benq it's pretty much impossible to prove bias to outsiders if they don't accept first hand accounts and the outsiders are unwilling to consider patterns of complaint. CSA don't allow the recording of meetings so how can I prove to you that their treatment of me was very different to that given to my ex?

A senior manager who occasionally gives a woman a leadership role in a company (when the circumstances leave little choice) can still be biased against women in the management. A racist may still employ coloured people but not give them the roles or rewards their skills warrent, that does not remove legitimate concerns about bias.

Both of the above can be difficult to prove.

Look at the patterns of complaint against the CSA by men and women and you will get enough proof not to be so dismissive of claims of gender bias.

The bias issue is really a side issue to the main harm done by CSA but it is a factor.

R0bert

pynchme, I didn;t make any inferences, I explained what the chain of reasoning is that DD may have used. You responded to try to minimise the claim. I know we're talking about men dying, not women having their feelings hurt, so it's not terribly important to you, but that got my goat a bit.

pynchme:"another thinks it's an imposition to pay anything at all.
"

Who said that? BTW, what's YOUR stake in this? You seem pretty determined to paint suicide by fathers as trivial and fathers generally as unimportant, so what's your stake?

Benq:"That equals 1095 deaths of fathers per year."

Which is what the CSA's own figures showed in the one year they released them (2005). I'll leave the finding of those figures as an exercise for the reader.

Let's assume the figure is not known, but it is known that some fathers do suicide because of the actions of the CSA (many suicide notes have been found implicating the CSA). How many is acceptable in your view? How many would it take to warrant investigation?

benq:"I've already informed antiseptic, within this topic, that his problems may very well be because of his manner and attitude"

So let's unpack that a little. I say:"my first experience with the Agency was that they manufactured a debt from before I separated based on an income that I wasn't earning and accused me of being a deadbeat when I rang to ask about it". You say "that's because you're unpleasant".

Right...

I say:"I won't deal with the Agency except with a tape recorder or in writing because they frequently say one thing and do another". You say: "that's because you're unpleasnt"

Right...

DD says:"many men suicide each year due to the Agency's actions". You say:"you can't prove how many, so who cares?"

Right... but nice summary of the Agency's position

Perhaps the Agency needs to look a bit further afield for their next spin merchant, you seem a bit wet behind the ears?

antiseptic you are correct and I picked it up front with benz that the main thing the CSA wants to hide is the suicides SO that is where their CFC freaks aim.

Benz ignored my legal explanations [as to why all the CSA do is illegal under Part 6A]. I mean they even SAY that The Guide is NOT a legal document but still USE it and ignore legislation.

Of course they have spent millions of tax dollars covering up the number and of course hiding behind a "pronked" thing called a "privacy policy" [there is no such thing, a dept either complies yes/no with PAct and CSA does NOT]

also there is no bias as such, they [an army of moonlighting lawyers] are simply trying to keep their bums on seats, espec the COAT, in a very well paid "fill in" job which generally makes far more for them than their FLPractice. There is a poster here [no names, no packdrill] that I helped that will confirm all about gender bias not.

Robert wrote, "It's pretty much impossible to prove bias to outsiders".

Well Robert, that's 'convenient' isn't it. That means an aggrieved father who has had decisions made that he considers unfair can make unsubstantiated charges safe in the knowledge that he needs NO BURDEN OF PROOF. So he can make a false charge, and it's then up to everyone who disagrees to prove him wrong. Robert, that's just not good enough. If you wish to be taken seriously by others on the gender bias issue you need to present "facts" not "opinions". By approaching it the way you are currently, you are doing your claims of gender bias no service at all.

You claim the treatment given to you was very different to that given to your ex. What do you precisely mean by "treatment".How do you know that this "treatment" was directly related to the fact that you are a "man", rather than the actual circumstances of the case? It's important that you answer the second question as well as the first.

Robert wrote, " Look at the patterns of complaint against the CSA by men and women and you will get enough proof". Ok Robert, here's your chance. Please enlighten me regarding these "patterns of complaint by men and women",

(1) How many complaints per year have been made by male non custodial parents?

(2) How many complaints per year have been made by female non custodial parents?

(3) What is the percentage of male non custodial complaints to total male non custodial clientele?

(4) What is the percentage of female non custodial complaints to total female non custodial clientele?

benq I really don't think you are in the least interested. Rather running distraction to avoid the real topic. I've been silly enough to engage with you far to long on this thread already. I've got better things to do than play your games.

R0bert

I wrote, "That equals 1095 deaths of fathers every year" (my reference to the number of deaths due to CSA "illegality" claimed by Divorce Doctor. Antiseptic replied, " Which is what the CSA's own figures showed".

Antiseptic, doesn't the **TRUTH** matter to you? Do you just want to make false claims because you think they'll advance your argument? Buddy, stop the **SPIN** and start giving us straight comments. You know, I repeat **KNOW**, that those CSA death figures refer only to cases discharged due to the death of the male or female payer. This in NO WAY refers only to suicide by paying fathers. Statistically about this number of discharges due to death would happen every year (there's thousands of ways people die - - - - it's not just suicide). You display a deep disrespect to those people (male and female) who have genuinely committed suicide over childcare matters by misrepresenting death figures with the implication that the discharges are due to suicide. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I wrote, "I have already informed antiseptic that his problems with the CSA may very well be because of his manner and attitude".

Antiseptic then replied to this with a description of how badly he was treated. Antiseptic doesn't seem to understand that I'm not disputing that he was treated badly. Antiseptic believes he's treated badly because of his gender. He dismisses the idea that he may be treated badly because of his aggression and bad attitude.

Not one person here has yet been able to link gender bias to the way they were treated by the CSA, other than it's their "opinion".

Antiseptic wrote, "DD says 'many men suicide due to the agency's actions', you say 'you can't prove how many so who cares?' ".

Another total 100% misrepresentation from antiseptic. I have never written or implied "so who cares". I'm beginning to see how much of a spin merchant is antiseptic.