The idiocy of "Fathers for Justice"

verylonglegs

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I'm sorry but this reads just like cornerblock says it does. Just admit you got it wrong instead of digging deeper than a mineshaft, we all say something that looks ridiculous in hindsight sometimes.

VTech

I purposefully chose these to make a point, it was the fact that I believe people drawing to these rather than the initial purpose that I personally find odd, as has been posted earlier, almost certainly because it was me who wrote it.

I would suggest that the ideals behind Al Qaeda and many in Ireland were valid in the original form, the reason they lost sympathy were because of the actions of people associated to the groups and then the way the groups turned.

You have to remember, they felt it quite acceptable to storm an airport causing various planes to circle with several very low on fuel. This could have led to hundreds of innocent people being killed so I would suggest that although there was almost certainly no intention to kill, the end result could have been that way.
Quite often the end result is not what was intended, just like my original comment but I guess thats life.

fast as fupp

smidsy wrote:

The CSA do not know and they are not even interested. They simply ensure the money goes to the parent with care and then that parent can do what they like with it.

My eldest went to Uni last year and could not afford the rent in the halls. When I tried to get my ex to pay (with the money I was paying through the CSA) she simply laughed and told him to get an overdraft. I conacted the CSA and they just said there was nothing they could do.

I could not pay for him as I was 40% light on my take home pay already (thanks to the CSA).

doesnt your csa liability cease when a child goes to uni ?

smidsy

It applies as long as child benefit is being paid. She was still claiming it and csa can not intervene

Frank the tank

verylonglegs wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I'm sorry but this reads just like cornerblock says it does. Just admit you got it wrong instead of digging deeper than a mineshaft, we all say something that looks ridiculous in hindsight sometimes.

Key word in Vtechs statement is LIKE.

Defacing artwork is not like taking a life at all.

VTech

Frank the tank wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I'm sorry but this reads just like cornerblock says it does. Just admit you got it wrong instead of digging deeper than a mineshaft, we all say something that looks ridiculous in hindsight sometimes.

Key word in Vtechs statement is LIKE.

Defacing artwork is not like taking a life at all.

Your quite correct, hence why I never used the term in reference to murder and defacing a painting.

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I'm sorry but this reads just like cornerblock says it does. Just admit you got it wrong instead of digging deeper than a mineshaft, we all say something that looks ridiculous in hindsight sometimes.

Key word in Vtechs statement is LIKE.

Defacing artwork is not like taking a life at all.

Your quite correct, hence why I never used the term in reference to murder and defacing a painting.

That was the comparison you at least appeared to draw though. Defacing a painting is LIKE the IRA killing. It isn't like at all.

VTech

It wasn't my point at all.
My reference of like was for the way the people that were needed to support the cause or idealism were alienated by the actions of the group or members activities.

nathancom

Well clearly your post was at best ambiguous because everyone else read it that way. Perhaps the fault lies with your writing and not people's comprehension of it.

Anyway this paint attack is hardly crime of the century but I am sure there is a news editors desk waiting for you at the Daily Heil with the kind of over the top reaction you employ in your forum posts.

VTech

Again, I would not agree as only the usual suspects took the tone you did, it was hardly "everyone else" now was it ?

I could also take what you have written in the above comment as racist at the mention of the word "Heil" but of course im not like that and I would guess that your comment was just an attempt at getting a reaction but imagine YOUR reaction had I used the word !

To be fair, im not that bothered, people like you I see on a weekly, sometimes daily basis, I just wish that you would use your efforts to the greater cause, then you, together with other similar people would have less to moan about. My comments were not over the top, they were made from pity, pity that a good cause is being ruined by people within, as if they were placed there by other parties with a different motive like so many similar ideals over the years that end up getting ruined.

nathancom

Ok you are the perfect orator, Vtech, he that is never wrong, never puts a step out of place. Just admit that your comparison was poorly chosen or accept the opprobrium. You can't avoid both sides of that equation at the same time. Either the comparison was wrong or it was invidious.

Daily Heil is a common nickname for the Daily Mail used to send up its generally right wing stance so that was my reference.

And I see people like you on a daily basis, don't have the nuts to admit when they are wrong and try and throw the blame onto everyone else when the contrarian attitudes that they adopt blow up in their face.

