The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

The CSA breaks several other laws as well.

The Human Rights Act 1998 states that everybody has the right to
respect for his private and family life, plus his home and contents. A
Bailiff breaking into your home clearly violates this.

The Limitations Act 1980 defines a time limit of six years within
which a creditor can chase an outstanding debt if there has been no
contact between creditor and debtor. The CSA repeatedly ignores this.

The Social Security Act 1986 lays down what the minimum income is that
a person should live on. The CSA, using unrealistic formulas to
calculate maintenance, reduces many people to an income well below
that defined by law.

The Magna Carta of 1215 promises all free men access to the Courts and
a right to a fair trial. Yet the CSA can issue liability orders on
debtors, and even commit them to prison, without their foreknowledge
and without even serving documents.

The Bankruptcy Act and the Enterprise Act 2003 rules that all declared
debts owed by a person become null and void. Yet the CSA ignores this
and continues to chase bankrupts.
Pedophiles are protected by Human Rights legislation against 'naming
and shaming'. Terrorists cannot be placed under 'house arrest'. Yet
this Governments can remove the passport and driving licenses of so-
called 'deadbeat dads', they can electronically tag them and even put
them in prison, without even allowing them to argue their case in
court.

Something is very, very wrong here.

Gary.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

The aim of the Gestapo is to try and strike fear and terror into it's 
victims, an old Stalin trick.

It is interesting to note that no commercial organisation would get away 
with this shit but the government not only think they are above the law 
after tewn years of Tonys antics they know they are above the law, they tell 
the law what to do. Judges are meer puppert, very well payed pupets so they 
don't complain.

Anyway the reason they stated with 'information disclosure' cases is 1) that 
causes them a lot of grief just getting the info, so yes they do want to 
terrorise everyone into co-operating and of course as time goes on they can 
start introducing people who simply refuse to co-operate at all, like me, my 
life is on the line with this deal, I'm in for the long ride, all the way 
and no amount of threats or terrorising is going to get me to comply. Why? 
Because it's fundamentally flawed from the outset and I'll die fighting this 
injustice if necessary but the CSA think they can threaten people like me 
into saying ah.. well it's wrong but we are so frightened of being named and 
shamed that we will pay just shut up and pay anyway. well no way, never.

Personally I don't give a shit about name and shame infact when it comes to 
it and it will, I'm going to promote my image and big-time, when I do I'll 
take the lot with me into stardom, my ex and her parents but inevitably 
it'll involve my kids, you know the little people that CSA don't give a shit 
about so I'm in no desperate hurry  they'll be adults soon and then their 
will be nothing holding me back. Any way my aim is to as I said fight fire 
with fire. What ever they throw out we are going to throw in. So they want 
to play with terror by name and shame then they must be made to fully 
understand this terror so they to will also be made to live through it and 
be publicly anounced, named shamed and damned.

I used to believe the governments job was to actually look after all it's 
people and especialy children but that's not the case, I laugh when I hear 
our brand new prime minister give us the sincerer I'll do everything for the 
people bullshit when this bunch of bastards are out terrorising father and 
robbing kids while filling pockets with bonuses and stocking the treasury at 
the expense of in some cases two sets of kids, then the cours make it 
offical CSA have no responsability for careing for children.

I suppose the saddest thing is that mostly fathers do play within the 
confines of law, morality and decency and I believe that most do want to 
impart trust in the state to their kids whereas they the filthy agency, as 
Gaz's post illustrated live and operate outside of the law, stealing for the 
treasury, so law is of little consequence, it cannot be trusted and this 
knowledge is now being passed to the next generation, our children and that 
is very perlexing and sad too.

Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the 
resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.

 wrote in message 
news:1183236759.213304.265210@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Gaz
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>
> No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
> Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
> have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
> However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
> they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
> the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
> consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
> could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
> is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
> to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
> usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
> only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
> not the 1 supposedly guilty.
>

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

The aim of the Gestapo is to try and strike fear and terror into it's 
victims, an old Stalin trick.

It is interesting to note that no commercial organisation would get away 
with this shit but the government not only think they are above the law 
after tewn years of Tonys antics they know they are above the law, they tell 
the law what to do. Judges are meer puppert, very well payed pupets so they 
don't complain.

Anyway the reason they stated with 'information disclosure' cases is 1) that 
causes them a lot of grief just getting the info, so yes they do want to 
terrorise everyone into co-operating and of course as time goes on they can 
start introducing people who simply refuse to co-operate at all, like me, my 
life is on the line with this deal, I'm in for the long ride, all the way 
and no amount of threats or terrorising is going to get me to comply. Why? 
Because it's fundamentally flawed from the outset and I'll die fighting this 
injustice if necessary but the CSA think they can threaten people like me 
into saying ah.. well it's wrong but we are so frightened of being named and 
shamed that we will pay just shut up and pay anyway. well no way, never.

