CSA, guilty until proven innocent

ISave up for the D.N.A. test it is better to know than not. But I have heard that there are a few disreputable ones so watch how you go.is far too easy, blokes on a night out ,have bollocks for brains, woman who want to trap blokes can do it easy.Go to any nightclub, I am speaking as a woman, any munter can trap a man into sex, anytime if they give the blokes enough attention .
Young teenage girls think if their boy gets them pregnant they will be hitched for life with other teenage boy.I find it really sad.Other girls seem to think they need something to love and love them back, it is a child not a puppy. I feel sorry for you but never ever presume a lass is on the pill she may be wanting a baby and your bollocks as well as your wallet. From genuine lass in love x

Kit, I wasn't as explicit as you, and I realy made the effort to not be, but thanks anyway for making a big issue out of it.

I have a good sense of humour Gainsborough but I also have a sense of decency and that was not funny.

If your wife got a job in a lab would you find it funny if someone suggested to her that she suck a man off to get a sample?

Kit, this is a joke reply for a joke posting, have a sense of humour.

You are saying that a woman working at a laboratory should give a man a blow job to acquire a sample.

That is a repellent, immoral and misogynistic thing to say. I am completely disgusted with you but well done scoring the own goal as everyone who has said you are a woman hater now needs no other proof than your own words.

How would you feel if a man spoke to your daughter or wife in that way?

Wronged,when the DNA clinic woman want's a sample, insist it is done the same way.

heres one for you, I receieved oral sex from a girl (not full sex mind) after which she excused herself she then told me a few months later she was pregnant I obviously laughed it off not beleiving a word of it, this was a girl I had no interest in and wouldnt dream of having sex with! I have seen her fleetingly maybe 2-3 times over the last 10 years when she insists I am the father and she imseniated herself??? I recently received an email via facebook saying she wants maintenance what shall I do?

women who decide to get pregnant without asking whether the man involved would want to have a child should be held equally responsible for their part of any calculated payments. After all it takes two to make the child so why should she not be made to shoulder her half of the responsibility. This would be much fairer for the male involved in the liason, considering that payments have to be continued for at least 16 years.

I'm with Gary on this one. My ex had the benefit of me bringing money in through hard work and long shifts. She had the benefit of inheritance from my family that was put into the family lifestyle, She has just had two large inheritances from her family. I have not recived the benefit of that, and yet I paid a large divorce settlement and have been paying regular maintenance as well.

The incomptent oafs running the show at the CSA have recently stitiched me up with a large debt because of their incompetence.

For every £1 collected it costs the tapayer £1.85. They have used billions of pounds of taxpayers money on failed I.T. projects and staff have claimed bonuses by continually preying upon the ones in the system who pay, because it's too difficult to find the ones who have NEVER paid. £40 million pounds written off in Northern Ireland and £1 billion pounds where they could'nt be bothered..........but don't worry the 'small fry' will pick up the tab for the government!

Executives earning £250,000 plus bonuses. A scandal!

What happens between me, my ex and my children, is between me. my ex and my children. Is has absolutely nothing to do with office staff in a 'gravy train' quango.

Mediation and negotiation is the key to remedying this 'shambolic debacle. Those who have not paid, will not pay, deserve the wrath of the CSA, but as it stands I am fed up to the back teeth of paying for the ones that this useless quango cannot or will not track down!'

Shut them down now!

gary, the truth is that most men don't want sole care of their children. They want to be able to pursue their careers unhindered by a long break to raise children. They know that if they stop work to look after young children they will be seen in the same way that women are - not serious about their jobs and passed over for promotion. They know, that like many women they will be poorer when they are older and will have a bleak future on a low pension.

How many men do you know who would be willing to wreck their careers to stay home and look after two or three young children? Try it, see how easy you think it is then. Most men are happy, after they have soiled the marriage with their adulterous behaviour, to let women raise their children. They just don't want to pay for their children's upbringing , prefering to spend their money on what they like to call their "new" family, as if children are something you trade in for something shiny and fresh when the gloss wears off.

Wrong. You say the "law is fair", but go on to state that only 10% of NRPs are female; this means that the mother gets custody in 90% of cases. This kinda indicates that the system is biased towards females and is therefore fundamentally unfair, don't you agree?
You state that 15% of net income is 'unfair'. Yet this only applies under the 'new' rules. Hundreds of thousands of fathers in the UK are suffering under the 'old' CSA regime, which deducts up to 40% of net income from their wage. This has resulted in thousands of NRPs (mainly fathers) being driven into poverty. As a result, at least 50 men have committed suicide due to the unreasonable financial demand being made upon them by this horrendous Government agency.
In any case, 15% of net income is more than fair.
What you need to bear in mind is this: the resident parent (i.e. mother) will enjoy many benefits. Talking from my own experience, the mother of my child has been given a council house, along with a whole host of State financial support. This has enabled her to live rent-free in a prestigious area, run a flash convertible car and enjoy several foreign holidays over the past few years; in return, she works only a couple of days per weeks in order to qualify for her 'tax credits' and benefits.
Not only do I pay my ex maintenance money, my son also stays with me every weekend, during which I feed and entertain him. I regularly fork out money to pays for his clothes, school trips and so on. On balance, I contribute a hell of a lot more towards his upkeep than his money-grabbing, lazy mother.
Of course, the left-wing feminist man haters who sit at the heart of British law don't take fathers like me into account. The system has been shamefully weighted in favor of the idle, whining mothers who claim the right to be given care and control of the children, yet refuse to do a days work and endlessly complain about the resulting financial hardship.

the law is fair. it is not only fathers who are "non-resident", approx 10% of cases involve a female "NRP". 15% of anyones net income is not sufficient to raise a child on, keep a roof over its head, school it, clothe it and feed it. it is only a contribution and a small one at that. only a moron cannot understand that a child is the responsibility of both biological parents, regardless of the circumstances of it's existence. a father is not absolved of his responsibility because the mother chose to allow it to live! or any other moronic reason.