The Forum > General Discussion > The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'
The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Page 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- ...
- 91
- 92
- 93
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
I assist friends who have been done over by the CSA.
I don't have to condone the habitual non-payers, I just recognise the baseline in the graph. The CSA never has and never will get money from them, so why pay CSA to pretend they might one day, it is effectively "spending money on" the non-payer. Use the money on the families directly, thereby actually helping.
By done over, I mean the specific cases in which a regular payer (not actually shirkers, whistler, you ignorant twit), presented with a wrong assessment, is converted by CSA's inability to fix it, into a non-payer. These are a substantial subset of non-payers and my specific reason why the CSA should have less rather than more power. I cannot give names as these are Family Court matters, but the '07-'08 annual report of the Ombudsman's office gives a case study that I would regard as entirely typical, if bland in not mentioning the sharp practice CSA indulge in. The sharp practice undermines the CSA's capacity to go to court, so further disadvantaging the payees, rather than helping.
The new review provisions are a good step, but in no way address old cases.
I would attend meetings as witness, assist with a spare room, the bomby car. More experienced now, I simply advise to never speak on the phone, insist on written dealings and take a recorder to any meetings, which will be immediately cancelled on sight of the recorder. The deadlock thus imposed by the CSA's refusal to correct has let some FC matters proceed, permitting shared care and subsequent freeing of both parents from a degrading cycle of government interference.