Personally I don't give a shit about name and shame infact when it comes to 
it and it will, I'm going to promote my image and big-time, when I do I'll 
take the lot with me into stardom, my ex and her parents but inevitably 
it'll involve my kids, you know the little people that CSA don't give a shit 
about so I'm in no desperate hurry  they'll be adults soon and then their 
will be nothing holding me back. Any way my aim is to as I said fight fire 
with fire. What ever they throw out we are going to throw in. So they want 
to play with terror by name and shame then they must be made to fully 
understand this terror so they to will also be made to live through it and 
be publicly anounced, named shamed and damned.

I used to believe the governments job was to actually look after all it's 
people and especialy children but that's not the case, I laugh when I hear 
our brand new prime minister give us the sincerer I'll do everything for the 
people bullshit when this bunch of bastards are out terrorising father and 
robbing kids while filling pockets with bonuses and stocking the treasury at 
the expense of in some cases two sets of kids, then the cours make it 
offical CSA have no responsability for careing for children.

I suppose the saddest thing is that mostly fathers do play within the 
confines of law, morality and decency and I believe that most do want to 
impart trust in the state to their kids whereas they the filthy agency, as 
Gaz's post illustrated live and operate outside of the law, stealing for the 
treasury, so law is of little consequence, it cannot be trusted and this 
knowledge is now being passed to the next generation, our children and that 
is very perlexing and sad too.

Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the 
resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.

 wrote in message 
news:1183236759.213304.265210@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Gaz
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>
> No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
> Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
> have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
> However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
> they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
> the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
> consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
> could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
> is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
> to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
> usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
> only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
> not the 1 supposedly guilty.
>

>
> Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the
> resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.
>
>  wrote in message

Thanks for the support Fletch... I value the discussion and
contributions in these postings from anyone, and whilst I know people
need to sound off and express frustration I would hope after a day or
so they would come back with a considered and informed response which
add to and moves forward to the discussion.  I can understand the
frustration of mothers -  the shame is the goverment has set mothers
and fathers agaisnt each other , and the solution lies in working
together.  Sadly, when the goverment has a system of winners (mainly
mothers) and losers (mainly fathers) there is little prospect of co-
operation and common sense prevailing where the wealth would be
redistributed.  That means children are in a lose- lose situation.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

The aim of the Gestapo is to try and strike fear and terror into it's 
victims, an old Stalin trick.

It is interesting to note that no commercial organisation would get away 
with this shit but the government not only think they are above the law 
after tewn years of Tonys antics they know they are above the law, they tell 
the law what to do. Judges are meer puppert, very well payed pupets so they 
don't complain.

Anyway the reason they stated with 'information disclosure' cases is 1) that 
causes them a lot of grief just getting the info, so yes they do want to 
terrorise everyone into co-operating and of course as time goes on they can 
start introducing people who simply refuse to co-operate at all, like me, my 
life is on the line with this deal, I'm in for the long ride, all the way 
and no amount of threats or terrorising is going to get me to comply. Why? 
Because it's fundamentally flawed from the outset and I'll die fighting this 
injustice if necessary but the CSA think they can threaten people like me 
into saying ah.. well it's wrong but we are so frightened of being named and 
shamed that we will pay just shut up and pay anyway. well no way, never.

Personally I don't give a shit about name and shame infact when it comes to 
it and it will, I'm going to promote my image and big-time, when I do I'll 
take the lot with me into stardom, my ex and her parents but inevitably 
it'll involve my kids, you know the little people that CSA don't give a shit 
about so I'm in no desperate hurry  they'll be adults soon and then their 
will be nothing holding me back. Any way my aim is to as I said fight fire 
with fire. What ever they throw out we are going to throw in. So they want 
to play with terror by name and shame then they must be made to fully 
understand this terror so they to will also be made to live through it and 
be publicly anounced, named shamed and damned.

I used to believe the governments job was to actually look after all it's 
people and especialy children but that's not the case, I laugh when I hear 
our brand new prime minister give us the sincerer I'll do everything for the 
people bullshit when this bunch of bastards are out terrorising father and 
robbing kids while filling pockets with bonuses and stocking the treasury at 
the expense of in some cases two sets of kids, then the cours make it 
offical CSA have no responsability for careing for children.

