Dustbin wrote:
> =

> Before proceeding with this post I should, in
> fairness, make it clear that, while I have a
> total f&^%ing bitch for an ex-wife I have no
> children and, therefore, no child support. Nor
> did we squabble over the division of the spoils
> - there was hardly anything to squabble over.
> This fact will make the following a little
> hipocritical but there it goes.
> =

> What I suggest is that men REFUSE to co-operate
> with the courts at all. =


What you should be saying is why are any men getting
married in the first place? =


> At the first sign of
> trouble move what money there is out of the
> country to somewhere the courts cannot get at
> it. =


Now, you are talking to the rich and they don't need
advice.

Most guys don't make enough to support a wife in the =

first place and so what money are they going to send out
of the country?

> Refuse, absolutely to pay child support
> etc., etc., etc.
> =


So you pick this woman out of all the women you know
to be your wife and have your baby and then you want
to punish the baby by not paying child support.  Isn't
that a nice example for society?  =






> This will lead to prison sentences for contempt
> of court. =


Prison isn't the only sentence for contempt of court.
Some of the options are to remove your driver's licence or =

restrict it.  Remove your passport.  Seize your pennons if
applicable, seize your assets if applicable and a host of =

other neat inventive ideas to screw you over without sending
you to jail.



> But, with 160,000 divorces per year
> and several million men being f&^ked over by the
> CSA the prison system will not be able to cope.

If governments can deal with the enemy, they can certainly deal with =

the locals who are refusing to pay child support.  And as for
support from the rest of society, no matter how much you dislike
your ex-spouse, nobody on the planet earth wants to be paying your
ex-wife and kids support.  They want you to be doing that. =


> =

> There are, in fact, places for about 35,000 men
> in our prison system, which is grossly
> over-crowded. The chaos that would result if
> 3,500,000 simply refused to go along with this
> mayhem - would itself be mayhem.
> =


Governments can and will change legislation overnight if necessary to
eliminate chaos as you predict.


> If given a court order to do community service -
> DON'T; if put on probation, fail to attend; if
> given a fine, don't pay it. Force the judges to
> use prison. This will clog the system so badly
> that the whole edifice will collapse under the
> weight of its own absurdity.
> =

Not so.  If society was that stupid, it wouldn't have lasted this long.


> It would not take very long.
> =

> If the men who are currently being rogered by
> the CSA simply close bank accounts and stop
> paying, the system would grind to a halt in
> weeks. If several tens of thousands of men were
> in court in the next few months for non-payment
> the system would be under very serious pressure
> in a few months. Before the year (2005) is out
> the government would simply have to give in.
>

Not even close
 =

> They don't have several million places in prison
> to put everyone. Also, it costs between =A3500 and
> =A3700 per week to keep a prisoner; they will also
> have to pay her social security to keep her
> while her ex-husband is in prison. In other
> words, the cost of this to the State could
> easily reach =A31,000 per week for the period of
> his incarceration.
> =

Boy do they have a surprise for you.  =



> If there are 3,500,000 men being shafted by the
> CSA, this bill would amount to =A33,500,000,000
> per week! Or, put another way: =A3182,000,000,000
> per year. Or put another way: approximately
> 45.5% of Gordon Brown's entire annual budget!
>
If these tough prisoners have an influx of whining dads
suddenly come upon them who getting it weekly and having
a good time with the extra cash they have in their pockets
from not paying child and ex-wife support, these prisoners
may not feel a bit sorry for your sorry ass and shaft
the dads in ways that prisoners do.
 =

> Finally, why is it that men are apparently
> unable to make clear to the government what they
> want and demanding it?
>
The first thing any guys does is marry a woman less bright and less
educated.  This results in
him having to ensure if they produce babies together that he earn enough
to support the ex-wife and
kids they they split up.  Nobody else is interested in supporting your
ex-wife because if she wasn't =

good enough for you she certainly isn't good enough for any other guy,
so guess what you are it.  =



 =

> Women get everything handed to them for hardly
> any effort.
> =

Women less bright, less capable who marries a man
who is brighter and more capable is likely going
to have the support of the court system because they need it.



> Now we hear that the labour party is proposing
> to give females who simply live with their
> boyfriends the same rights as married females.
> So, once again, men are getting screwed.
> =

> Dusbin.

I thought that the big whine is that men who marry don't
get screwed or screwed enough after marriage.  You can't have
it both ways. =


The answer, of course, is for men to to marry brighter, better educated
women and =

your average dude won't face these horrific problems.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:47 PM ---