[Slayer]

@ubermik wrote:

Ahhh aguardian reader I guess then? lol

Nope, as expected you dodged the entire point to regurgitate the pavlovian response the media has trained you ever so well to offer as a knee jerk reaction on such matters

The point here has NOTHING to do with fathers paying, thats a totally different topic

But if you want to include that it DOES show that a mans right to be a father is totally ignored and is totally unimportant in modern society as that doesnt in any way shape or form ever come into the topic

Theres always a mass furrore about men who dont pay, but hardly a murmur about putting an equal amount of effort into giving men an equal right in parenting, making sure they HAVE the “access” to their kids they are “granted” when, as millions of mums do its obstructed because they see it as an inconvenience

Even the wording makes it sound like a MAN seeing his own kids is a privelidge

But THIS thread is purely to do with the one aspect of this, hence the comments in the header

IF as we are being told this has had SUCH a massive impact on her because she ONLY had to live on the EXACT SAME amount of benefits that many kids with no father or an unknown, disabled or unemployed non resident father ALSO have to live on

Then what about all THOSE kids?

Suppose the mother hadnt even known who the father was as is hardly an uncomon scenario?

Suppose he was disabled?

Dead?

Unemployed?

In jail?

In ALL of those instances he also wouldnt have been paying this money, so we are being asked to believe that she ALSO would have had a traumatic life as a result are we? Because the reason wouldnt alter their standard of life in any way, and the case itself is based purely on the claims that the absence of that money has seriously and unmistakenly negatively affected the standard of live to a level where sueing is a reasonable action

So, as I said to begin with, IF the claims are right, that a child having to be raised on JUST benefits alone is such a big deal then that WOULD also stand equally for all the kids whos fathers dont contribute for the other reasons where they genuinely cant because of disability, because the mother got pregnant during a drunken party where she passed herself around a roomful of strangers, where they are dead (living impaired lol), disabled, jailed etc etc etc

So, if its SOOOOOO massively traumatic with THIS girl, it HAS to be with all kids raised JUST on benefits

So this fathers contribution is irrelevant, because had he been killed the circumstance would have been identical

So the thread is about the significance of the claims re all the other kids being paid for WHATEVER reason where ONLY benefits are there for them to be raised on, and what implications an acceptance of this as a valid point and case has on all the other kids where there just isnt even a contribution that is there TO be collected to begin with

But if you check the original header slayer you WILL notice that that WAS already very clearly and concisely pointed out as to EXACTLY what the question, point and relationship to the case was

Which again you CHOSE to deliberately ignore to push your own pavlovian brainwashed views

I almost…almost didnt answer this rambling disjointed directionless post but I thought it was such a shame not to point out your continuing failings that I had no choice but to continue

You have created a post about a mother suing the CSA for failure to collect the money.

There are only 2 FACTS we can know so far

1) The CSA has not collected the money from her child’s father
2) The father has failed to pay any money towards the support and welfare of his child

You cannot remove cause from effect therefore your thread is an inclusive wide ranging, broad post about the CSA and male responsibility towards children they have fathered which has been examplified by the case you mention. The two are intrinsically linked and no matter what the intention of the post (it’s a bit like starting a post about Englands Euro 2008 qualification chances without discussing Steve Mclaren), the discussion (as with so many on here) takes several diverse roads which are linked and relative to the origianl post.

This, like so many of your posts, generalises to an extreme- because this woman feels aggrieved enough to take further action is a case on its own. It does not presuppose that all chidlren/mothers will act and feel the same. (Just because Man Utd beat Chelsea and Chelsea beat Liverpool does not mean Man Utd will beat Liverpool)- therefore not ALL chidlren will be affected by this and not all mothers will feel strongly enough to take the matter further. Family circumstances, geographical location, environment, opportunities to work, etc all play a part in whether benefits alone are sufficient to support a child. And using extreme examples to suggest a norm is very very funny.

My views are formed without influence but from observation unlike your views which are led by whatever the latest fad in the daily mail is

[Slayer]

I dont read newspapers

[Slayer]

@oss wrote:

I scratch me nads :lol:

I scratch other peoples nads :oops:

[Slayer]

St Anger

Metallica

[Slayer]

Or of course you could add

3) It reinforces the attitude that men have no obligation, other than reproductively, for the welfare, support, guidance and upbringing of the children they so happily (for all of the 2 minutes it takes) conceive and willingly absolve themselves of any responsibility by doing everything they can to not pay.

But of course, judging by your post, only YOU (or the chosen few..me being one of the JC morons) fully “see the picture”- the rest of us mere mortals just see the “media image” and cannot see the wider picture. And as it is objective, it is my objective opinion that this is what your post says- even objectivity can be subjective. Funny how those who think they know the answers always belittle others for their lack of free thinking- a psychology “check” on your type and style of work mug would be really funny

And I would assume she is taking legal action (I havent seen any media about this) on a matter of principle not for financial gain. The CSA, as a statutory body, has a legal responsibility for reclaimation of monies owed to the mothers (or fathers) of said children. They have failed in their duty- and just like the NHS has a duty of care to the patient and can be sued if it fails in that duty, this woman has decided she has the right to pursue the CSA through the courts for its dereliction of duty. Don’t make no odds to me if I agree or not

As you rightly say, benefits will still have been paid although she may have received more if her legally entitled CSA payment was more than her benefit total…who knows.

[Slayer]

Fans

Kings of Leon

[Slayer]

The Clash

White Riot

[Slayer]

welcome to hell dame air :D

[Slayer]

@emmalush wrote:

@johnboy25 wrote:

I don’t condone it

You dont condone the freedom to speak, when what is said is not meant to intentionally offend, and doesn’t offend?

You’re so good Emma

Since when was it deemed that only those at whom offence was aimed were the ones who were offended.

Ever thought the offence may have been felt by tens of thousands of other people- it doesnt matter if the individual is offended.

[Slayer]

@emmalush wrote:

You wouldn’t tell the truth, no one would expect you to.

Actually, you dont wanna believe I’m telling the truth.

Funny really cos I dont lie on here…ever but I ain’t gonna lose any sleep Emma

[Author]

Posts