay. Do I then believe the state should get involved to enforce that kind of payment. I think it's an interesting question. You know, in a state structure that we have, I think the dads should be paying, I think they should be paying a reasonable amount. Is it fair to go after them and try and pursue them for that? Yeah, some libertarians would say no. It should, it should be independent. I think it should be enforced. So then how do you enforce it? Why inflate? Why make up a number and inflate a number when you don't know what they're earning? Why not just say there's a fine? Why not just say provide this information by. You have 28 days to provide your financial information so we can assess the payments you should be making towards your children. If it's not provided by this date, here is a fine. Because that tends to be the accepted route of things. But inflating payments and making them up seems to be theft.

A (39:07)

Or why can't we treat two people like adults? Why do we need such a heavy handed approach from the state? Why can't we have mechanisms in place to support the family unit? As I keep saying, you know, try and understand. Look, you've broken up. That's life. It happens. Yeah, people fall out of love, have affairs, whatever. You know, we're not here to judge that. But the fact of the matter is, is that you've both been in a consensual relations and you produce children child out of that. So why doesn't the state actually look at how can we support these two so they can both get on with their lives? They can both provide for those children equally, you know, where they've both got equal visitation. Yes. It might not suit one parent as opposed to another parent because somebody might be working in Dubai and come backwards and forwards. I get all of that. But just as a, a groundbreaking rule, why don't we just have, have something in place where you can simply support the family dynamic? Because what we've got is the complete opposite. Right here, right now. We've got mechanisms in place to cause destruction.

B (40:22)

I think you're talking about separate things. I'm talking about you. I think you're talking about the structure of society that's putting the pressures on families, that's leading family breakups. Yes, we absolutely should do that. But once the breakups happened, I'm really just talking about the deadbeat dads, the idiots who just don't support their kids. And we know them, I know people like that who just refuse to support their kids. What do we do? I believe this is set up for that scenario or for the scenarios where the mum believes, or the parent raising the child believes that the contribution should be X and the pay imperative believes it's Y. And there's a gap between the two. How do you bridge that gap? I think that's where I think the state believes it's getting involved. And the state will get involved because everything they're able to claim off a parent and contribute to other parent is a lesser burden for the state in terms of welfare. So that's why the state wants to get involved, it always wants to reduce its welfare burden is how do you negotiate that position? How do you should the state enforce parents to make a contribution to the parent raising the child? And if it should, how does it do that?

A (41:31)

So to answer your question, so what I think should happen is that there should be some sort of mediation that's put in, in place which is legally binding. Like I say, where all eventualities are considered. That's, that's my view on it. This real heavy handed approach. And I get what you're saying, you know, that people should be forced to pay for it. But what, what I, what I think should happen is that the state should give two people that opportunity to come together, sort their differences out and do the right thing.

B (42:02)

But they kind of do. I mean, yeah, I've been divorced, I've been through mediation, we've been through, you know, settlement discussion.

A (42:09)

You're talking about marriage, we're talking about people who, who weren't married, who have had children. That's predominantly what we see because a lot of maintenance agreements which has happened to you has, has been sorted out through the family courts, etc.

B (42:21)

But there were two separate ones. So there was the, the, the divorce separation which is the financial rations of that and then there was the child maintenance payments which was completely dealt with separately.

A (42:32)

So that was a separate order.

B (42:33)

Yeah, yeah. Because it y. We did it ourselves. So we looked at what it was actually it wasn't enough and so I overpaid against that. But we figured that out. But you know, I wouldn't, Yeah, I mean my son's in the room. But I wouldn't say it was a smooth process. I wouldn't say we just agreed. But I can see a scenario why I could have made it infinitely difficult for her.

A (42:52)

But because you had that support mechanism in place to do that, because you were going through those proceedings at that time, as you've just said, that process was relatively smooth.

B (43:04)

How many, how many separations do you think we're talking About.

A (43:07)

Well, currently at the moment, we, we. This averages between sort of 600,000 paying parents to 800,000. I think the highest that I've seen is just shy of a million.

B (43:17)

So. So I wouldn't underestimate the complexity of setting up mediation for that many separations in the country. And I think that would be a complex process. And what's the interim? Things that put in place while you're trying to train up people to do those mediation, provide those mediation services. But they also, they're gonna have to deal with, as you know, There'll be the people they can't find where they live. What about the dads who get paid cash in hand?

A (43:42)

So you offer. That's what I'm saying. You offer it out. Yeah. We're gonna give you the opportunity to do the right thing.

B (43:49)

Is that not offered at all? Does it go straight?

A (43:51)

It goes straight to child maintenance.

B (43:52)

Right, okay.

A (43:53)

That's what I'm saying. So there's nothing in place where two parents can just come together, get something legally binding, have a lovely life, unless.

B (44:03)

They choose to go to a private mediation service. Because you can choose to do that yourself.

A (44:07)

Yeah, but the child maintenance service can still override that order. The child maintenance service, after a year. So this is the bit here. So when you agreed, whatever it was that you agreed with your ex wife, that court order that you were given for child maintenance is only valid for one year. The child maintenance service, if she would have made a claim to the child maintenance service, they can come in and override that court order. And I know this because this happened in a tragic case of Ian Briggs. Sorry, not Ian Briggs, Gavin Briggs.

B (44:42)

Yes. There's a website for him, isn't there?

A (44:44)

Yeah, there's a website. Yeah, there's a website for Gavin. So what he was doing was he was paying for his two children through a court order. She went to the child maintenance service. I'm just cutting a very long story short here. He was, was paying for them. No issues at all. They got involved, they made an assessment. He was earning 42,000 pounds a year. He was a train mechanic. And they inflated his income to 76.

B (45:11)

And a half thousand pounds as one of those interim payments.

A (45:16)

It wasn't an interim because they don't use that anymore. They just simply had inflated his income.

B (45:22)

Why? What's the mechanics to inflate that he provides. Here's my income at 42. Why would they inflate it? It.

A (45:28)

They refused to give him something called the mandatory reconsideration. So when he was Contesting it. And he was saying, I'm not earning that money. They refused to carry out a M. And that's what it says on the biscuit tin. A mandatory reconsideration. And the Child Maintenance Service, they refused to do it. They also gave him 16. I think it was about £16,000 of arrears on top as well. And that sort of financial pressure, unfortunately, was far too much for Gavin. And Gavin subsequently tragically took his life. Fuck.

B (46:01)

So.

A (46:01)

And has left the father, Ian Briggs, just with no. He can't get no answers. Everything's just shut down on him. No accountability whatsoever.

B (46:15)

Do we know how they got from him, providing his income, being at 42, how they got. They took that to 71. Is it a computer system error? Is it. Is it a mistake by an individual? Do we know?

A (46:27)

Well, you see, the father has shown me the evidence that he had clearly showed them his income and what he was earning, but they just refused. And this is the issue that we're seeing across the board at the moment. So they've got the enforcement powers, you see. So they force him and they take every single penny. I think he was left with something like £150amonth to live on.

B (46:48)

Okay. Which is nuts. So, so, so what enforcement powers did they use? Did they use. Can they use those ones where they can just literally go into your bank account and take the money? Yeah, they can, yeah.