I suppose the saddest thing is that mostly fathers do play within the 
confines of law, morality and decency and I believe that most do want to 
impart trust in the state to their kids whereas they the filthy agency, as 
Gaz's post illustrated live and operate outside of the law, stealing for the 
treasury, so law is of little consequence, it cannot be trusted and this 
knowledge is now being passed to the next generation, our children and that 
is very perlexing and sad too.

Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the 
resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.

 wrote in message 
news:1183236759.213304.265210@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Gaz
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>
> No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
> Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
> have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
> However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
> they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
> the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
> consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
> could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
> is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
> to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
> usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
> only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
> not the 1 supposedly guilty.
>

>
> Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the
> resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.
>
>  wrote in message

Thanks for the support Fletch... I value the discussion and
contributions in these postings from anyone, and whilst I know people
need to sound off and express frustration I would hope after a day or
so they would come back with a considered and informed response which
add to and moves forward to the discussion.  I can understand the
frustration of mothers -  the shame is the goverment has set mothers
and fathers agaisnt each other , and the solution lies in working
together.  Sadly, when the goverment has a system of winners (mainly
mothers) and losers (mainly fathers) there is little prospect of co-
operation and common sense prevailing where the wealth would be
redistributed.  That means children are in a lose- lose situation.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

The aim of the Gestapo is to try and strike fear and terror into it's 
victims, an old Stalin trick.

It is interesting to note that no commercial organisation would get away 
with this shit but the government not only think they are above the law 
after tewn years of Tonys antics they know they are above the law, they tell 
the law what to do. Judges are meer puppert, very well payed pupets so they 
don't complain.

Anyway the reason they stated with 'information disclosure' cases is 1) that 
causes them a lot of grief just getting the info, so yes they do want to 
terrorise everyone into co-operating and of course as time goes on they can 
start introducing people who simply refuse to co-operate at all, like me, my 
life is on the line with this deal, I'm in for the long ride, all the way 
and no amount of threats or terrorising is going to get me to comply. Why? 
Because it's fundamentally flawed from the outset and I'll die fighting this 
injustice if necessary but the CSA think they can threaten people like me 
into saying ah.. well it's wrong but we are so frightened of being named and 
shamed that we will pay just shut up and pay anyway. well no way, never.

Personally I don't give a shit about name and shame infact when it comes to 
it and it will, I'm going to promote my image and big-time, when I do I'll 
take the lot with me into stardom, my ex and her parents but inevitably 
it'll involve my kids, you know the little people that CSA don't give a shit 
about so I'm in no desperate hurry  they'll be adults soon and then their 
will be nothing holding me back. Any way my aim is to as I said fight fire 
with fire. What ever they throw out we are going to throw in. So they want 
to play with terror by name and shame then they must be made to fully 
understand this terror so they to will also be made to live through it and 
be publicly anounced, named shamed and damned.

I used to believe the governments job was to actually look after all it's 
people and especialy children but that's not the case, I laugh when I hear 
our brand new prime minister give us the sincerer I'll do everything for the 
people bullshit when this bunch of bastards are out terrorising father and 
robbing kids while filling pockets with bonuses and stocking the treasury at 
the expense of in some cases two sets of kids, then the cours make it 
offical CSA have no responsability for careing for children.

I suppose the saddest thing is that mostly fathers do play within the 
confines of law, morality and decency and I believe that most do want to 
impart trust in the state to their kids whereas they the filthy agency, as 
Gaz's post illustrated live and operate outside of the law, stealing for the 
treasury, so law is of little consequence, it cannot be trusted and this 
knowledge is now being passed to the next generation, our children and that 
is very perlexing and sad too.

Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the 
resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.

 wrote in message 
news:1183236759.213304.265210@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Gaz
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>
> No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
> Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
> have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
> However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
> they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
> the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
> consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
> could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
> is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
> to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
> usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
> only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
> not the 1 supposedly guilty.
>

>
> Oh the post complaing about your post sounds like it's coming form the
> resident troll using a new name so I wouldn't worry about it.
>
>  wrote in message

Thanks for the support Fletch... I value the discussion and
contributions in these postings from anyone, and whilst I know people
need to sound off and express frustration I would hope after a day or
so they would come back with a considered and informed response which
add to and moves forward to the discussion.  I can understand the
frustration of mothers -  the shame is the goverment has set mothers
and fathers agaisnt each other , and the solution lies in working
together.  Sadly, when the goverment has a system of winners (mainly
mothers) and losers (mainly fathers) there is little prospect of co-
operation and common sense prevailing where the wealth would be
redistributed.  That means children are in a lose- lose situation.

On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
> The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.

They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
but CSA do not take them to court

wrote in message 
news:1183156149.985526.185180@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court
>
>
It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short 
sighted post.

