Rupert Myers criticises CSAhell in The Guardian

September 22, 2010

I think the Rupert Myers article in the Guardian makes absolute sense. I have read the CSAhell response and I feel you are missing a very important point. The website is well put together but you also have a duty to individuals that read it.

I think where CSAhell seems to be getting tarred with a sticky brush is their refusal to remove the links and adverts for joining various groups that seems to happen on every other post. The two organisations I am talking about have absolutely no legal training whatsoever and have only been a round for a couple of years. Their advice is based upon their own personal experiences that in itself should put people off. Both sites are at war with each other and often give very bad advice even if it is well intended. One site warns individuals not to go to the other site and the other site returns the favour. They have arguments about common law and the Magna Carta and how the Courts are a limited company etc. I think this is what Mr Myers is getting at and he is absolutely right.

These groups encourage people to stand up in Court to argue some loophole which does not exist leaving very vulnerable individuals looking rather silly and no further forward other than being labelled as someone who is looking for anti avoidance measures The CSA do make a note of this and use it to justify the way they then treat that individual.

I think the moral of the story is seek real legal advice from real csa lawyers when you can. Yes, it does cost money but there are companies out there that do offer legal aid when dealing with the CSA. (you might need a referral from your MP) But most of all the thing about real professional CSA advice is these people understand not only the law but the way the CSA operate and the CSA know this.

Comments

  • chall says:

    Hi Trev,
    I assume that afairer is one of the sites which you are criticising.

    Quote Trev Carr: ‘They have arguments about common law and the Magna Carta and how the Courts are a limited company etc…’
    Please be aware, past disagreements regarding this have occurred because it is an area that afairer will NOT be and has NEVER been involved in! That said, what others choose to do is their business.

    ‘These groups encourage people to stand up in Court to argue some loophole which does not exist…’. On afairers part your information is incorrect! But please feel free to expand and qualify.
    FYI we experience few members actually going to court. The odd cases we have requested adjournments for, which were granted, have been at the discretion of the Judges and valid.

    Many issues can be resolved by going through the agencies own complaints procedures, the Independent Complaints Examiner, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and/or peoples local MP – at no financial cost for solicitors. Legal aid for CSA issues is rare.

    With all due respect, the point has been missed!
    Correct advice can be given based on actual CS Legislation/Acts, deciding court cases and the agencies own website.These are in the public domain and can/should be checked/researched by the individual, on the inter net, for correctness. If such resources are ‘at best partially correct’, it needs investigating!

    Of course others will chat and offer their own experiences, its called support and its entirely up to an individual whether they accept OR ignore.
    The agency fails many and sometimes it’s nice to share your experiences with others and know your not on own. Of course others experiences can sometimes be helpful OR not. But if parents wish to communicate with others its their choice.

  • John says:

    It is the very fact that legal arguement is not allowed, that leads people to look for alternative ways of challenging the CSA. I have been through all CSA processes and at every level I have been sent down blind alleys and cul-de-sacs, in order to head off any challenge that I may of had.

    It is a closed shop of compliancy. It is set up with such rigidity that it is virtually impossible to challenge legally, and that is the way the politicians want it! Even Civil Liberties and Human Rights have been eroded to stop any challenges and that closes loopholes!

    This totalitarian system has no place whatsoever in our society. It is divisive and causes discern and consternation between parents, which also impacts on the children. It is geared for the financial protection of the state rather than the parents involved in the bureaucratic shambles.

    We do live in a democracy, and where citizens are ignored, belittled and not listened to and they have their freedom of speech restrained or removed, they turn to pressure groups and protest groups. This is their right!

    The author is missing the point. The children belong to the parents. Not the state and by using control freakery and hard line ‘bully tactics’ the state are interfering between parent and children. Mediation and Negotiation is the way to deal with financial provision for their children, this would ensure a far happier environment in which financial provision is made.

    Sadly, the current system is driven by targets and computers and is a breeding ground that promotes hatred. It is not cost effective and is contnually prone to human and computer error. Is it any wonder that when decent. ordinary, honest people are treated like ‘scum’ they start to behave like ‘scum’, and then they are criminalised, which reduces them to self worthless enemies of the state.

    This ‘shambles’ has to be closed down. NOW!