A (46:59)

So the, the, the armory of enforcement powers that these people have is just unbelievable. So they can remove your driving license, your passport, and they can send you to prison. As well as a sanction. They can go direct to your employer for a direct earnings order where the money is deducted from your salary. They can go into your bank account. A lot of pain. Parents say that they raid your bank account, so they do something called a lump sums deductions order. And once they give that to the bank, they legally. That money will be frozen and that money will be taken from your bank account.

B (47:38)

And do we know what they did for him? Oh, here we go.

A (47:43)

Interesting stat.

B (47:46)

On the suicides. Can you read out? Gone.

A (47:49)

It's not on my screen.

B (47:50)

All right, the paying parent population of the CMS have that have arrears in approximate 53,700 from a total paying parent population of 435. So it's over 10% in 33 months from September 2017 to June 2020, to be in line with the normal mortality rates for 30 to 50 age range, we would expect 207 deaths. But there were 2,860 deaths. A total excess deaths of 2,653 in three years. Years. 14 times the normal mortality rate and 173 times the normal suicide rate and.

A (48:29)

Accounting for 20 of the national. We'll, we'll come on to that at the minute because I've actually, yes, I've actually divulged into the detail of that mortality rate. But just coming back to the story of Gavin. Yeah, he had provided all of the evidence of what he was earning, but they just ignore you, they refuse. And then what they do is when you can test those figures, they label you as non compliant and that's when they start their enforcement process against you. And three times he was supposed to have had a mandatory reconsideration in that year and they just refused it.

B (49:04)

Do we know which, which enforcement actions they took against him?

A (49:07)

I'm not too sure what, what the enforcement actions were because the father's not provided me with, I don't think, under the subject access request.

B (49:16)

Right.

A (49:17)

You know, because unfortunately when Gavin was going through this, he didn't discuss it with his father. And it was only until Gavin took his life that then his father started uncovering this, this investigation of what has actually happened to his son. And it's just, is. It's just one of those stories. I mean, you know, Ian has been on many interviews and I mean, he literally just breaks down, you know, the relationship that he had with his son and there's no empathy from this department whatsoever over suicides. There's another case of Johnny o' Neill and that was reported in the press where they were illegally taking more than 40 of his income. And I also talked to.

B (50:04)

He committed suicide as well.

A (50:06)

Yeah, he committed suicide. Johnny o'. Neill. Yeah. Another paying parent that took his life. And when I was given the description of how he took his life, I, I literally just couldn't believe. Is the most harrowing, thought provoking experience I think that I've ever had. And I've seen some stuff in my time and when they explained to me the night that he took his life, what exactly had happened, my mouth was just left open. I mean, and this was a man who was on his knees, he was begging the Child Maintenance Service, they were deducting all of this money from his. From his bank. Sorry, from his salary.

B (50:49)

So his employer was having to.

A (50:51)

Yeah. His employers having to do it. And I've actually seen the notes on the system from the subject access request where the caseworker says, we are illegally taking more than 40% of his salary.

B (51:05)

But this feels like something, this is, this feels criminal. This feels like a criminal act. But typically no one's going to be held to account within government.

A (51:14)

No one, no one is held to account the, the government. Consecutive governments. Yeah. I mean the Conservatives are going to get the majority of the blame for this, but this has also happened under a Labor government as well and both governments have done absolutely nothing to address this situation. In fact, they've done the complete opposite. So what I find with a lot of these Parliamentary Select Committee hearings, a lot of the time when they're talking about the issues that they have, quite often the question is asked, but do you have enough enforcement powers? It's almost like you would go in there and say I've got a burning sensation between my toenails. And they say, but have you got enough enforcement powers? It's just crazy. That's where their focus is, just purely on enforcement. It's the only thing that they know how to do is enforce.

B (52:03)

Khan, can you just do me a favor? Can you just have a look at how many people were affected by the Post Office scandal? Just how many victims there were. I just want to look something up because it's the scale of this.

A (52:17)

Well, the Post Office scandal is just the warm up for what actually is going on with the Child maintenance service scandal.

B (52:26)

900. So 900. Can you see if any of them committed suicide?

A (52:30)

I think three.

B (52:31)

Three people.

A (52:33)

Yeah, it was quite, I mean any suicide is tragic. Yeah, of course I think it was quite low.

B (52:37)

But there are scales this and the people went to. People actually put in jail for the Post Office.

A (52:44)

But why did that happen? Why did that happen?

B (52:47)

Mistakes, computer system errors, wasn't it?

A (52:49)

But the only reason why people have been cover account is because a documentary was made about it.

B (52:54)

Cover ups. What about sent to jail? But you know this, this. Because this Post Office scandal is a huge scandal. It's a huge scandal and it's being dealt with and it's finally come to light. And thankfully because these people were treated like criminals because a computer system. Right. But this seems to be a much, a much larger scale.

A (53:22)

To answer your question, when you say is this criminal? I would certainly say this is not incompetence because they've been doing the same thing year on and year out and they're very, very good at it. They're incredibly good at it.

B (53:38)

736 were prosecuted, did he say actually went to jail? Because there's prosecution, there's jail time. But anyway, so 736 prosecuted, you think perhaps three suicides we're talking about tens of thousands of people being overcharged. What was that? 53,000 we saw there? And we're talking about a excess mortality rate in thousands.

A (54:02)

Yeah. Now, the reason why we've got to call this the mortality rate and we'll, you know, we'll come on to this, is because the CMS are refusing to release the data, the names of those people that have died on their books. Because once you can get the name of that person, you can search the death certificate.

B (54:24)

Okay.

A (54:24)

And you can see what the cause of death was.

B (54:27)

And it, you know, there might be a range. It might, you know, you could, you can imagine a scenario where some of these have, you know, you know, turned to alcoholism or drugs or stress or. Yeah.

A (54:37)

On top of, on top of these are working people.

B (54:40)

Yeah.

A (54:40)

Working age. Yeah, yeah. And if you look at the ons, the Office of National Statistics, the mortality rate across the whole of the United Kingdom are popular. What is it at now? 70. I know we're being lied to about popular. I get all of that. That is it. 68 million something.

B (54:54)

Go 73.

A (54:55)

Yeah, yeah, go, go. 70 million. Something like that. So according to the Office of National statistics, they would expect 17, 000 people of working age to die of natural causes. With the Freedom of Information request that went out in 2022, which, I mean, I've. I've got it all here in front of me. With the Freedom of Information request that went out, out in 2022, there was. They asked the question, what was the mortality rate between the years 2020 and 2022? And it was just shy of 5,000. That is absolutely awful. So if you look at the comparison of what you would expect with the national average, and then if we look at. And let's say, if we're generous to the CMS here and we say that their population. So we're talking 17,000 of a population of 70 million. We're talking just shy of 5,000 of a paying parent population, let's be generous of 800,000. They are shocking statistics.

B (56:03)

Who else is investigating this? Where is it else is this being covered? Who, who ensured these select committee hearings happened? Like I'm trying to get into my head is, where, where is this in the country kind of psyche?

A (56:18)

You're incredibly puzzled by all of this.

