Re: Fathers be warned - They are coming to get you

SittingDuck wrote:
> I did not invite this bunch of incompetents (CSA) into my families
> life, the Government put them there to save it a few bob If the
> government are going to interfere at the very heart of family life
> then I as a parent have a responsibility to protect MY children from
> those who with the power to harm them. If others, who have no
> knowledge or interest in my children, are going to take decisions
> about their welfare then I like any responsible parent will protect
> them. NO ONE else is their father. I have choice and authority with
> school, doctors etc - any one single doctor has probably had more
> training than the whole of the Dudley Mafia, yet I have no authority
> to control the bunch of half wits in Dudley most of whom struggle to
> string a sentence together let alone do a dot to dot puzzel which
> only goes to 10!
>

Yes, you have a responsibility towards the kids. So does the government, by
invitation.
Invitation which the parents give them. Unless you want to sort out own
education, healthcare, raising of kids, money and so on.
Otherwise they get involved because of being invited to - both by someone
filling in forms, and someone relinquishing their ability to cover all the
above.

If parents don't want government involved so much, thats the parents choice.
But will cost them in missed benefits, sorting out education, paying for
everything..


> If anyone else is going to interfere in my life and my kids then I am
> going to make sure they do it right.

Even if they disagree with you?

The CSA were invited into your life by you or the other parent filling in an
application form. There is no other way for CSA to become involved.
That application form may have been because of a claim for benefit for the
kids (which involves government directly in their welfare). Or may have been
private application where the parents don't necessarily agree.


Lets not beat about the bush -
> this is a shower of totally useless bastards who are doing massive
> half to children.

I'll agree on the totally useless.
Massive harm? Thats less certain. They certainly get more money flowing than
their two predecessors (court orders and liable relatives unit). Though
money flowing can become a problem in itself.


There are many differnet types of child abuse -
> the CSA is Government Sponsored Child Abuse by any othert name.

Is it?
Then the PWCs will hand back to the NRPs the abusive amount they don't need?

Or is it the fact the CSA get money flowing in itself abuse? What if the
money stops flowing, how many NRPs will carry on paying?

If CSA can be government sponsored child abuse, then we should include
parents who won't pay otherwise into that too. So which child abuse do you
want?


>
> Some contributors are missing the point which is this. What
> responsible parent would trust the welfare of their son or daughter in
> the hands to CSA employee.

The same parents who trust their kids education to teachers they've usually
never met before, the same parents who trust their kids to a health service
where you don't know what the staff do, the same parents who trust money for
their kids will arrive from benefits and tax credits paid out by the same
sort of employee as the CSA have.
You aren't trusting the CSA to sort out welfare of your kids - I think the
problem some people have is trusting the other parent with the welfare of
the kids. . How many NRPs won't want the other parent looking after the
welfare of the kids? How many PWCs will trust the NRP to look after the
welfare of the kids?
I know there are at least a couple of PWCs on here who get no support from
their ex - will they trust the welfare of the kids to that ex?

Yet has anyone noticed, far more NRPs pay less than half the cost of raising
the kids - so trusting their welfare to someone else anyway?


Put it another way... would you rather
> trust you childrens welfare to the CSA or to Sadam Hussain?

Considering how ruthless he is reported to be (killing enemies and extended
families of enemies), and considering how incompetent the CSA have prove
themselves to be, I'd go for the 3rd option.
Trust myself. Home schooling anyone? How about private healthcare? How about
no benefits claimed for the child?


>
> .... I know which queue I would be in so how would other dads vote?
>
> Enough said

Martin <><
--
http://www.cashisallyouneed.co.uk/


.

Loading