Maybe a class action against the CSA is a good idea

--

well now, there is the CLEAR indication benz is "driving under influence" of the govt, most probably via the CSA Top Gun Mr Reithmuller [aka Reithmuller FM, or Rotweiller and author of The Guide].

benz would not know but his minders know that relief from such as CSA is not done by a class action, but for sure that's what the blokes THOUGHT they got when they passed around the hat for Luton & Lessels in the High Court.

Of course what they DID get was just another money spinner for the lawyers with not one legal question asked of HCA [so not one legal answer]

"... and so it goes, goes round again, and now and then we wonder where the SMART men are"

I cover Red Herrings [perceived bias, suicide, gender issues] in Chapter 2 of book "Chewing the Rag" but I too must be a tart for money so if you want my answer benz you will need to BUY the book [albeit your mate Conan pirated it, so you are but pissing into the wind here]

Benq:"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"

Benq (to R0bert, earlier):"I have no stake."

Riiight....

BTW, thanks for confirming that you know about the suicide figures. I knew you could do it. How many of those suicides...erm, sorry "discharges"... are at your door, Judith?

I say:"My first experience with the Agency involved the Agency behaving badly"

You say: "That's because you're unpleasant".

Right...

I say:"There are many reports from many men who all say similar things about the way the Agency behaves"

You say:"That's because you're unpleasant"

Right...

Is there any bad behaviour from the Agency that you think isn't justified on the grounds that those being badly treated failed to say "thank you for treating me so badly, can I have another kicking please?"?

Thought not...

You must have got a nasty shellacking, Judith. No doubt it's because of your bad attitude and aggression (and your lack of competence for getting caught out so often). One thing we know for sure, it's not because of your bias against fathers, since that's the only thing that's kept you there.

Never mind, the job will be internalised soon and you can see if you're able to make a living outside the sheltered workshop. I don't think much of your chances.

By the way, Judith, when I put in my CDDA claim, guess who's going to be named as the primary offender?

Here's a clue: her initials are JW...

Why won't the Brisbane office deal with my matter any more Judith? Why is it that my matter is now being "handled" from Canberra, Judith? Could it be that you screwed it so badly and your friends up here in Brisbane were so keen to protect you (how's Angela going these days at the CP League; have they woken up that they bought a dud yet?) that they've had it taken out of their hands?

Last meeting I had, the chap was very keen to make sure that he got on the record that he doesn't know you or Nigel (or Angela). He was also keen to distance the current State Manager, Lorna Andrews, from any association with you or your work. Why do you think that is, Judith? A bit on the nose, are you? Lorna was appointed under Matt Miller and she's run a mile from your mess since day 1, hasn't she?

Still, it's probably all 'cos I'm unpleasant, wouldn't you say?

benq: <"Could someone please interpret for me what antiseptic just wrote.">

Dear Benq, One can only speculate really, but I notice that Antiseptic is addressing posts to (seems to be you) as "Judy" etc. and my interpretation would include:

1. You have been effective - it is incomprehensible to Antiseptic and some others that a male poster would challenge the misinformation that has been posted about the CSA. therefore you *must* be a nasty female.

2. Antiseptic is very important, therefore he has come to the conclusion that some person he has antagonized at the CSA is now in danger of losing their job or being disciplined in some way. That person has now taken on an online ID (that would be you) to seek revenge on him (by clarifying some misinformation with annoying facts).

People with clinical experience couldn't help but suspect that we're seeing a manifestation of narcissistic personality disorder and/or paranoid psychosis or something in that spectrum - possibly induced but at least aggravated by drug use (which would explain why it waxes and wanes in intensity).

Suze - I looked up the staffing of the CSA and about 1 in 3 of employees in the lowest classification are male. In the higher classifications the distribution is about 50/50.

Antiseptic: Managers etc at higher levels have a responsibility to the public and to clients, as does any public servant.

They also have a responsibility and duty of care to employees; including doing what they can to provide a safe working environment and protecting them from abuse.

A worker can also request that a case be passed to a higher manager for greater scrutiny during the process, to ensure personal protection from malicious nonsense.

The higher managers don't need to know the workers or the client and are often chosen for the task because they don't, to help ensure procedural fairness.

Pynchme, thanks for that clarification of antiseptic's latest posts. Excuse me, I now just can't help myself ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

Does he "really" think I'm a CSA plant who registered here specifically in order to get him? That couldn't possibly be true that he actually believes that. Surely, he's just being his usual sarcastic self when he's losing the argument, "pretending" in a sarcastic way that I'm this Judith person.

But you say he actually believes it? If that's the case he's one seriously dysfunctional dude. I've noticed he's now abandoned any semblance of rational debate, at least with me: Speaks for itself.