B (56:20)

Yes, because, like, in my head I'm like, well, if, look, I make a podcast and somebody says to me, you should interview. No, this is interesting story and I'll do it. But if I'm a journalist working for Telegraph, times. And I'm aware of this, I'm like, well this is a big, this is scandal. This is a big story. There's potentially thousands of people, well, there's tens of thousands of people who've had their lives turned upside down, who've been criminalized through, through the government putting in a policy which inflates incomes. Add into that, you're throwing in people who've been put under a huge amount of stress to the point where they have killed themselves at extreme numbers. This is a, this is a huge story, but it feels like it'll be one of those situations. It won't be until somebody goes out and makes a documentary and embarrasses the out them that they'll have to deal with it. And then they'll be like, then there'll be kind of investigation and then they'll deal with it. They'll deal with it at the last minute. They have to. This episode is brought to you by ledn, the only Bitcoin backed financial service that I personally use. So whether you're looking to earn interest on your Bitcoin, get a loan without selling your assets, or buy more Bitcoin with these, Leden has the tools to help you manage and grow your wealth. Now with ledn, you can earn interest on your Bitcoin and USDC holdings or unlock the value of Bitcoin with secure low interest loans, all without needing to sell your stack. Leaden is built for Bitcoiners who want more flexibility with their assets. So if you want to find out more please head over to Leden IO. Mrobnoxious to get started that is leadn IO. Mrobnoxious this episode is brought to you by river, the best platform for Bitcoin investing and financial services. Now whether you are just starting out or managing a large holding, river has everything you need to maximize your Bitcoin journey. Now with zero fee recurring buyers, you can stack sats automatically without worrying about hidden fees. And for high net worth individuals, river offers private client services giving you personalized support, secure custody and deep liquidity that can help you manage and grow your Bitcoin portfolio. And for businesses, river provides business accounts allowing companies to securely hold and manage Bitcoin as part of their financial strategy. Visit river.com today and find out more. That is river.com which is R I V E R.com this episode is brought to you by Ledger, the most trusted Bitcoin hardware wallet. Now if you're serious about protecting your Bitcoin, Ledger has the solution you need. Their hardware wallet Gives you complete control over your private keys, ensuring that your bitcoin stays safe from hacks, phishing and malware. And I've been a customer of there since 2017. Love the product. Use it for my bitcoin. I use it with my Castle multisig for protecting the football club's bitcoin too. Now with Ledger's sleek, easy to use devices and the Ledger Live app, managing your bitcoin has never been more secure or convenient. And whether you're a longtime holder or new to the world of bitcoin, Ledger makes it simple to keep your assets protected. So if you want to find out more, please do head over to Ledger.com and secure your Bitcoin today. That is Ledger.com which is L-E-G-E-R.com. that is Ledger.com.

A (59:36)

Well, you see, I'm not a fan favorite of public inquiries. I'm not a fan favorite of any public inquiry because. Because look at, look at the outcome of it. It's just everything is, listen, guys, we're all on top of it. We're gonna get the dust pan and brush out and we're gonna sweep it all under the carpet. We've learned all our lessons, you know.

B (59:54)

Seven years.

A (59:55)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Takes seven years. It's a waste of time. And when we had a covert inquiry, I mean, what, what came out of it that has anybody gone to prison off the back of. The reason why nobody goes to prison off the back of these inquiries is because the institutions blamed. You look at the rape gangs and what happened with the rape gangs. Greater Manchester police had breached a hundred and whatever breaches of their code of conduct and blah, blah, blah regarding the rape gangs. But you can't send an institution to prison, can you? The evidence is never pointed specifically at the decision making process of the people that are involved. And that's the reason why I'm not in. So everyone shouts, oh, we need a public inquiry. What for them just to turn around and say, well, I'll tell you what, we're just going to sweep it. Nothing for you guys to see here. That's always what you get. Nothing for you to see.

B (60:47)

This is where those different rules exist. If you own a private business, say you own a construction firm and you have poor health and safety practices and that leads to the deaths of people. People within that private construction company can be prosecuted and jailed.

A (61:03)

Yeah.

B (61:04)

For it can be, I think it can go under criminal negligence.

A (61:07)

Whereas under health and safety is a criminal. Yeah, it's a criminal offense.

B (61:11)

But if you're creating policies that fraudulently try and take money for parents, put them under undue pressure to the point where they're committed suicide, how is that any different?

A (61:22)

Well, you're asking the government, really, aren't you, to investigate themselves. When you're making complaints, you're, you know, the police are part of it, you know, social services are part of it. Kafkasa, the family courts, they're all part of the same thing. So in my view, it's like the Russians investigating the Salisbury poisonings, isn't it?

B (61:41)

Yeah. I'm laughing because it's right. You're right. If you're right. Of course it is, but it's just.

A (61:45)

Because unless you do the documentary that's done by independence, where they can specifically point the evidence in the direction of that individual that made that. That decision, at the very least, that person could go to prison for misconduct in a public office or criminal malfeasance, at the very, very least. But the Child Maintenance Service, what we're seeing with all of these scandals, you know, whether it's the rape gangs, whether it's Ulez, whether it's. There's so many scandals, I can't even think of them. Like you said earlier, you know, it's a scandal every day now, out with all of these scandals, it might not affect you with what's going on. You might drive a compliant vehicle and, you know, you might be going into London, not getting charged, all of that sort of stuff, but then you might be a paying parent who's having to pay through the Child Maintenance Service. Failing that, you might be a postmaster who's going about your business and then you get hit there, there. It's all these little things that I see which are connected, but overall, regarding children, I've had a lot of people come forward to me regarding these rape games. I know what's going on and I mean, this would make your toenails curl. What we're seeing is the monetization of children by the state.

B (63:10)

I've heard about this. I had some woman reach out to me and she wanted to come on the show. I can't remember her name, actually. I wouldn't say if I knew, just in case, because she's got. Her backstory is quite interesting, but she was talking about the incentive systems for the government. Oh, what was. Was something to do. I can't remember the details, but you've kind of triggered me into like remembering her based on the monetization by the state. But it was something to do with the Ability to claim money by holding onto kids. Are you able to talk? What. Talk about what you've just said there?

A (63:52)

I can't. I can't go into specifics at the moment, but I've had the real experts in these areas that have come forwards to me. So I was driving funny enough to reform conference, I received a phone call and I was told what's going on, and I couldn't believe it. And this is me who understands corruption. You know, this is one of the things that I'm majorly looking at across all government departments. You know, I've been involved in Ulez. I'm involved in the Child Maintenance Service. I do see the corruption and I understand the corruption that's going on, but with regards to the rape G. I could not even comprehend the information that I was being given. And, I mean, you could not comprehend it. And unless you put that into a documentary and you put it out there, there, nobody's going to understand the true ramifications of exactly what's going on.

B (64:46)

You're gonna have to tell me when we've stopped the cameras.

A (64:51)

But look, just coming back.

B (64:52)

Yeah, back to this.

A (64:53)

Yeah, coming back to this, because obviously, you know, you suggested. Is there a criminal element to it?

B (64:58)

I mean, there must be.

A (65:00)

Well, the evidence would certainly suggest that there is. I mean, you're inflating incomes, you're using enforcement powers. And the National Audit Office, and I want to come on to the National Audit Office in a minute. The National Audit Office every single year are refusing to sign off the accounts of the Child Maintenance Service. They're not giving them the certificate of efficiency and the National Audit Office are the regulators.

