Several people here have openly stated "their" stake. They have had **decisions** go against them.

--

well that's just it mate, the CSR is only ALLOWED to make determinations [ie advisory only, same as Privacy Commissioner] under Part 6A. A person that likes or dislikes that determination can make applic to a court under Part 7 and bingo we are complying with Constitution [see Brandy case re this].

the "Change of Assessment" was as Bell J suggests "a creature of its own creation", and the first thing is as Antiseptic says NEVER EVER talk on phone to CSA. In fact say "under Privacy Act I require you to delete my phone number from your records or I will get a s 98 injunction from a court".

They know all about that and will delete your number. You have now put your stake in the ground and most probably they will simply leave you in peace as the soft belly count they CAN attack is over a million [testosterone fuelled] blokes. It's all about being smarter than them.

I mean what a lovely situation to have for CSA - the legislation says no need for Rules of Evidence as the end result is only advisory determination. CSR simply makes it a DECISION and "changes the assess" [having INVENTED the term COA himself]. Even Nazi govt had rules of evidence for decision. So mum can lie her ass off, and does

Robert, you've manoeuvred this into a no win situation for me, you easily have it all covered. If I say I have no stake then all my writings are dismissed by you because according to you I supposedly must not know what I'm talking about. And if I say I do have a stake then all my writings are dismissed by you because I must then be biased (just look at the lists of demands to me written in your last post on page 7 where you ask what my stake is - - - - you are clearly fishing for bias from me).

You're not thinking logically. I'll repeat what I said earlier, " 'Opinion' and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify a 'perceived' injustice".

Antiseptic, you have listed a long series of complaints about how you've been treated by the CSA.

Your "assumption" is that this treatment is because you are specifically "male".

Please read this, " 'Opinion' and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify 'perceived' wrongs".

I've read quite a few of your posts on this forum, and you readily use personal put downs, sarcasm, show aggression when things don't go your way in discussion and when pushed display outright personal abuse. Now antiseptic, if in real life you behave in anything close to the way you behave here on this forum, there is little wonder you have had so much trouble with the CSA.

If I was a betting man I'd bet your **behaviour** is the problem with the CSA, and not the fact that you are male.

"Opinion" and facts are usually two different things especially when people feel embittered, cast aside and unable to readily rectify "perceived" wrongs.

Divorce Doctor, is there a reason why you write as you do?

It might help you if you write in clearly understood English. You're mostly ignored here, and that's because your English composition and syntax are a nightmare.

If you "genuinely" want discussion (which I doubt, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being)then it's necessary to make yourself fully understood. Your fractured English makes this impossible.

I suspect you "can" write properly, but for some reason choose to write in the manner that you do.

benq you have come in with such an unfair load of assumptions about other posters and such certainty that CSA is not gender biased that you have maneuvered yourself into that position.

It is valid to have an opinion without a clear personal stake in an issue, you have gone well beyond that in attacking those who claim to have experienced and defending the lack of bias on the part of CSA.

You have not at any stage tried to gain more detail as to why those you attack claim bias rather than poor personal interactions with CSA, rather dismissing us from the start and claimed that there is no bias. You have repeatedly ignored comments regarding the patterns of complaint against CSA.

You come across in a similar manner to a racist claiming that there is no racism, it's just that those <pick you preferred colour> people don't know how to behave properly.

R0bert

That's ok Robert, I understand your defensiveness. You've been hurt, and bitterness is a very hard thing to live with.

As I've said before decisions have gone against non custodial parents who are women.

Because someone loses a case does not mean they lost it because they are "male".

If someone has continuing problems with communication with the CSA it does not mean that happens because they are "male".

Because some men decide to talk about their bad CSA experiences on a forum does not mean the CSA has mistreated them because they are "male".

Again, CSA makes decisions against women too. Women lose as well.