Did C$A kill Coventry Dad? Hounded to Death, illegally.
This is a discussion on Did C$A kill Coventry Dad? Hounded to Death, illegally. within the Fathers Forum forums, part of the General category; Glenn Sacks Did Child Support Enforcement Help Drive this Innocent Father to His Death? December 16, 2007 at 11:53 pm ...
| |||||||
| ►Link to us◄ | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
          
18th-December-2007
| ||||
| ||||
Glenn Sacks Did Child Support Enforcement Help Drive this Innocent Father to His Death? December 16, 2007 at 11:53 pm · Filed under Vox Populi Those who suffer from child support enforcement's abuses and errors lead difficult and stressful lives. Sadly, child support enforcement abuses may have contributed to the recent heart attack and death of an English father. All in the best interests of his child, of course. From the Equal Parenting Alliance: EPA Soldier dies in war on fathers Sunday 9th December 2007 Last Thursday, 9th December, 36 year-old veteran soldier Lee Wilkins died while out running. He survived action in Northern Ireland, but those who knew him well believe it was the battles he had with Family Courts and the Child Support Agency which killed him. His son lived with him, and in these circumstances, one wonders why the CSA were hounding him to pay them £650, instead of paying money to him. Lee could not understand this either, and we saw the increasing stress which this alleged debt, and the threat of bailiffs caused him. Now that he has died, the CSA will be able to access the money from his estate, under draconian regulations proposed this year to pursue dead fathers beyond the grave. Earlier this year, Lee asked the Equal Parenting Alliance to post this mini-biography of him and his fight with the CSA. Sadly, it was a fight which led was to lead to his death - a soldier who fought bravely for his country and survived, but could not survive this country's war on fathers. His son, whom he always wished should not be named in publicity, now has to face a future without him. CSA Incompetence Harms Children 22nd March 2007 Sometimes it takes a single story to illustrate the flaws in a system. Lee Wilkins is a veteran soldier who lives with his 9 year-old son in Coventry. He obtained a degree in photography after leaving the army, and many of his impressive pictures have been exhibited in the Imperial War Museum. He hopes one day to work as a photographer in war-zones and the like, but for now, he is happy to just be a dad to his boy. Although separated, Lee and his ex-partner have supported their son financially without involving the Child Support Agency for many years now, and so it came as a bolt from the blue when Lee received a demand for £650 from the CSA, followed by the threat of bailiffs if he did not pay up. " I couldn't understand it," said Lee. "My boy lives with me nearly all the time now, and the money they wanted from me wasn't for his mum, anyway. They were going to keep it themselves! I thought the CSA were supposed to give money to parents who are looking after children, not take it off them." The CSA claimed the money had been owed to them for nearly 7 years. Lee obtained copies of CSA documents, under his data protection entitlement, and discovered that in 2000, the CSA had indeed gone through a process of assessing this amount as payable, but there was no record of them ever telling him about it, or asking him for payment! What is more, after 6 years, the CSA had lost any legal entitlement to pursue a claim against him. "I am a proud man, and I refuse to claim Income Support, so we live on what I can earn from my photography," said Lee. "I try not to be a burden on the state, and this is the thanks I get - taking away what little we have! I was getting phone calls 3 times a day from a debt collection agency, threatening all sorts if I didn't pay up. They were aggressive and arrogant. My lad overheard some of these phone calls, and he is still worried that people are going to force their way into our home and take all his things away." George Orwell predicted many things: by 1984 government agencies would have developed into the very opposite of their intended purpose: a Ministry of Truth which was responsible for creating lies and propaganda; a Ministry of Love, responsible for torture. Now, in 2007 we have a child fearing his home will be broken into and plundered by a government body called the Child Support Agency. It seems it was only the year that Orwell got wrong. I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it. But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up. I am outnumbered. But... YOU don't just make a difference, you make THE difference.    | ||||
|
18th-December-2007
| ||||
| ||||
I don't even understand. Why would he owe THEM money? For what? As CSA wasn't even involved in their finiancial or support arrangements, how could he owe them money? I realize I'm fairly ignorant of child support laws, never having dealt with them, but is that something specific to the U.K., or is it common in other countries for child support services to expect parents to pay them money?