B (65:30)

It feels like racketeering and extortion.

A (65:33)

So, look, I mean, those reports from the National Audit Office, they go as. As high up as Chancellor because that's who they. That's their, that's their. That's their chain. That's who they go through. Yeah. You know, when these accounts are assessed, it's all done in, in, in line with the Treasury Act. So specifically, the treasury is responsible for all of these government departments. But the thing is, we are the ones. We're the ones who are also paying. I think it costs about 300, 400 million a year of taxpayers money to run it. To run it, of course, yeah.

B (66:10)

So we've got to pay their pensions. So we've got to pay these civil servants their final salary. Pensions.

A (66:15)

Yeah. So in this, in this video that we're going to see here, this is Debbie Abraham's labor mp and she is confronting Arling Sugden, who. Her nickname is Arling Thugden, by the way. And a lot of people have made the suggestion that all she is is a debt collector for the state. And Arling Sugden is being cross examined what the processes are regarding a paying parent who takes their own life. And Debbie Abraham's here is specifically, she was talking about the case of Johnny o'. Neill. Because the sister, the one you just mentioned. Yeah, yeah, because the sister, Joanne o', Neill, she went to see Debbie Abrahams and she gave Debbie Abrahams the actual story. And then Debbie here is challenging Arling Sugden and you can just see how flippant she is that they own. I mean, this is tens of thousands of pounds that they are say, said that they owe, which leaving literally pounds for them to exist on. So do you collect data on this in terms of the suicides of paying parents? Do you also assess the proportion of your estimates that are found out to be inaccurate? And if so, do we have these data? And finally, in relation to the customer service element that we've already heard.

B (67:56)

Again.

A (67:59)

These are simple things to get right in terms of how we treat people in our daily interaction with them. I'm absolutely delighted with the recommendations from a report that came out yesterday, but the customer service element of it needs to get much, much better.

B (68:19)

Perhaps I could start off, I don't.

A (68:21)

Have the data to hand, but maybe my colleagues might be able to help. Could I just say that being new into the department, I'm already aware, having seen some of the correspondence that I've.

B (68:31)

Had to sort of look at and.

A (68:32)

Sign off on some absolutely tragic cases. And I think it's absolutely appalling that this can. All cases can lead to people taking their own lives. I mean, that's absolutely dreadful and we must look at all ways in which we can avoid that or have systems and processes which.

B (68:52)

Which do not lead to that.

A (68:53)

So I think you make a very good point. Could I also, conversely, make the point that actually. Okay, so in this one here, that was actually Viscount Younger, so he had just taken over as Under Secretary of State, so he was new into the position. But when Debbie Abrahams was cross examining Arling Sugden, it might have been just a bit previous on, on that particular clip that we've just seen. So when, when Debbie Abrahams was cross examining Arling Sugden about the suicides, she said that they carry out an internal review process on that.

B (69:41)

Cool. Tell us the numbers then.

A (69:43)

Exactly, exactly, yeah. An internal review process. And at that Hearing there was an MP who was present, I. I think he was Liberal Democrat, or it might have been stp. Some. Something like. He was one of them. He wasn't like labor or Conservative or anything like that. So he said, well, surely that's like the department marking its own homework. Of course, yeah. So she said, a lot of the time, time we find that paying parents are in a lot of debt. Anyway, that's what she said. And we look up the processes to see whether we've done something that could have triggered them to have taken their own lives. How about getting £16,000 of arrears slapped on you? How about having your ink, your income inflated to £76,000 when you're earning £42,000? Maybe that's got something to do with. Of it. I mean, I don't have a science degree, but I can figure that one out.

B (70:44)

Yeah.

A (70:44)

Yeah. And it's quite easy to figure that one out. So then you've got Viscount Younger, who's saying something completely different to what Arling Sugden's saying, because he's saying, well, I've only just taken over this position and from the cases that I've read, these are ending in tragic consequences.

B (71:01)

So he's.

A (71:01)

He's seen it, he's seeing it. She's trying to cover it up. Up in the Select Committee hearing.

B (71:07)

Is she under investigation herself?

A (71:10)

No, she's not under investigation. This is just Select Committee. So that all that they're trying to do is just. Basically, it's a ging ganguly.

B (71:17)

Yeah, that.

A (71:17)

That's what it is. Yeah. They just sit around, burn a few marshmallows, talk about a few things and that's it. Nothing ever happens off the back of these things when they're identified.

B (71:27)

So. So what do you. What do you think needs to happen now based on everything you know, and you see what needs to be happen?

A (71:36)

What, in terms of the.

B (71:38)

Like, where are we at with this whole thing? Is it. Is the debt still there? Are they still inflating people's wages? Are they still doing these inflated interim payment orders?

A (71:49)

Right. So on the 1993 and 2003 schemes. Yeah, yeah. They said that there was 4 billion that wasn't owed. Yeah, it was uncollectible. So I did a Freedom of Information request going back to 2009 to the year 2020, to find out how much money they had collected on those 1993 and 2003 schemes.

B (72:16)

Okay.

A (72:16)

Because what the CMS did, as opposed to saying, we're going to get a clean break from this money. What they've done is they've pulled that debt over into the 2012 scheme.

B (72:26)

Scheme.

A (72:27)

So all of these paying parents that have got nothing to do with this money, they've dragged it across into the new 2012 scheme.

B (72:36)

Hold on, let me ask you a question. I don't know if you know this. When they did these inflated interim payment orders.

A (72:42)

Yes.

B (72:42)

To try and trigger the parent to provide the information to say it should have, they thought it Maybe should be 100 and it was 3, 400. When they took that money, say someone paid it.

A (72:52)

Yeah.

B (72:53)

Did they give all of it to the other parent or did they give them the part? They should get the difference. Do we know this?

A (72:58)

Well, this is, this is, this is going to be the question that bugs us a long time after this because we can't actually get to the bottom of it because they're not giving us the data. But what we do know is that a large proportion of the money that's collected is never passed on to the receiving parent.

B (73:14)

So where does it sit in the bank account? Does it go into the Treasury?

A (73:18)

Exactly. I've asked these questions.

B (73:21)

So what did you find out in your.

A (73:22)

Right. So I've asked these questions. So in a 13 year period on the schemes that should have been closed and not dragged over into the 2012 schemes, 7.68 billion pounds was collected on those schemes.

B (73:44)

Inflated.

A (73:46)

Exactly that. So the 4 billion that should never have been collected anyway, they've collected way beyond that, 7.68 billion over a 13 year period. That's over a 13 year period. That, that. Those figures are also in the public domain domain. You just need to know where to look for them.

B (74:14)

Okay, I'm going to go around the circles here.

A (74:15)

Yeah.

B (74:16)

Is anybody else investigating this? There's nothing else. So we have the Select Committee hearings.

A (74:22)

Yeah.

B (74:22)

And you doing what you're doing, that's all that exists right now.

A (74:25)

And reform.

B (74:26)

And reform.

A (74:26)

Yeah, reform, Reform. Richard Tice is well aware of what's going on and Witcomb, I've been working with Anne Widdicombe and a few others in reform as well. And we're doing everything that we possibly can to shed light on this. We have also. Right, so how they, how they get around this and how they enforce these orders because then this will bring us on to policy with reform. So what, what they use is the Child Support Act 1991 and section 333 of that act, subsection 4. When a liability order is granted for that amount of money by the magistrates, the Justices are precluded from checking the calculations of the Child Maintenance Service. That's a breach of all natural justice, isn't it?

