You've got it wrong again. If you have not done anything illegal, then NOTHING that I wrote applies to you. Repeat that 10 times out loud. There, do you understand now?

Now, tell me more about my "all men are bastards ideology". Don't just offer an opinion, actually quote me, show me where I have suggested "all men are bastards". Especially in light of the fact that I wrote "shame on the bastards, male AND female". You see, the CSA actions should apply equally to BOTH men and women. Then, tell me why you "assume" I'm female. This all men are bastards thing , the bitter anti feminism/anti female rhetoric you often write in other topics, and your "assumptions" about the sex of contributors show heaps about YOU and not the people you aim this trash at. It seems you're a quite bitter man with a pretty thin skin. Maybe that's why your ex is your ex. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during your breakup.

Oh me oh my, what you call a "silly thesis", is FACT. And naturally you're not that stupid to NOT realise that, you're just playing games as usual with these types of subjects. Your bitterness always easily comes to the surface.

Whether you openly admit it or not, there's parents who hide earnings, established funds and assets in order to minimise their contributions towards their children. That's a major reason why the CSA exists. You don't like that? Too bad. Live with it. These people LOVE to use privacy claims; privacy for the sake of deception and NOT for privavy issues.

JW the fact that some people cheat the system and try and hide behind privacy does not mean that all who object to the lack of respect for privacy are cheating the system. Your earlier post made a broad accusation against those of us who had already posted.

"What's with this paranoid, privacy rubbish?

What are you guys trying to hide?

This has got nothing to do with "legitimate" privacy, but EVERYTHING to do with hiding one's assets and details, in order to avoid giving one cent to one's children and/or ex partners.

And you people know it! "

I've done nothing illegal but that post did not include that exclusion.

It has everything to do with legitimate privacy for some fo us.

CSA and the taxman should have access to the relevant details but not former spouses.

Personally I think the harm done by keeping people tied together financially by an unjust and adverserial system far outweighs any possible benefits.

R0bert

JW:"I would love to have been a fly on the wall during your breakup."

You'd not have found it very gratifying, it was quite peaceable until the ex got some very bad advice and decided she could get more money without working.

As for your gender bias, I stand by what I've said. Go back and read your initial posts on this thread.
I note you've not answered the 2 simple questions I put to you. preferring to regurgitate the guff you'd already inflicted on us. Repeating rubbish simply makes it repetitious rubbish, it doesn't make it "FACT". Therefore, let me ask again: what parts of your life do you regard as being legitimately private and which parts are public knowledge? what is your basis for the difference?

JW:"Whether you openly admit it or not, there's parents who hide earnings, established funds and assets in order to minimise their contributions towards their children."

No doubt there are, but as I pointed out in a previous post, the total amount involved, even using the CSA's own self-serving figures, is tiny, amounting to about $50 million per annum out of a total amount assessed of $2.6 billion per annum. The CSA, OTOH, operates on the assumption that every non-custodial parent is doing so, just as you do. That leads to significant misapplications of the law, especially when anti-male zealots get themselves into positions of power within the Agency. That, together with the culture of dishonesty, cover up and unaccountability that the Agency fosters in its staff has lead to my contempt for the Agency.

My children would have been far worse off if I'd allowed the Agency to drive me into bankruptcy while refusing to fix what they had broken and doing their best to shut me up by threatening court action which they had no intent of taking.

Ok let's call your bluff.

(1) NAME those "anti-male zealots" at the CSA, and provide proof regarding those specific people

(2) Name the people there who practice "dishonesty" and "cover up", and provide proof regarding those specific people

Oh, by the way, after you name them, show the courage to provide "your" name in print (your "real" name).

Have you taken your "dishonesty" and "cover up" claims to the police?

Let's now see if your claims are legitimate and reasoned.......or the result of past bitterness, fear/loathing of feminists and an incredibly thin skin.

The ball's in YOUR court.

You ask, which parts are private and which parts are public.

As I have nothing to hide, I consider no parts to be secret or private. That does not mean I'll "volunteer" any info about myself to anyone, but it DOES mean if someone has a legal obligation to ask info about me, ANY info (for example.. police, medical authorities, govt. dept, insurance, employer etc etc etc etc etc etc) I have NO objection to them receiving ANY information about me whatsoever. I have nothing to hide, regarding ANY aspect of my life..

Now if a strange bloke in the street comes up to me and asks my name/address/bank account details I'll tell him to F off. But if a police officer comes up to me in the street, and I'm aware he is part of an investigation team regarding theft from my bank account, then I'll happily give him the information.

If ANYONE has a legal obligation to enquire about my details, I'll tell them whatever they want to know. I have nothing to hide.