"I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do." - Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/ | ||||
|
18th-December-2007
| ||||
| ||||
Another tragic death. Another case of the CSA being blamed for it, (Mangina Femilogic... A £650 bill arrives.. a gent dies.. cause and effect obvious...  ). This feminist-appeasing sympathy-vulture equal parenting group has its own just as dumb and state-imposed idea of what the CSA should be (middle class friendly and hammering those with a low income or on benefits with several children) and no interest in doing what needs to be done, calling for the scrapping of this vile organisation.. And not replace it with something just as fucking stupid, if not even more so!!Lets just do a little rough maths.. 7 X 50 X £15 weekly (perchild!) adds up to a figure in the range of £7000+, thats what the EPA suggest as thier FLAT RATE REGARDLESS OF INCOME solution.. I guess the poor fellow did not realise that his "friends" would have fucked his arse even harder.. (and the EPA suggests ADDITIONAL "voluntary! contributions to be encouraged on top of this!!)  Thats what pisses me off about the EP groups, (apart from the fact that they are dimwits) they are so busy trying to appease the feminists and the middle class daddies, pumping the sob story crap.. they dont really give a flying fuck about the masses of dads on the breadline, until they want to use them in their shortsighted ploys for sympathy.. (or to climb cranes and get imprisoned).. Logically, and legally, speaking the STATE claims title over children fully in law, parents should therefore NEVER be forced to contribute in any way towards their "maintenance".. Until the dimwits in the MRA and especially the EP groups start to join the dots of logic with the thick wax crayon and look beyond the ends of their snotty noses we can expect the pantomime farce to continue.. Its no use critisicing and fucking whining if they dont have a fucking sensible and thought out solution! The CSA solution is so bloody easy.. SCRAP IT!! PARENTS DO NOT HAVE "OWNERSHIP" of children. The state "owns" them, parents are merely "allowed" the residual time left when the state is not spoonfeeding them ritalin, feminazi doctrines and vaccines to get them fit for the life of servitude and heavy taxation.. The state should NEVER force parents to pay maintenance. The state DOES already PAY PARENTS for their expenses.. This simple logic must be taken through and folk should look ate the GOOD WORK parents do rather than witter on about how a few men "get away with paying nothing.." The EP groups are FULLY TOXIFIED by feminist statist beliefs and will NEVER be able to provide a workable solution for fathers as a whole using that abortion of a philosophy, and that probably explains their ZERO success rate to date.. The whole fucking concept is totally perverse and is based on femillogic principles that simply DO NOT HOLD WATER. The EPA's CSA suggestions are the biggest crock of shit I have ever seen, obviously dreampt up by some fellow or other who has a hard on for hard up dads and wants to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.. These fucking clowns need to get reall.. http://www.equalparentingalliance.org/EPA_CSA.pdf Kim, indeed.. The state is simply a fucking thief. The purpose of the CSA is absolutely NOTHING to do with childrens welfare and EVERYTHING to do with getting more revenue to support the states family destruction policy expenses.. Easiest targets, as ever, good old law abiding dads.. And, the CSA does a double whammy by being extremely usefull as a great weapon for fathers and mothers to get adverserial over, thus destracting the infantilised pubelick "kiddults" into fighting each other rather than the true enemy of parents, the parasitic and self serving theiving feminazi state.. And, by the way, I will translate for John Dias before he does.. If anyone disagrees with me on these points.. then they are either feminazi's or just fucking dumb.. 
| ||||
|
18th-December-2007
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
I see nothing feminazi about equal parenting. I say the parents are jointly and severally, totally and exclusively, wholly responsible for their children. The Stae does NOT pay parents anything. The money the State has is the People's money. I agree that the State should butt out altogether. A simple law that obliges parents, both of them, to wholly care properly for their children, is all that is needed, backed by jail for those who don't. And mandatory DNA testing of all children to establish parentage. I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it. But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up. I am outnumbered. But... YOU don't just make a difference, you make THE difference. | ||||
|
18th-December-2007
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
Quote:
 But, let me continue and hopefully convince you of just a few points so you can see my drift..Quote:
On the face if it, it seems pretty reasonable, after all, in gods design, we were indeed created to be fully complementary as men and women, fathers and mothers, effectively, "equal" but of course not the same.. Now, when we look at the EP groups, they are interested ONLY in the "post seperation" scenario.. And it seems that these folk DID practice (largely from what I have seen) "equal parenting" when they were together, but it all went wrong following seperation.. Now, EP can only really work well in "intact" relationships, broken relationships by definition have occurred because of (one would think) MAJOR inabilities for the couple to get along. Following relationship breakdown the nature of the perverse incentives is such that adversity is practically gauranteed, not just by the stacks of perversity heaped upon the couple by the state (The CSA is just one of many feminazi tactics to encourage breakdown and more adversity, the whole benefits system, DV laws, etc are more..) the couple will also live seperate lives and that