B (75:25)

This whole thing's.

A (75:25)

So hopefully, hopefully they can bring up the Child Support act so we can get it up here on the screen. Screen so that all the viewers can actually see this, that it's the Child Support Act, 1991, section 33, subsection 4, so that everybody. So there's an act of law that precludes justices from checking the calculations of the Child Maintenance service. So there you go. On application under subsection to the court, as the case may be, the Sheriff shall not question the maintenance calculation under which the payments of child support maintenance fail to be made.

B (76:08)

This is nuts. What the. This is absolutely nuts. How can then you, how can you then investigate? I mean, you can investigate, but, but.

A (76:26)

You see, where is the court, you.

B (76:27)

Stopping the court doing what the court's meant to be doing.

A (76:29)

Exactly. So then one would argue what do we have the separation of powers for? Because the judiciary, that's what this. I mean, maybe I've got this wrong, but that's what I thought the judiciary was there to do, was to check evidence and fact check everything. That's what I thought the courts were there to do.

B (76:50)

I mean, mean I have no faith in the judiciary at the moment anyway, itself.

A (76:54)

Well, not a lot of people do have a faith, faith in the judiciary. So if you've got no faith in the judiciary and then you've got an act of law like that, that's just absolutely incredible.

B (77:04)

Who would have written that and why?

A (77:06)

Exactly. So now what we're going to look here, we're going to look at the footage here because there's actually been an amendment to this.

B (77:13)

Okay.

A (77:14)

Because what the Child Maintenance Service can actually do now, now is produce their own liability orders to speed up the enforcement process so that they allegedly can get money to pay receiving parents a lot quicker. So what we're going to see here is Viscount Younger, who we saw.

B (77:35)

Yeah, yeah.

A (77:35)

Who we just saw, who said that he's read all of these cases that have ended up in tragic consequences. And he was saying, you know, that this can't go on and we, you know, gotta have processes in place and that stop this. And then we've got Viscount Younger here who. Well, this is self explanatory. And so this bill makes important improvements.

B (77:57)

To CMS enforcement processes by amending existing powers. Once commenced, this will allow the Secretary of State to make an administrative liability order where the paying parent has failed.

A (78:09)

To pay an amount of child maintenance.

B (78:11)

Without the need to make an application to court. Court.

A (78:15)

They don't need to make.

B (78:16)

They want to skip the court.

A (78:17)

Yeah, they don't need to make an application to court. So now they can administer their own liability orders. So surely, Judge, you're an executioner. That's exactly what I was just going to say. This is Judge Dredd hell.

B (78:35)

But they're doing this already, knowing they've been making mistakes and people have been committing suicide side.

A (78:40)

Absolutely. But as you just would probably have seen there a lot of the times when they're getting these bills through, there's nobody in the house to say, hold on a minute, that, that doesn't make sense. You know, that's not legal, that's not. Whatever it might be. I mean, that is all violations of a right to a fair trial. But you see, they blame the computer systems in the Post Office scandal, didn't they? They blamed them. That's what they did, you see, to try and cover up what they'd been at. They had people in the control room that was changing the figures. So yet again, it's a similar pattern, isn't it, with what was going on with the Post Office scandal that all of a sudden when the postmasters were, were adding up and you know, they were doing whatever it was at the end of their shifts and they were entering the money into the system, the system was changing the figures. And that's because of a remote terminal like that, because it's all computer driven. And that's subsequently what we're seeing with the Child Maintenance Service. Everything's going digital now. So what they do is they can obtain the figures from HMRC any one of six years. Years. So they go in.

B (80:05)

But hold on. But, but you're, you know, I know my income over the six years, is it. It changes from year to year.

A (80:11)

Absolutely.

B (80:12)

You have bonuses, dividends, pay rises, move jobs.

A (80:16)

So what do you think that the CMS, do they look at your tax years? 1 of 6 average? No. And they're looking at the most juiciest tax year, aren't they? They're going to look at the most juicy tax year. Oh, he earned a lot of money that year. Year might have been four years ago, it doesn't matter. But we'll pick that income and we'll say that that's the amount of money that they've got to pay. And so if, yeah, knowing, knowing that the paying parent has absolutely no way whatsoever of challenging those calculations because of the act of law. And then a minute that you turn around to him and you say to him, sorry, I don't owe that money. Money. I'll tell you what, you're non compliant, so they'll start the enforcement process against you.

B (81:00)

Take your driving license away, we'll take your passport away, we'll go into your bank account, we will, we will trap you, we will destroy your life and then we'll say, sorry. Five years down the line when the numbers come out that thousands have committed suicide.

A (81:12)

I've got another case here where an SBS operator came forwards, suffered significant brain damage whilst on operations, got hit with an ied and he actually said to me, do you know what, Noel? I'm more afraid of the Child Maintenance Service than I am of Al Qaeda, ISIS or the Taliban. Because he's had a continuous battle with, with them because he's been medically downgraded. So he lost all of his Special Forces pay, which is a significant amount of money, but they refused to change his income and kept it at the same income as if he was earning Special Forces pay. So even one of our own, this is the thing, and you know, that gets me so annoyed here. Even one of our own who's gone out and given everything for this country, I've not even given half of what this guy has done for this country and he's still treated with that amount of disrespect that they don't even feel that it's appropriate. This is a man who's given everything for his country and they can't even just look at the calculations and say, actually we were wrong, you're right, you've been medically downgraded because of something that's happened to you whilst you've been on operations.

B (82:35)

Even that Vice Count Youngen said, I've seen the communications and these are tragic. He's aware of it and now we're seeing him putting in place acts of law that will lead most likely to more situations like that.

A (82:51)

Absolutely.

B (82:53)

So we're still in this position where this is still happening?

A (82:56)

Yeah, I mean, it's just getting worse. We're in a position where it's just getting worse and worse and worse because the only way that they know, and the only thing that we seem to, that they know how to do here in the United Kingdom is enforce. Yeah, that, that's it. I mean, it's just, you know, they don't want to look at a problem them, they just want, well, you know what, we're just going to reinforce more. I mean, just on my journey coming here now, I got off a Piccadilly Circus. I've never seen so many different colors of body armor in my life. I'm like, who's this now? You know, they've got like operators now on transport for London enforcement and this enforcement and that enforcement and yeah, all wearing badges and. And that's what I mean. You know, you've got high vis body armor. You've got like navy body armor now. You've got all different types of colors of different people that enforcing things. It's becoming a very, very, very serious situation of how we're living here.

B (83:56)

Well, look, it goes back to what I originally said. People had enough. People have had enough. Had enough of this pe.

A (84:03)

Yeah, people have had enough. And I think that people are waking up and that's why people now are looking to the likes of reform, because we're just common sense. And whilst you got people like myself who are willing to come forwards. RER is the master at doing it. Nigel, you know, he gains on things. Richard Tice, they all do, you know, who come forward and call these things out. It's just going to continue. And, and you know what? Out of all of this. So obviously I came into the public eye, the spotlight with the Ulez last year.