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

It wasn't my point at all.
My reference of like was for the way the people that were needed to support the cause or idealism were alienated by the actions of the group or members activities.

Perhaps a better word to have used would have been WHEN. Rather than LIKE.

canny_lad

fast as fupp wrote:

smidsy wrote:

The CSA do not know and they are not even interested. They simply ensure the money goes to the parent with care and then that parent can do what they like with it.

My eldest went to Uni last year and could not afford the rent in the halls. When I tried to get my ex to pay (with the money I was paying through the CSA) she simply laughed and told him to get an overdraft. I conacted the CSA and they just said there was nothing they could do.

I could not pay for him as I was 40% light on my take home pay already (thanks to the CSA).

doesnt your csa liability cease when a child goes to uni ?

My eldest left school yesterday. I will continue to pay maintenance through 6th form but it stops when she finishes her A levels. Any money for uni I will pay directly to her. Luckily I avoided the CSA but I thought child benefit ceased at age 18 max.

My brother got shafted by the CSA so I can see where these guys are coming from, it's only a painting, no real harm done. Says a lot when a poxy painting is more newsworthy than decent, hardworking guys getting screwed over by the system.

VTech

Frank the tank wrote:

VTech wrote:

It wasn't my point at all.
My reference of like was for the way the people that were needed to support the cause or idealism were alienated by the actions of the group or members activities.

Perhaps a better word to have used would have been WHEN. Rather than LIKE.

Yes, I can accept that that may have been a better word.

smidsy

Canny lad wrote:

My eldest left school yesterday. I will continue to pay maintenance through 6th form but it stops when she finishes her A levels. Any money for uni I will pay directly to her. Luckily I avoided the CSA but I thought child benefit ceased at age 18 max.

That may well be the case and I have yet to fully investigate it. The CSA simply stated that they checked the child benefit records and it was still be payed until he was 19. They have to collect as long as the child benefit is active.

When I queried it they simply said it was a matter for the benefits people and that any potential fraud would have to be persued separately by me.

So if she was cliaming benefits that were not valid I should be due back a years CSA money, but getting it will be a whole different story I am sure.

fast as fupp

i'd keep badgering the child benefit people if i were you as the age for csa children has been put up to 20 since last december :shock:

VTech

Is it not for as long as they are in education ?
I was led to believe that even if the child is in part time college your still liable.
Personally I'd be happy to pay for my kids but wouldn't be so keen to pay for an ex to go out partying at the weekend on the pull wih friends for a new fella !

MattC59

Do I need to go out for more ? sweet or salted anyone ?

VTech

MattC59 wrote:

Do I need to go out for more ? sweet or salted anyone ?

I'll take a 6.5 tin if your buying.
http://bercospopcorn.com/popcorn/billio ... pcorn.html

fast as fupp

VTech wrote:

Is it not for as long as they are in education ?
I was led to believe that even if the child is in part time college your still liable.
Personally I'd be happy to pay for my kids but wouldn't be so keen to pay for an ex to go out partying at the weekend on the pull wih friends for a new fella !

as smidsy says its as long as child benefit is in payment, however, 'forgetful' parents often dont remember to notify the child benefit people that the children no longer qualify. this means that the other parent can overpay child support.

and there isnt a body which oversees how maintenance is spent- id be interested if you have a method that would work?

VTech

I wasnt suggesting I had a method, hopefully ill never be in that position.
I was just commenting that I thought the father was liable until the child leaves full time education, It was only what I thought was how it was, not necessarily fact.
As a father, I would personally be happy to pay for my kids the same as wether I lived with the mother or not until they leave school or education (no doubt afterwards too) I would just not be happy to pay for the ex if she had left me and took the kids through no fault of my own, having said that, I am also liable for that bill too so I would have no choice in the matter.

Mikey23

paid up to 19 i think or as long as child benefit is in payment.

it seems they are a little more reasonable now in that if the two parties have come to agreement and it is for the benefit of the kids, the CSA will leave alone. Unfortunately I had just done that when the they started up, came wellying in and trashed the deal. They wanted to make an impact and reduce the amount of income support paid to mothers... so folks in class 1 employment with partners on IS were the first to be targetted.. lucky me!