  • state terrorism says:

    Ofcourse the undemocratic CSA is designed to extract money from the parents to fund the spending habits of the civil services and goverment. We never voted for it. It is one the worst forms of state exploitation in the so called ‘civilised world’. Do they honestly expect us to believe that it is for the welfare of the children? That it potentially allows one parent to deny the other parent a relationship with the child and to exploit them for money is a strong fault with it- its open to abuse -just like the domestic violence applications which allow lawyers to issue ex-parte injunctions on the basis of allegations without proof being required. And this abuse is not being recognised or checked and stopped. The legal fraternity is not only turning a blind eye to it – its complicit !The UK is one of the worst places on earth to bring up children such is the corrupt state of family laws and which only serve to foster conflict and so ensure that the legal powers i.e the lawyers, barristers and judges remain in business whatever the outcome. If there was a genuine concern for maintaing and sustaining families there would be an active prevention programme to discourage parents from going to court. Instead , you have an undemocratic ‘legal’ system which is geared to pit one parent against the other -(ever heard of ethics courses for lawyers or politicians?)-. and this talk of the ‘interests of the child’ is nothing more than window dressing legal jargon for’ interests of the legal industry’. The so called ‘resolution’ principles are no more than cosmetic fluff and not taken seriously by the courts at all and which judges routinely ignore.
    ‘Custody battles’ are so easy to instigate when the smooth, seedy lawyer tells you that whichever parent gets the kid also gets the house and what in it, the child benefits, the say in everything the child does( who cares about equal parental responsiblity) and ofcourse the CSA payments to top it all off. The parent who loses the kid also gets nothing. Thats British family law for you in black and white. So who wins ? Lawyers always win – Not the kids for sure!
    Only when there is a mass boycott of the CSA and what it represents will anything change.
    If there was a law that made parents mediate and encouraged them to settle amicably in the first instance and that did not allow courts or lawyers to intervene or decide, now that would truly serve the interests of the children. And to have respect for the human family in the form that nature intended , mothers nurture and fathers protect. Both parent in their own complimentary roles. That does not make one lesser or greater than the other , just different in their respective roles so that there is less burden and more division of labour in the noble business of bringing up a child to be a decent human being.
    But the state has taken too many rights away from the parents- especially the non resident parents .John is absolutely right , the state does not own the child but wants to take over and institutionalise the child so that the parents can work to serve the state but neglect the family and their own well being.

  • Busylizzy says:

    Perhaps the current comments are although well intentioned become a littlle heated and “corse celeb” and therefore detracting from an opitune moment rarely given in which to causes, concerns let alone equalities experienced by the majority, can be aired within the written media ie Newspapers. Nuff said. But said on too many occasions to me “We have a window opportunity” please don”t waste it to persue your own personal vendetaters

  • John says:

    Not a vendetta from my prospective, just using my freedom of speech in response to a misleading article.

  • Troy Love says:

    But real legal advice costs money. You cannot get legal aid for this matter. Unless you know otherwise. So when the CSA misbehave I wonder how can we have a little justice. They are faceless and a law unto themselves. But we suffer so isolated. I read any advice on here but choose what to agree with and take forward in my quest to become the father I am entitled to be. Taking away all my spare funds is not the answer. My Sons deserve a Father who can provide the role. The CSA are getting this quite wrong. And this link says it all.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    here here!!!

  • Mark Collett says:

    Surely individuals have a choice whether they take the advice of others who might be having or have had similar experiences. If nothing else, these sites offer moral support to those who might otherwise feel isolated and brow-beaten – dealing with the CSA (and trying to make any sense of it) certainly makes me feel that way.

  • Busylizzy says:

    John point taken and appreciated but lets use this window for freedom of speech while we”ve still got it as it seems to me the window is being erroded in so many parts of our lives I fear time is running out so we can”t afford to be wastefull. PS have noted your comments/advice elsewhere on this site and appreciate them………………………………………………………

  • John says:

    Thanks for your comments Busylizzzy. Appreciated.

    I am talking purely of my experiences. There so many different comments from people who have been let down by not receiving maintenance, those who have wilfully paid and have been treated disgracefully, and the feckless ones who do not want to pay at all.

    As usual in these matters, the ones who speak and speak sense and threaten the establishment are usually silenced by threats of action or by under handed investigations, in an effort to discredit them or make them comply.

    I have said persistently and consistently, that there has to be a better way, that is fairer for all, and does not involve politicians, executives or grade 2 clerks, who appear to be a law unto themselves and who are removing our freedom of speech, Human rights and Civil liberties. Not for the benefit of the family or children, but for their own selfish agendas. The main one being filling the pot up, for their salaries and bonuses by filling the government coiffeurs up. How cani it be that £4 billion is uncollected and the weak and vulnerable are repeatedly targeted.

    I have paid into the system at a higher rate than some, because I worked long and hard hours. There are some who have never worked or paid into the system. Why am I being asked to pay into the system TWICE.

    I don’t hear what the mother provides financially for the children because it’s non of my business, and yet my personal life and finances are under scrutiny and in the public domain, because of the snopping, corrupt thieves at the CSA/CMEC, as they think that they have carte blanche powers to ride ‘rough shot’ over you.

    Any decent government worth its salt, would put a stop to this discriminatory and shambolic system now!

  • wilf says:

    Allen:- Do you mean “hear, hear” ?

  • stuart says:

    Wilf

    You really are a cock

  • skippydo says:

    Please may spread the word and please let’s try setup a REAL COLLECTIVE RESPONSE to this mess.

    A protest March for fairness! on FEB 1ST 2014 @ 10 DOWNING ST and DWP Head office.

    Who’s in?

  • >