B (84:36)

Yeah, talk about that.

A (84:38)

So.

B (84:39)

Because, because just as a bit of.

A (84:41)

Light humor, I've got to be very, very careful.

B (84:44)

Well, let me say, I don't care if I get arrested. I love the people who go down and cut, cut down the new lens cameras. I love them. Every time I see one of them get sawed down, I'm like pound for the people, love. So the sun.

A (84:55)

So the sun. So the sun. Yeah, obviously.

B (84:58)

Is that you?

A (84:59)

Yeah, so that's me there. So, yeah, the sun.

B (85:01)

That's where I want a legal landmark ruling against London's hated ULS charges. Help me take TFL to court, get our money back. Okay. So what's the detail?

A (85:10)

That's you.

B (85:11)

Yeah, you look well different.

A (85:12)

Yeah, well, I'll just come back off holiday. It's a bit different from when, when the story came out, which I think was September. It was about September last year to February this year. That's why I got no tan.

B (85:26)

Is that your van?

A (85:27)

Yeah.

B (85:27)

Do you still do scaffolding?

A (85:29)

Yeah, I've got. I've got a scaffold company. Yeah.

B (85:30)

Nice.

A (85:31)

So I mean that, that is my background, you know. I own a scaffold company.

B (85:34)

Driving around London.

A (85:35)

Yeah, driving around London.

B (85:36)

So what's, what's the detail? You racked up eleven and a half thousand in penalties and five.

A (85:40)

Yeah. So the actual crime that I committed was going to work. That was the actual crime that I committed. I'd actually gone to work. So.

B (85:47)

Yeah, well, the actor going to work.

A (85:49)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So that, that's in, in essence what I was.

B (85:52)

So you, you were crossing into U zones.

A (85:55)

Yeah. So my vehicle was a Euro 5 lorry at that time and what they done is they changed because the Euro 6 was coming in, they changed the low emission zone, which was only there for commercial vehicles. So the vehicle had gone into the low emission zone for its sins, seven times. And did you know you had to.

B (86:20)

Pay and you just thought, no, no.

A (86:21)

I didn't, I didn't have a clue.

B (86:22)

Okay.

A (86:23)

I literally had not a clue.

B (86:24)

Did you get a letter on the post on the first one?

A (86:27)

No, nothing at all. So this was all off through the pandemic? Just off? Yeah. So things. No one was getting post, you know, all sorts of things going on. So it's a hundred pound fine every time that, that. Sorry, it's a thousand pound fine. So it's a hundred pound charge. It's a hundred pound charge for your vehicle to go into the low emission zone if you don't pay it within 28 days. It's a thousand pound fine.

B (86:56)

If you.

A (86:57)

Yeah, if you don't pay it after 28 days, then it goes up to 1500.

B (87:03)

That's it. Times, you know, for example, coming to conjecture. We drive in some days when we do our interviews and I finally set up the direct debit for it at the auto thing, even though I hate being tracked by the cameras because I kept forgetting, we'll go in, it's like, right, I'll do it when I get home and I forget and then it'll go from. Whatever the. Is it 15 quid to come in. I can't remember.

A (87:22)

12 pound.

B (87:22)

50. 1250. And I'll get a 50 pound fine and then I'll forget to pay it. It'll go up and I just, I was like, I cannot keep paying these fines. So I ended up. Ended up registering for it. That seems excessive. So it's a hundred pound charge from.

A (87:34)

It's 100 pound for the commercial vehicle to enter that zone if it's not a Euro 6 vehicle.

B (87:39)

But. But it's a tax because you can't just expect everyone to upgrade their vehicles like overnight.

A (87:43)

Yeah.

B (87:44)

Plus also, yeah, running business is hard. You know, some people are going to get their vehicle secondhand and want an older one. Can't afford a new one.

A (87:49)

Tell me about it.

B (87:50)

I mean, business is hard enough as it is.

A (87:52)

Yeah.

B (87:52)

Tell me a thousand pound fine.

A (87:54)

It's a thousand pound fine fine after 28 days. Sorry? Up to 28 days. So you've got 28 days to pay the thousand pound fine. After the 28 days it goes to 1500 pounds.

B (88:05)

That seems really excessive.

A (88:07)

It is excessive.

B (88:08)

You know, I don't agree with it, but my expectation, if you'd have asked me, I would have thought 50 quid to go in. 50 quid fine. Okay.

A (88:16)

So it's really, really excessive. So I ended up with seven of them. So I appealed to Transport for London, which was. And they issued me the notice of rejection and they said, we're not interested.

B (88:29)

Okay.

A (88:29)

Yeah. Because I didn't have a clue that I was going in to this, into this zone. So.

B (88:35)

Yeah. Because if you don't know, how are you meant to know exactly?

A (88:38)

How are you supposed to know? So straight away I was kind of like very suspicious of the signage. So.

B (88:46)

Because it's almost like the congestion looks very obvious when you go in the congestion charge. But even in. Again, ev. I've gone into it without realizing I've gone into it before. Right. I have just. It's by accident. But at least you'd expect them to give you one chance and go, oh, you. Because the one chance is at least a warning to say you've done it.

A (89:03)

Yeah.

B (89:03)

I'm not agreeing with the charge, but I'm saying if you're going to do it, give them. Everyone gets one strike.

A (89:07)

Yeah.

B (89:08)

Now you know.

A (89:09)

Yeah. So they issued the notice of rejection.

B (89:14)

Yeah.

A (89:15)

And I appealed to the Road Traffic Adjudicator which comes under the London tribunals. And just me being the way that I am, I wasn't going to be a good little boy. No, that's not me. Yeah. Yeah. I just wasn't going to be there. And yeah, I'm going to pay you your eleven and a half thousand pounds. That's just not going to happen. So I appealed it to the Road Traffic Adjudicator. I did a lot of research, I mean, tons and tons and tons of research into this. I was pointed in the direction of where to go by a friend and then I just took it on, on myself to really start studying the law and looking at different signs and blah, blah, blah. And it quickly became apparent to me that the signage is not compliant with the legislation. Because that's the bit that I can't go into.

B (90:05)

Okay.

A (90:06)

At the moment.

B (90:06)

Okay.

A (90:07)

Yeah. I can't. I can't go into that bit.

B (90:08)

So it's an ongoing case.

A (90:09)

It's. Yeah, there's still legal proceedings that are going on at the moment which hopefully will be successfully concluded very soon. And then I can reveal all. I will come back here and I will give you. Tell me everything, give you an interview and I can tell you everything of how I did it.

B (90:24)

Do we know how many cameras there are?

A (90:25)

I haven't got a clue. I wouldn't, I wouldn't have.

B (90:28)

I want to know how many are. How many have been cut down. Every time I see it, I just love it. With their hacksaw. I love it. That's like off the government. Honestly, the amount of. It's like everything we do is a charge and a fine and a license. I get. I've got a lot of friends in America and they just laugh. They always say if you got a license for that, everything is a charge and a fine. Fine. Honestly, the amount of fines I pay parking, speed. And yes, I know I should do it myself, but I just feel it's be gone beyond something which is meant to, you know, a penalty for making a mistake just to. It's. It's an income. 3700 exists. What's the difference between the red and the black? Could not tell you. Do we know anything cut down?

