And that includes my ex's. I have 2 of them. I couldn't care less whether they know I'm a pauper or millionaire, how many cars I drive or who I'm currently in a relationship with. I have nothing to hide.

How about you?

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

lol, you're really clutching at straws, aren't you? I'll tell you what, you provide me with a list of the names of all those who are hiding income to avoid paying child support and I'll do my best to answer your silly little strawman above.

JW:"Name the people there who practice "dishonesty" and "cover up", and provide proof regarding those specific people"

Already been done and done, several times. do a google for my handle, which I've used for several years on various forums and you can have all the names you like. Have fun. One of them has the same initials as you do, funnily enough. She was both incompetent and dishonest.

Police action requires a criminal standard of proof, which is not possible because the Agency has (or had, I don't know the current policy) of not requiring records relating to their determinations to be kept by contract SCOs. I have a letter from the former State Manager, Angela Tillmans (there's a name for you) telling me just that in response to a formal request for such notes.

Furthermore, the Agency will not attend meetings with me, since I have informed them that my policy is to record all such interactions. Surely, if they're honest they've nothing to hide?

JW:"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."

Sadly, many CSA officers have a very dirty record when it comes to using information legitimately obtained for illegitimate purposes. That means they forfeit the legitimate right to obtain the information.

JW:"my ex's. I have 2 of them. "

Aren't you the lucky one? 2 blokes paying for you to do bugger all. Well done, you.

Ah, as I thought. You display a total inability to directly answer my 2 questions, with supporting proof, along with your real name. You make the accusations, but display total cowardice when called on the matter. You really are a waste of time.

It's interesting to note you "assume" (1) I'm female (2) my xs's pay for me (3) I do bugger all. All based on absolutely NO personal knowledge of me.

You're just an abusive man, who loathes/fears feminists, who possesses a transparent thin skin, who's prepared to make cowardly accusations without proof and who's terribly bitter, hurt and powerless (all this constantly displayed within your posts on this and other related threads).

You really need psychological help to enable you to better cope with your abusive and bitter nature, when in a state of conflict.

JW, I answered your second question; your first was as inane as the rest of your output. If you are incapable of using google, do a search on this site. I don't plan to spoon-feed you; they're your questions, not mine, you can do the work in your obviously copious free time.

As for the rest of your post, I can only say pot, meet kettle, you'll note she's black.

Anti, get real please. You've not answered at all. JW has asked you to back up your false allegations with names (plural) and PROOF, and also said basically you need to back that up by printing your own name as well. I agree with this, because if someone wishes to defame people, it's a measure of their integrity whether they are prepared to give their own name. You've refused to do this. You're making allegations and hiding behind a made up screen name.

JW is also right about you playing games. That's just what you're doing here. If not, you would have chosen to answer the questions properly and fully. You have chosen not to do this.

Your allegations concern dishonesty and cover up. These are criminal allegations.

You've made extremely serious criminal allegations, yet have shown you lack the balls to back that up with names AND proof. You lack the balls to write YOUR name. I agree with JW that this shows cowardice. Either back up your serious allegations or withdraw them.

Here's a list of the things you made up, just because JW does not share your opinion
(1)JW is irresponsible
(2) JW hates all men
(3)JW is obviously beset by ills and falsely blames men
(4)JW chooses unemployment
(5)JW has an "ALL men are bastards" ideology
(6)JW is simple
(7)JW has 2 blokes "paying" for her
(8) JW does "bugger all"

Your modus operandi seems to be "if someone gets in my way, I'll make up false allegations".

We should look at your CSA comments in that light. For me, you'd be a type of person to avoid in real lufe.

SallyG I notice that you are not overly bothered by JW's opening false allegations against people who had already posted on this thread.

As for names of CSA staff - last time I saw they were very protective of the identities of staff, first names only was the rule. The letters that come from CSA are in the names of senior staff not the people you deal with.

If naming individual staff here did occur that could easily constitute defemation against those individuals with the odds stacked in their favor regarding proof - their clients are not allowed to record converstaions, meetings reviews etc. Proving that someone has acted in a biased manner in court in defense of a defemation actions is very different to being a party to the interactions with that person.

Given that those JW thinks are trying to do the wrong thing are commenting on family law issues supplying our own names here could bring us(or them) into breach of the law and would certainly identify ex's, children etc. Harly a smart move to do so.

Given the power differences between the CSA and it's clients most don't want their opinions on record as it might have very real consequences with little real prospect of justice.

It was a silly ploy by JW to try and discredit those JW disagree's with not legitimate and meaningfull question's by someone seriously discussing issues of privacy around the CSA.

R0bert