VTech

Mikey23 wrote:

paid up to 19 i think or as long as child benefit is in payment.

it seems they are a little more reasonable now in that if the two parties have come to agreement and it is for the benefit of the kids, the CSA will leave alone. Unfortunately I had just done that when the they started up, came wellying in and trashed the deal. They wanted to make an impact and reduce the amount of income support paid to mothers... so folks in class 1 employment with partners on IS were the first to be targetted.. lucky me!

I remember the story of the Police sergeant who with 25 years in the force had split amicably from the wife and agreed settlement only for the CSA to get involved which meant he couldnt afford the payments and was forced to leave the force. Obviously more cases like this exist.

I had a friend who's mother and father split, they agreed that he would pay the mortgage and half the electric/gas until such time the youngest of the 3 kids left schooling.
All was well for 2 years then CSA came and decided how much he should pay. 3 months later he was no longer a head technician for BT and became a taxi driver earning just enough to survive.
The CSA told the mother that she was entitled to more, it was a lie (wrong info) she ended up selling the house and moving into a council house.

Mikey23

'twas very tempting to give up, claim social security and go moonlighting... Pleased I didn't though. I bet loads did so it became self defeating ...

VTech

I'm sure they did and although I dislike freeloaders I can understand why someone would chose not to work if they go in 5 days a week and end up £50 worse off at the end of each week, it's got to be disheartening.

To a certain degree it's the same with some people on benefits.
Society MUST reward people for working, no other system will ever work.

smidsy

That will still not stop a women deciding she has found someone better, telling you to take a running jump, shacking up with the 'better' bloke, taking your kids with her, shopping you to the CSA (because she can) and then reaping the benefits of the poor discarded fathers hard work as well as her 'better' blokes £50,000 a year job will it!

ballysmate

Oh for the day when courts, particularly family courts, in this country will grow a pair. Oh for the day when a woman who is in receipt of a generous settlement, goes to court asking for more and gets told,'If you can't manage on what you are getting, the court is awarding custody to the father and you will have to start paying maintenance.'
Women seem to have it both ways. They are told, rightly , that they should have the same opportunities as men in the workplace and life in general. Childrearing is the responsibility of both parents and men should play their full part.
Then, if they find themselves in court, family or in some cases criminal, it is claimed that a child's place is with its mother and they should be spared jail, awarded custody etc. The courts seem to accept this.
How does this argument hold up now there are same sex parents, through adoption, IVF etc? Using the court's logic, they are saying these children are being disadvantaged because they have no 'mother'
If it is fine for a gay man to be awarded custody after the break up of his marriage, civil partnership or whatever, why not a heterosexual man. Why should he be disadvantaged because he married a woman instead of a man?

VTech

smidsy wrote:

That will still not stop a women deciding she has found someone better, telling you to take a running jump, shacking up with the 'better' bloke, taking your kids with her, shopping you to the CSA (because she can) and then reaping the benefits of the poor discarded fathers hard work as well as her 'better' blokes £50,000 a year job will it!

I cant imagine what youve gone through and have always thought that the CSA was only in place to make absent fathers pay for their kids (the right thing in my opinion) but sadly they have not used judgement and instead set a blanket message out that, like a net in the see simply caught everyone, including those fathers who were happily supportive even after breakdown of relationships.

Most issues ive talked about with people who have gone through this has been the woman leaving and everything being fine until the point where the fella finds a new ladyfriend and all hell breaks loose. At this point the previous agreements of maintenance no longer exists and outside assistance is bought in to tear up what remains of the family unit.

As I said, I couldnt imagine going through that and hope Mrs V continues to be susceptible to my hypnosis.

smidsy

It gets even better.

The CSA do not take into account the 'better' blokes income (even though the women and children clearly benefit) but they do take into account the 'discarded fathers' new partner.

Shafted from all sides with a very big shafty thing! Not that I am bitter.

The whole process detracts from what really matters (the children and their ongoing relationship with both parents) as the 'discarded father' is often left with insufficient funds to even meet their basic financial commitments, let alone make the 180 mile round trip to see the children every weekend.

And God forbid if the 'discarded father' actually wants a life until the children are 19 (or whatever the current cut off is).

I am now 41 and am only just started to rebuild after 11 years.

Mikey23

My son has just phoned me to tell me he has split up with his girl. Not his choice I believe. They have a two year old son ...