A (91:11)

So you see, I love it.

B (91:13)

I do.

A (91:13)

So you see, look, these are the things where I think it's really important to talk about, about, you know, these topics like the trial maintenance service Ulez and stuff like that. Because it's like I say, there's going to be a part of your life where that specific thing might not affect you, but somewhere down the line there is going to be something that. That affects you.

B (91:31)

Well, we've come from the place where the, the government is elected by us to serve us.

A (91:36)

Yes.

B (91:37)

To Essentially we're almost in like a slavery time now. We're, we're. We're subservient to this big, you know, government beast that wants to know everything we're doing all the time and charge us all the time to pay for its own incompetence. I'm so over it. I'm so done. Done with it.

A (91:54)

We all are.

B (91:55)

We all.

A (91:55)

I mean, whether. Yeah, I mean. And that's one of the reasons why I got into politics. You know, I, I was very, very. I had my fingers very badly burnt in the family courts. I had a daughter who was. As a result of a very, very brief relationship. I learned from those mistakes. I tried to get access through the family court. So I have a firsthand witnessed myself the process of how those family courts work, how child protection services work, how social services work. And I can see why these children suffer at the mercy of social services and the family courts. I've witnessed it firsthand. And like, just to give you a brief overview, cost, I think I spent 30, 40 grand in the courts trying to see my daughter for no reason whatsoever. I just could not get contact to see my daughter. And then eventually the judge agreed, okay, you can go to a contact center. Why? Why do I have to go to a contact center center? You know, like I'm some sort of risk to my child. You know, I. I couldn't fathom that in my own mind. I couldn't. I. I just couldn't bring myself forwards to disrespect myself like that, to go to a contact center to see my daughter. I'm entrusted to lead men on the battlefield, but I can't take my daughter to the zoo or a play area or take her out for lunch or whatever it might be. So that's where my suspicions and where all my research kind of started. You know, I'm just a normal guy. I'm just a working class guy. You know, I just try like, like everybody, I just go about my business and all of these things have kind of come along and kind of really bit me on my ass. And I could see how difficult it was. And as this story evolved over a period of time. Time. I contacted because my daughter wasn't going to school. Yeah. So I was contacting the school and they were keeping me updated. And I could see that her attendance was absolutely shocking. And I thought, why is my daughter constantly off, off school? Because I have no relationship whatsoever with the mother. And I contacted the doctor's surgery and I said, her, her local doctor surgery. And I said, look, you know, I'm. I've got parental responsibility of this child. Can I see her medical records? And when the medical records were given to me, oh, my God, I have never been so shocked in my life at what I read. So the mother and the stepfather had both been arrested for the suspicious death of the grandmother.

B (94:47)

Jesus Christ. And you have to go to a.

A (94:49)

Contact center and I have to go to a contact center. So they've both been arrested and there was an ongoing investigation. And I started seeing all of the media articles that came out, and the journalist got in contact with me and he was trying to get a bit of a backstory. And then I started doing my own research into the stepfather. And he has a very, very extensive criminal background. So he Was. You might know this actually. So back in 2008, he was involved in the kidnapping of the Queen's Park Rangers chairman. That Judy. Yes. Yeah. So he was one of the gang members that was involved in the kidnapping. But when I'm going through, obviously child protection services and I'm being, you know, going into these conferences and all that sort of stuff, you know, because, you know, she's now under a child protection program. Program. And when I'm going in there, I am actually sitting there thinking to myself, am I on a spaceship going to a parallel universe?

B (95:56)

I think we all feel like that right now.

A (95:59)

When, when I'm hearing what I mean, they are portraying this family as like the Waltons type family in, in. In this meeting. And I'm seeing things such as that the stepfather is having to wear body army because he's involved with drugs and petrol bombs have been thrown at the house. This is all what I'm seeing. But child protection services and I'm trying to speak up saying, is, is this normal behavior? Is this normal? But maybe it's normal to them. But it's not normal to me.

B (96:36)

It's not normal to me, man.

A (96:38)

So. So maybe it is normal behavior to them that this happens on such a daily basis.

B (96:42)

Yeah.

A (96:43)

That they just. To them it's just an ordinary.

B (96:46)

This is a good family.

A (96:47)

Yeah, this is a great family. And they are. They're portraying this family as the. I'm like, surely you would just remove that child. Surely you were just. I mean, body armor, you know. He also on. On a police statement, he said, I have a serious drugs problem. Cocaine, where I take cocaine about three times per week. But if I had more money, money, I would take more drugs. I mean, that, that is just. Surely that child should be removed out of that environment. But under no circumstances were they going to remove that child and give her to me, somebody who's never broken the law. I don't have any criminal convictions.

B (97:27)

It's just endless.

A (97:28)

I've served my country, I've got security clearance, all that sort of stuff.

B (97:32)

No, it's just endless, though. This stuff is endless us.

A (97:36)

Why is everything so hard? Why is everything just so difficult?

B (97:40)

Because government are involved.

A (97:42)

Exactly. Exactly that. And it's exactly the same here with the Child Maintenance Service. Yeah, it's. It's just so difficult and so hard for all of these paying parents rather than if these people actually did their job. I don't know if the system would work effectively. I don't know.

B (97:59)

Yeah.

A (98:00)

Because it never has. So when you're Asking me the question, should there be something in place? And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that I genuinely don't know, because this. We can't use this as a pilot scheme because it never has worked, because all it's been is complaint after complaint after complaint. You know, we're looking at mortality rates. That's also a huge factor.

B (98:23)

The fact that we're looking at them and the fact that the numbers exist shows this is an absolute disaster. This is a scandal. This. Honestly, I'm. I commend you for. For champing this because it doesn't sound like anyone else's.

A (98:35)

Well, look, I mean, what I think we need to do as well is look at the footage from the National Audit Office, which is where Joshua Redway, who is the Director of the National Audit Office, and he categorically states that they put an adverse opinion on the legacy of schemes. And that's as strong an opinion that they can give. They've given them the adverse opinion that.

C (99:00)

Goes back a long way. It's to do with the interim assessments that the Child Support Agency issued for people, where essentially they would say, we think you owe this. Come to us with the evidence to prove how much you should owe. People did not come with the evidence. So those interim assessments stayed on the file. And in fact, this committee at the time documented that very well.

B (99:24)

Right. So if they're old debts, they could well be fictitious. But in terms of recent assessments, you're pretty confident that they are there.

C (99:34)

Yes. So in terms of recent assessments, we are pretty confident that there is a less than 1% error rate. The reason for that is because the new system is designed essentially to rely much more heavily on existing records, and in particular, people's tax record. So the rules essentially say, if that's what the tax statement says, this is the information you can use. That makes it much harder to get it wrong. I think in some of the correspondence I've read, and we had a lot of correspondence, my latest was just this morning, I was reading on this. I think people have an expectation that, should I call it fidelity to their circumstances. Circumstances. So a lot of receiving parents will say such and such. My ex has a house and they've had a car and I know they've got all of this, so why are you giving them that assessment? And the CMS will say, well, actually, we've assessed this correctly because this is the information we've got that relies on the tax record. And of course, they are confusing capital there and income, it's people's income that it's assessed on not whether or not they have a house or a car. There is the opportunity for either of the parent, but let's face it will be the receiving parent to ask for additional income to be taken into account. So earnings income is coming through the RTI feed. As you know, this is the same feed that feeds the universal credit system coming through payroll. That's very, very easy for CMS to get right where people have more complicated arrangements. Perhaps they're paid, perhaps they're self employed, perhaps they're paid through dividends or so on. That's where it gets more complicated. That's where you'll see error and it having to be referred to their financial investigation unit. And that's why we think that that 1%, well it's 0.67% in the last set of accounts but I'm going to call it 1% because I think it will fluctuate up and down within that 1%.

