Moneygrabbing PWC here needing advice..

Zara33

woody01 wrote: »

Report me for not agreeing with you then. :T

It has nothing to do with not agreeing with you, it's the way you have ventured onto the CSA board with no insight whatsoever and the way you accuse every PWC as being sour blah blah blah. I'm open for discussion, you on the other hand ain't you have such a blinkered view on this subject.

Loopy_Girl

DUTR wrote: »

What you actually typed was "Nothing to stop the NRP, or anyone in fact, getting a better paid job is there? Lets be honest here, no point bleating about screwing over when the NRP has 4 nights to get more work and the PWC has 3 nights"

As the scenario does not directly affect me , I'm not too fussed.
I agree both parents have a financial responsibility to raise a child, one main difference is one has no help and the other has lots and are not always satisfied with what they are getting (I think that was the point real1234 was raising) . I pay my dues so I can sleep easy and so will no longer get wrapped up in the spiteful tactics that go on via this forum. In the long run I know which party will be better off.

*sighs* but in this scenario, the PWC doesn't need a better paid job as they have a better paid job hence my comment which drew in the original question but then I was also able to see the more wider, general picture.

Yeah, yeah...we all know you sleep easy as you are the big man and pay your dues and cut contact and go in and out of your child's life when it suits. We all know as you are so proud about the fact and then have the sheer gall to come on here and question why so many children on Father's Day were in a restaurant without their father and also the 'pressure' of making Father Day cards at school? Talk about a contradiction in terms.

I know who will be better off as well...and it's certainly not the person you think...and at least you have the common courtesy to put the embarrassed emoction

Loopy_Girl

DUTR wrote: »

one main difference is one has no help and the other has lots and are not always satisfied with what they are getting (I think that was the point real1234 was raising)

So that's the CSA's fault that the main carer gets the CB and WTC/CTC is it? That's the 'screwing over' from the CSA is it?

Because that was the point of the post to prove....that the CSA 'screw over' when in fact it can be argued that those rules are nothing whatsoever to do with the CSA and are in fact from the Government.

DUTR

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Yeah, yeah...we all know you sleep easy as you are the big man and pay your dues and cut contact and go in and out of your child's life when it suits. We all know as you are so proud about the fact and then have the sheer gall to come on here and question why so many children on Father's Day were in a restaurant without their father and also the 'pressure' of making Father Day cards at school? Talk about a contradiction in terms.

I know who will be better off as well...and it's certainly not the person you think...and at least you have the common courtesy to put the embarrassed emoction

It is nothing to do with being the big man as you put it, as you know every scenario is different, I pay my csa without resistance and so you have little to slag me off about. My observation in the restaurant was just that, the fathers day thing with the school? Well that was my PWC with care telling me that , and is why she asked to to make contact, , when I finally did was for the right reasons and the right reasons only, just as it is the right reasons not to pay to be absent yet not be absent.
You know there was the parent centre forum on the go at one time with a similar clan of keyboard warriors, anyway I digress
Indeed we know who will be the one that loses out as it is well documented by people more qualified in that field than you or I, whether we like it or not children that do not have a meaningful relationship with their father often 'fall by the wayside'
and the effect it has on females show in their adult life as they often fail to bond with a male partner and often lack self esteem. Perhaps a read of 'Are you the one for me?' may highlight more to the point of what I am saying here.

DUTR

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

So that's the CSA's fault that the main carer gets the CB and WTC/CTC is it? That's the 'screwing over' from the CSA is it?

Because that was the point of the post to prove....that the CSA 'screw over' when in fact it can be argued that those rules are nothing whatsoever to do with the CSA and are in fact from the Government.

I didn't agree or disagree with real1234, I never said it is the fault of the csa, I said one main difference is one has no help and the other has lots and are not always satisfied with what they are getting (I think that was the point real1234 was raising).
Yes those are the rules of the goverment and they don't always get it right first time, as there is no law saying the NRP has to have contact with the offspring they are no more in the 'wrong' either , it is not law and so they have done nothing wrong.