will naturally create problems, shuttling kids around is really not the ideal situation.. In all the systems created by the state, and also in the idealised scenarios suggested by the EP groups (complete fantasy scenarios on the whole! if couples can REALLY get along so well when seperated, why the hell do they stay split? I think the EP groups fantasise that all is hunky dory, its fucking not for most seperated couples!!) well, in the scenarios, the state acts as a 3rd party, meta parental judge and decision maker, overiding the parents and thus ussurping the natural role of the male head of family.. The means of judgement can be clearly seen to be based on the feminists ideas of what a "good parent is" and what a "bad parent is".. Why else do men find court and other official state systems so fucking impossible to deal with? A man has to tear his balls off to get through it and swallow feminist ideas and believe them! Thats why many men simply dont bother.. And that is the norm.. Equal Parenting can work perfectly well, but.. ONLY when ONE PARENT.. (obviously in most cases the father, he is unlikely to deny the mothers role unlike the opposite case) has the controlling "Last Word".. I have seen that many EP leaders do exactly that.. They have got resident parent status and then they have the power to make EP work!! The fucking hypocrisy of these guys! They would deny that empowerment to the ordinary Joe Public father!! There is a DEFINATE tendancy for the fathers who have "gone through the ropes" of the family courts etc and "won".. (i.e. fucked over their ex's, who are usually so fucking off the wall its pretty much easier than for most men who dont breed with scumlevel minus 5..) to consider themselves superior to the "rank and file" and they act pretty much like the missing link between full-blown mangina and "new dad".. Remember, it is one of the central planks of the feminists (if not the outright feminazi's) to FORCE fathers to spend more time with their kids, (after all, child raising is a "burden" on women that must be offloaded onto men, or the state.. thus enabling madam to enjoy her empowering "career", thus giving her more power, more money, more arrogance.. (and more likelyhood of paradoxically wondering what use is that bloke lazing round the house all day playing with the kids while she is slaving away at the well-paid made-up job created by the state..) For further evidence to back my case that equal parenting is a feminist invention, look at self confessed feminists like Matt O Connor, and the elavated status of the females in the EP groups.. It seems that the females are effectively RUNNING the groups.. Indeed, the females who have been unfortunately on the wrong side of the resident/non-resident battle are notoriously far harder fighters than many estranged fathers.. Never mind that some of these women are complete and utter slags, they come in and battle like tigers to not only win their own cases for wanting "EP" (they need to have the kids with dad 3.5 days per week so they can seek fresh loser punters who will hang round the house the rest of the week when they kids are there pissing them off..) Quote:
The state does remove children from the care of parents BY FORCE under many circumstances. Parents can also "give up" their kids for adoption or whatever.. There are many examples of women who are, basically, seemingly acting as baby factories, churning out kids that are then taken into care, and indeed, well, no need to even wonder who the father is.. i have seen crack whores who have pumped 7 kids out.. There are many instances where parents DO NOT take responsibility, or are prevented by the state from even trying.. Quote:
Quote:
Its a trap to think like that, a trap deliberately laid for the dimwitted public to create the divisions in society that the state like to create to destract the public from realising that the true adversery is indeed the state.. Think not of "money", think of "resources"... A man with £1 million pounds is worth nothing if he cannot exchange for resources of value.. The trickery of the state is in convincing the masses (especially gullible women) that money is the most important factor.. oddly, this approach is NOT used in Scandinavian countries, it seems to be primarly a feature of societies that have grown from the UK/US model.. To make an example.. The norwegians, post seperation, seek to PREVENT men from "Paying off" their parenting time with money.. They seek to ENCOURAGE men to take the incentives to offer the PARENTING RESOURCE of their time.. This is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE to the situation in the UK, and I imagine other countries that use the "Child support is all about money" model.. Oddly, there is HARDLY ANY DIFFERENCE in the "STATUS QUO" levels of non-resident parent contact in countries that have REAL efforts to encourage the state-encouraged "Equal Parenting" to the others.. Status quo, seems to be alternate weekends.. Seems that is what men want!! Thats the reality.. And laws created that dont account for STATUS QUO "STANDARDS" are notoriously difficult to enforce.. No matter what incentives etc are offerred.. As is well know, the Scandinavian countries are VERY feminist led, but, surprise surprise, they dont suffer anything like the adverse reactions against it that seems common in the UK/US type countries.. So, it could be said, there is a place where statism seems to be "working".. At least, so far.. (Mind you, a trillion dollar oil reserve fund pays for most of it!!) One of the sideeffects of course, is record levels of children in care.. parents are effectively kept away from their kids much oif the time and they are also finding the state intereferes with their disciplining of their kids.. Hence, the kids become uncontrollable for the 2 hours or so daily they actually spend with either parent!! Quote:
Now, some parents just "cant" care for their kids.. (at least under the states standards of how kids should be raised, you know, the delicate little darlings need to be kept safe from "emotional harm" etc.. (feminazi standard trot-out excuse to criminalise parents..)Putting parents in jail will DEFINATELY not make them better parents! Also, it will damage the family.. As for mandatory DNA testing, that is not needed is it? Why would it be needed at all? It should surely be the parents choice.. Or, you are again making the case that children are STATE PROPERTY, perhaps without realising it.. And, finally but by no means lastly, the EP groups that I have been invloved with are full of men who have swallowed hook, line and sinker the "benefits" of feminism for men.. There are a GREAT NUMBER of men who have been lower earners than the women (primarly carers in many cases).. And the levels to which they swallow the recreational sex/contraception culture and the dumb belief that personal gratification (in terms of believing it is perfectly justifuable to junk a relationship with the other parent because you have "fallen in love"..  or otherwise wish to indulge in something obviously far more important than your kids (till you realise you cant see much of them anymore!).. These are CENTRAL PLANKS of feminism and I can tell you I have seen a disproportionate amount of these attitudes in the EP folk I have known. (compared with "normal" folk!)..I rapidly came to the inevitable conclusion very quickly after joining F4J that the EP groups simply want to make it "easy" for folk to split up, change partners etc and they also want the state to FORCE the other partner to "get over it" etc.. Thats just fucking unrealistic.. Mr nice guy will have a hard time, his ex will forever bear a grudge and no fucking therapy or mediation will ever get them over it so fast.. Besides, these fools no sooner get the court order or whatever they want and they go and fuck up their NEW relationship too half the time! The EP groups are a fucking abortion of a hodge potch post-modernist fantasy, the very real reason the state is highly reluctant to grant their wishes is because it is abundantly clear to practically everyone other than themselves that they are kidding absolutely no-body other than themselves that they have a "workable" solution.. Matt O Connor has perhaps wised up, in his realisation that he cant do anything for ordinary dads, and he can only hope to get it right for the millionaires and their ilk.. Is F4J really interested in ordinary dads? Seems Matt really prefers to be hobnobbing with his new chums now.. In his own words... Quote:
The EP groups are selling you a pup.. And as ever its all about money.. It will grow up to be just the biggest bitch you ever saw if they actually managed in their aims.. It will tie down men EVEN MORE and men will have FAR MORE REASON to complain then!! Thank fuck, they never will!! Male head of family. As decreed by god and nature.. Fuck analysing the problems, the solution has been tried and tested for millenia, we dont need to waste time begging for worthless unworkable crap.. Instincts and intuition serve me very well indeed and I hope you fellows trust in yourselves and your own gut instincts and stop expecting the incompetent non-delivering state to put things right.. It simply cannot perform miracles.. | |||||||||
|
18th-December-2007
| |||||||
| |||||||
Quote:
Looking at the size of the post, did you come up for air at all? Although the quote you gave is out of context, I assume he's referring to whom he sees best fit to run fathers/EP groups? If so, what frigging elitist arrogance! I'd also agree with Percy on these points. Quote:
Quote:
To suggest, let alone implement such a divisive test instills distrust and possible irreconcilable differences within a relationship (this is something many cheating women rely upon, that is, despite the 'supposed' father having doubts, his fear of the womans reaction is greater than his need to be certain as to the parentage of the child). At least with the state undertaking mandatory tests, will transfer the title of 'bogeyman' from the uncertain father to be, to the state itself. Furthermore, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever this would "massively" curtail an activity women have been successfully engaging in for thousands of years - fucking around. A great incentive indeed for women who'd otherwise wouldn't think twice about passing off another mans child as being her partners. This isn't just about men being duped into believing their fathers, but also about children being denied access to their real father, as well as being equally hoodwinked. Think of all the millions of men 'regularly' tortured by women spitefully proclaiming "actually your not the father" then later, to retract the claim only to resurface again when she wants to spitefully punish him again for whatever infringement he's supposedly made. A survey undertaken earlier this year by a womans magazine posed a number of questions, one of which, asked five thousand (I believe?) women if they would pass off another mans child as their partners. The majority said they would, seemingly with no qualms or questioning of morality. Maybe modern woman sees this as a bizarre extension of "choice."
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels The internet has been like a lifeboat for mens opposition to the floodings of feminism. Celtic Druid Respect is earned, not automatically attained by virtue of the arrangement of one's genitalia. Celtic Druid Last edited by Celtic Druid; 18th-December-2007 at 01:16 PM.. | |||||||
|
18th-December-2007
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Perhaps I needn't have said 'butt out altogether'. I agree with equality too. What a Feminazi I must be. Do you perhaps agree that there might just be some occasional intersection? I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it. But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up. I am outnumbered. But... YOU don't just make a difference, you make THE difference. | ||||
|
18th-December-2007
| |||
| |||
Quote:
|