A (101:47)

Okay, so, so that's the director of the National Audit Office. So what he says is, I think maybe we've just jumped a little bit too far there because he's actually doing a commentary on the 1993 and 2003 schemes. So we'll bring that one back up because he actually categorically states that parents are pursued for debts where there's no evidence to substantiate that they owe. But what he says there, and I've just like taken a quick note, is that the tax system exactly that he's saying that. Yeah, it can't go wrong. But what they can't see the National Audit Office is what tax year is selected.

B (102:30)

There's another clip. Let's, let's watch this one.

A (102:33)

Okay.

B (102:34)

Yeah. I've received, as I suspect a number of us have quite a few angry emails. I'm forwarding you case details. The Child Maintenance Service has been awarded a liability order for a fictitious debt. There are many thousands of cases like this one. In your report I notice you put a figure of 99.35% on the accuracy of the child Maintenance calculations. Are you satisfied that the large number.

A (103:04)

Of people saying that there is a.

B (103:08)

Fictitious debt are mistaken?

C (103:10)

No, we're not satisfied of that. We wouldn't necessarily use the word fictitious. However, however it is, it does mean that people are being pursued for debts, that there is not the evidence to substantiate that they owe.

A (103:25)

Wow. You can see he was uncomfortable there, couldn't you? Yeah, I mean he's, you know, giving evidence to the Select Committee hearing. You can kind of see he's really uncomfortable that. Yeah, we wouldn't necessarily use the word fictitious, but that's what it is. I mean, these are fictitious debts.

B (103:42)

Yeah, whatever. What other word can you use?

A (103:45)

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's not real. So it's fictional, isn't it? You know, if something isn't real, then it's fictional.

B (103:51)

So I'm sat here, I'm talking to you.

A (103:53)

Yeah.

B (103:53)

Watching these videos, I'm seeing that people are being pursued for things that do not exist, made up numbers, numbers that have been inflated. People have been pushed to the limit of their existence, that they've taken their lives. And until seeing a few people around the table discussing it, and I'm wondering, is that, why is it only talking about policy change? Why are we not talking about criminal charges? This, to me, if you, if you have put in practices that have led to people taking their own lives through trying to pursue them for, for money that they shouldn't be pursued for, that's led to their deaths, that's bad enough. But if you've carried these practices on and it's continued to happen that you're. Now you must be criminally liable because you know, know, you know.

A (104:40)

But let's, let's, let's peel, peel this back and let's look at this another way. Imagine this system was working perfectly and there was still paying parents that were taking their lives. So even if the Child Maintenance Service were doing everything that they possibly could, you know, it was all working efficiently. You know, there was correct calculations, the law was being applied where it should have been, the judiciary was being fair, but people were still taking their lives off the back the of. Of that. Then surely there would have to be some sort of investigation or some sort of review into what's going on.

B (105:13)

Of course. What, what is the pressure point that is causing this? You know, where are these pressure points?

A (105:18)

And that's why I wanted to come on here, you know, with you today, show all your viewers the actual evidence of what's going on. And we've spoken about it, we've divulged quite deep into this, but would you say to me that something sinister is going on? Well, a lot of subcontractors, which we won't go into now, have also been awarded the enforcement contract. Serco. I bet that's a name that you've heard an awful lot coming up.

B (105:45)

Yeah.

A (105:46)

So they've collected a billion.

B (105:47)

Well, we've seen all that stuff recently that's come out with the procurement files and UK Doge and The WOKE contracts. We've seen that the government is just handing out contracts everywhere like confetti. And there must be some weird incentives going on here. Here, where people are making money off this misery.

A (106:06)

Well, Serco is a corporation. It's. It's there to do one thing and one thing only, make a profit. Make as much money as what they possibly can and they don't care at what cost that it does. So circa have had the contract. We know that G4S have been involved and we also know that Tata has been involved. So yet again, there's just another pattern of behavior here. I mean, my biggest bugbearer with Serco, I mean they call it border force. It's not border force, it's Circle Circo. Yeah, they are securing our borders at the moment. You know all the contracts that you read, 4 billion pound contract for that they were given in 2020 for illegal immigration. And that's still, they're still, you know, it's still going on now. It was never going to end, was it?

B (106:47)

All right, let me ask you a couple of things. Firstly, there's a lot here. We could have probably gone a lot longer if people want to find out more information. Where do they go?

A (106:53)

Well, currently at the moment, the website is www.cmswatch.org but there's maintenance that's being done on that site, which is where they're collecting the data and then they've got a data analyst who is compiling all the data off the back of that. So if people are going to that website and they can't just keep. If they want to come forwards, and I would encourage anybody to come forwards that has been a victim of the Child Maintenance service, be it. Whether it be through fictitious debts or whether it would be a loved one, a friend, you know, a relative that has very sadly taken their life. I would encourage them to come forwards and put all of their details into that website.

B (107:36)

And you've also done other interviews. So people go on YouTube, search for your name. No. Walcott, cell phone, other.

A (107:41)

A lot has come up. Yeah. Where I've kind of gone into quite. Yeah, yeah.

B (107:45)

And then. So then the last thing is what needs to happen now? Well, like, what do you think needs to happen now? Because this, it feels to me that this needs to have the attention that the Post Office scandal had. It needs to have that kind of attention. Pension. What needs to happen?

A (107:59)

Well, I think there needs to be a full review, an independent review as well. As, as I've always said, I think what you would need to do is task an independent forensic accountant to come in and actually get to the bottom of where all this money has gone, who it's being paid to. I think that a lot of paying parents that have come forwards where they can prove that they have had these fictitious arrears added to their accounts. I think their evidence needs to be looked at, so there needs to be a full review. Do. And if there has been criminal behavior or misconduct in a public office or whatever it might be, people need to go to prison.

B (108:34)

They won't, they won't.

A (108:35)

But. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And that's why I'm not a fan favorite of inquiries. So a review done by forensic accountants, all done independently, I think, is the only way forwards where we're going to get to the actual truth of what's actually gone on here.

B (108:54)

Oh, well, listen, look, I commend you for doing this work and probably going to be keep doing this. It is just another thing. It's like how many things do we have to go through to realize we have pure incompetence all through government?

A (109:08)

Well, I completely agree with you and I think that yes, reform are doing very well at the moment in the polls, but I think what the establishment is actually truly scared of, hence why that they've cancelled a lot of the County Council electorate, is what is it that we're going to uncover if we do come into office? That's the burning question.

B (109:29)

Well, I'm here for it. I want to see it. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate you.

A (109:33)

Thank you so much.

B (109:34)

Stay in touch. Yeah, Keep me updated. We should talk again.

A (109:36)

Definitely.

B (109:37)

Thanks for listening, everybody.