csa and employers??

Blitz01

speedster wrote: »

you're ok, i wasn't aiming it at you.

honestly though. some of the drivel i read on here is just unbelievable.

blinkered, dried up, man hating, dungaree wearing feminists who have naff all better to do with their lives than hang round these boards peddling their sh1te.

And that is exactly how they treat this board.
Nearly all of the women that post here think they are a victim, and being damaged in some way, they see this board as somewhere to vent their anger!
Why it's called the 'CSA' section is beyond me. It should be called the 'Male Hating/Bra Burning' board.

Any bloke that posts here gets the treatment regardless of their situation or opinion and its pathetic.

Debicj

Blitz01 obviously hasn't read many of these threads then. I have often seen very good unbiased advice given to OP's regardless of their gender.

clearingout

Blitz01 wrote: »

And that is exactly how they treat this board.
Nearly all of the women that post here think they are a victim, and being damaged in some way, they see this board as somewhere to vent their anger! QUOTE]

in this case it is quite clearly the children who are 'victims', of their mother for denying contact and of their father for assuming it's Ok to drop maintenance and that they will be Ok 'cos her family has the money. Meanwhile, mum has all the ammunition she needs to alienate the children from their father making it more and more difficult for them to see 'the truth'.

And speedster, it is also recognised that withholding money is a form of domestic abuse. But of course, my ex is justified in doing this, in your eyes, because....well, why exactly? do you know OUR story?

Blitz01

Debicj wrote: »

Blitz01 obviously hasn't read many of these threads then. I have often seen very good unbiased advice given to OP's regardless of their gender.

I have probably read more of it than you, and I can say that the information is rarely unbiased, and the good advice given only comes from maybe 1 or 2 posters. The rest are just on the offensive.

speedster

clearingout wrote: »

And speedster, it is also recognised that withholding money is a form of domestic abuse. But of course, my ex is justified in doing this, in your eyes, because....well, why exactly? do you know OUR story?

nice try.

so, where EXACTLY did you get that gem that stopping money is DV then?

the study i read on westminster law highlighted the fact that preventing children form having a relationship with the NRP was detremental to their developement/well being and is classed as a form of DV and is therefore to be treated as such when police involvement arises.

strangely enough, the old chestnut of "no money" wasn't mentioned in that report (or any other i have read for that matter)

so, i'll put your post down to yet another ill informed ramblings that the wimmin on here attempt to pass on as facts.

Flyboy152

minxtress wrote: »

Cool Il advise my friend to try the self employed route. For all the do-gooders, its not that he doesnt want to pay for his children he just doesnt want to pay £480 a month when he only gets £1100, a bit much considering his ex hasnt let him have any contact with his 3 girls for the past 8 years. The system is extremely unfair

Advising your "friend" to avoid his responsibilities towards his children is not a very good idea. Money and contact are two separate issues.

speedster

Debicj wrote: »

Blitz01 obviously hasn't read many of these threads then. I have often seen very good unbiased advice given to OP's regardless of their gender.

sorry, but that's bollix as well.

any bloke who comes on here gets flamed.

there was a funny one a while back when a PWC came on and got the support of all the hens, and was even advised to go after the PWC with the CSA. then they found out the PWC was a male and they all turned on him for involving the CSA on a fellow woman.

pathetic. the lot of them. hypocritcal, two faced, blinkered morons with nowt better to do.

speedster

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Advising your "friend" to avoid his responsibilities towards his children is not a very good idea. Money and contact are two separate issues.

they are indeed, but they are also closely linked.

sometimes, cutting off their "fag tokens" kicks contact blockers into touch.

SingleSue

speedster wrote: »

pathetic. the lot of them. hypocritcal, two faced, blinkered morons with nowt better to do.

All of us?
You sure?

Flyboy152

speedster wrote: »

they are indeed, but they are also closely linked.

sometimes, cutting off their "fag tokens" kicks contact blockers into touch.

No it doesn't, from what I have seen it seems to set their resolve. However, the sins of the PWC should not be visited upon the children. The OP is (and I have no more belief that it is a "friend" than I believe in the tooth fairy) attempting to hide his income from the CSA and his children. He is whining about having to support them to the tune of four hundred and eighty pounds a month, Well tough, they are his children, he should grow a set and pay what is due.