Zara33

DUTR wrote: »

It is nothing to do with being the big man as you put it, as you know every scenario is different, I pay my csa without resistance and so you have little to slag me off about. My observation in the restaurant was just that, the fathers day thing with the school? Well that was my PWC with care telling me that , and is why she asked to to make contact, , when I finally did was for the right reasons and the right reasons only, just as it is the right reasons not to pay to be absent yet not be absent.
You know there was the parent centre forum on the go at one time with a similar clan of keyboard warriors, anyway I digress
Indeed we know who will be the one that loses out as it is well documented by people more qualified in that field than you or I, whether we like it or not children that do not have a meaningful relationship with their father often 'fall by the wayside'
and the effect it has on females show in their adult life as they often fail to bond with a male partner and often lack self esteem. Perhaps a read of 'Are you the one for me?' may highlight more to the point of what I am saying here.

So your child will be included in the also as he/she doesn't have a relationship with you either.

DUTR

Zara33 wrote: »

So your child will be included in the also as he/she doesn't have a relationship with you either.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the mother has 50% responsibilty :cool:

woody01

Zara33 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with not agreeing with you, it's the way you have ventured onto the CSA board with no insight whatsoever and the way you accuse every PWC as being sour blah blah blah. I'm open for discussion, you on the other hand ain't you have such a blinkered view on this subject.

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd....wrong again!

1. It has EVERYTHING to do with our differing views. You flame anyone that doesn't agree with you.

2. I haven't 'ventured' anywhere. I have come onto a public forum and given an opinion that isn't the same as yours. If you don't like that then it's just too bad.

3. Just because i don't have kids running around all over the place with different mothers, certainly doesn't mean i know nothing about the subject. You have no idea what areas i know about and which ones i don't and it's pretty stupid of you to assume otherwise.

4. I don't have a blinkered view at all. No more than you do that's for sure. Maybe opposite sides of the coin, but once again your presumptions prove how narrow minded your opinions are.

Zara33

woody01 wrote: »

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd....wrong again!

1. It has EVERYTHING to do with our differing views. You flame anyone that doesn't agree with you.

2. I haven't 'ventured' anywhere. I have come onto a public forum and given an opinion that isn't the same as yours. If you don't like that then it's just too bad.

3. Just because i don't have kids running around all over the place with different mothers, certainly doesn't mean i know nothing about the subject. You have no idea what areas i know about and which ones i don't and it's pretty stupid of you to assume otherwise.

4. I don't have a blinkered view at all. No more than you do that's for sure. Maybe opposite sides of the coin, but once again your presumptions prove how narrow minded your opinions are.

Yawn! You are quiet boring now :wave: must remember not to feed the trolls :doh:

PlayingHardball

woody01 wrote: »

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd....wrong again!

1. It has EVERYTHING to do with our differing views. You flame anyone that doesn't agree with you.

2. I haven't 'ventured' anywhere. I have come onto a public forum and given an opinion that isn't the same as yours. If you don't like that then it's just too bad.

3. Just because i don't have kids running around all over the place with different mothers, certainly doesn't mean i know nothing about the subject. You have no idea what areas i know about and which ones i don't and it's pretty stupid of you to assume otherwise.

4. I don't have a blinkered view at all. No more than you do that's for sure. Maybe opposite sides of the coin, but once again your presumptions prove how narrow minded your opinions are.

I think the point is....you haven't proven that you know anything about anything to do with any issues discussed in this forum, not once have you 'helped' anyone on this 'help forum', quite the opposite. Your behaviour, through your many posts has been very abusive. Keep it up, and Zara won't be the only one reporting you.

At least for now I encourage ALL other posters to ignore your abusive comments and ignore ALL FUTURE POSTS FROM WOODY01.

You have obviously got a chip on your shoulder. Your problem, not ours.