Divorce Doctor, on page 3 you claimed that CSA "illegality" causes the deaths of "3 good fathers" every day.

That's 1095 deaths of "good fathers" every year.

Which is 24,090 deaths of "good fathers" since the CSA was established in 1988.

Will you please now produce, on this website, the full documentation and proof regarding the deaths of these 24,090 "good fathers". In other words, show your claim is truthful.

To all - - - - I'm more than happy to admit that the CSA is biased against people specifically because they're "male", if that claim can be **PROVEN**.
But remember, because a man lost a case, had difficulty communicating with the CSA, disagrees with the outcome, and knows 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 other men's cases where men also were told to pay child support that they felt was unfair DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS AN ANTI MALE CSA BIAS. It means that those specific cases were cases that went against the men involved. There are cases that go against women, where the women feel aggrieved, and this is totally, absolutely, 100% ignored by the embittered male protagonists here.

Can even one person here produce one shred of **CONCRETE** proof that the CSA has bias against men because they are men? So far nobody has been able to get even close to that. What we've had is: opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion and more opinion that there's this horrid CSA conspiracy against males.

I suppose I shouldn't give it attention, but I can't resist.

It's interesting to note that it took Robert 9 pages until he started comparing me to "racists".

Even though I'm not a betting man I'm prepared to take bets regarding how many more pages will pass till someone compares me to (1) a nazi (2) a communist (3) a fascist (4) Tinkerbell.

Come in spinner.

benq: <"Even though I'm not a betting man I'm prepared to take bets regarding how many more pages will pass till someone compares me to (1) a nazi (2) a communist (3) a fascist (4) Tinkerbell">

Beng just as well you said you were a bloke or you also might have been called a man-hating feminist.

Benq the logic is the same. You refuse to conceed the possibility that CSA could be biased so you assume that the fault lies entirely with those reporting bias. I've not called you a racist but did use an analogy to highlight the approach you have taken.

You claim that you don't have a personal stake in the issue and if that's the case you really are not close enough to it to legitimately dismiss what others have experienced so dogmatically.

R0bert

Benq:"Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues."

Nice, start out by trying to "poison the well": (these men have issues, you can ignore them). A nice extra feature was the effort to assume the "disinterested observer on the moral high ground" position, but you screwed that up when you tried to have two bob each way in answer to R0bert's question.

Benq:"From the very first post this topic was "genderised". "

Erm, no, from the very first inception of the CSActs it was genderised. The first post was merely an expression of the genderised nature of the Agency's dealings.

Benq:"The inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested only in getting money from fathers."

Prove it's inaccurate. Unsupported claims from people who follow up with a string of fallacious "reasoning" are best ignored in my experience.

Benq:"The truth is the CSA is interested in getting money from non-custodial "parents" - - - male and female."

The Act is non-discriminatory in its language, the Agency is discriminatory in its practise. Glad we got that cleared up.

Benq:"Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues. They are often bitter, hurt and mixed up - - -and clear thinking logic goes out the door, as evidenced by several posts here. Usually it's just best to leave such people to their own devices, and no amount of posting and reasoning will ever change or help them. It's a sad reality of life."

Oh, lovely work. An appeal to popularity combined with an appeal to ridicule, all pasted over an ad hominem and wrapped up with a natty effort to poison the well. Are you sure you're not Severin?

Benq:"Bitterness and hurt doesn't allow for clear, reasoned thinking."

Burden of proof reversed, unsupported claim to authority implied.

Benq:"the enemy is not the CSA"

Noone suggests it is an "enemy", merely that it is so dysfunctional that it must be abandoned. Part of that dysfunction is the gender bias that is often reported.

The rest of that post is just an exercise in blame-shifting

benq:"Will you please now produce, on this website, the full documentation and proof regarding the deaths of these 24,090 "good fathers". In other words, show your claim is truthful."

The reasoning is something like this:

1. Most CSA "payers" are relatively young men
2. The rate of suicide among young men is disproportionately high
3. The rate of CSA cases being discharged due to death of the payer is, for the only year in which data was published, something like 2000 cases.
4. Many of those young men who suicide have been found with notes directly blaming the CSA
5. Further data is not available becaue the CSA will not cooperate with coroners on the grounds of privacy provisions of the Act, which I don't believe have yet been tested in the case of a suicide.

I do apologise for using logical reasoning if it confuses you.

Now, where's your proven, documentary evidence (in full, of course) that the CSA in completely competent in every respect?