On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>
> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>
> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
> but CSA do not take them to court

I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living in 
that town.

That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek substantial 
damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider local adverts to 
bring this to the attention of such people.

In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.

A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.

And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.


"gaz"  wrote in message 
news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>
>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>
>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>> but CSA do not take them to court
>
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>

Oh posted before I'd made my main point!

In such a case the defamed persons lawyer would demand they remove that name 
from the site and they would have to do it. So were then back to the CSA 
favourite game discrimination as legally they would then only be able to 
post the names of people who were uniquely named in any town, even then some 
one could move into that town and again take them back to court.

Just can't wait until we see the first case of this hit the courts.


"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:7L6dnYlqO5TZ2BvbnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Not only that but they are defaming any other person by that name living 
> in that town.
>
> That should certainly be a reason to take them to task and seek 
> substantial damages, we are trying to find such people and may consider 
> local adverts to bring this to the attention of such people.
>
> In such a case the CSA don't have a leg to stand on as they neither list 
> address nor date of birth, place of employment or any other details.
>
> A person wronged and maligned in this way might retire on the settlement a 
> good Barrister might squeeze out of them in a courtroom.
>
> And I'm sure such a case would make great headlines in the press.
>
>
> "gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:1183156831.485560.245380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 Jun, 23:29, csad...@fsmail.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun, 22:53, gaz  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The CSA 'Name and Shame' policy is breaking both European Human Rights
>>> > laws and domestic law. Under the Defamation Act 1996, Godfrey -v-
>>> > Demon Internet Ltd held that somebody can sue if they have -
>>> > wrongfully or not - been publicly named for a non payment.
>>>
>>> They are not named for non payent but for failing to give correct
>>> information.  The issue is women fail to disclose accurate information
>>> but CSA do not take them to court
>>
>> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
>> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
>> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
>> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.
>>
>
>

> It is not women at fault you ignorant twat. It is the CSA. What a short
> sighted post.

Perhaps I should stand corrected.  I thank you for complementing me on
being a Teacher With Amazing Talent (TWAT).

However, there are two issues here.

1. The morality or leglity of naming and shaming.  The initial posting
stated it was for non-payment which made it illegal.  I simply pointed
out it is not for non-payment but because they wee found guilty of
failing to supply information requested by the csa or of providing
accurate information.  Whether naming for that reason is any different
legally to being named for non-payment (as the original poster stated)
appears unclear.

2. The fact is the Goverment have published the names.  By omitting
women from the list raises a sex discrimination  / victimisation
issue.  They are either saying women always submit accurate
information,which is highly unlikely, or they have chosen to
discriminate by naming only men and not women.

If that consitutes me being ignorant than I plead guilty.  However, I
believe both points are valid in that one raises the morality of name
and shame, the other the morality of victimising men given they have
chosen not to name any women for a failure to disclose acurate
information when undoubtley there are some.

Gaz
> I stand corrected. But regardless of this, name and shame still
> constitutes a defemation of character, whether it be for non-payment
> or faliure to disclose information. The principle remains the same, so
> they are still breaking the law under the Defamation Act.

No criticism intended and I do not know the defamation Act well.
Saying what is true cannot be Libel or slander and it is true they
have been found guilty by the Courts so I cannot see that applying.
However the Defamation Act may be different.  What puzzels me is why
they have chosen 'information disclosure' rather than 'non-payment' as
the basis for naming.  It is is difficult to believe they have not
consulted legal experts before doing this.  But this is the CSA they
could have made a cock-up which would be no surprise.  Fletchers point
is particularly interesting and it would be no surprise if this went
to the European Court of Human Rights.  It raises the point of the
usefulness of naming if there are 10 John Smiths in the town - the
only people who it is likely to upset are the 9 innocent John Smiths
not the 1 supposedly guilty.

The aim of the Gestapo is to try and strike fear and terror into it's 
victims, an old Stalin trick.

It is interesting to note that no commercial organisation would get away 
with this shit but the government not only think they are above the law 
after tewn years of Tonys antics they know they are above the law, they tell 
the law what to do. Judges are meer puppert, very well payed pupets so they 
don't complain.

Anyway the reason they stated with 'information disclosure' cases is 1) that 
causes them a lot of grief just getting the info, so yes they do want to 
terrorise everyone into co-operating and of course as time goes on they can 
start introducing people who simply refuse to co-operate at all, like me, my 
life is on the line with this deal, I'm in for the long ride, all the way 
and no amount of threats or terrorising is going to get me to comply. Why? 
Because it's fundamentally flawed from the outset and I'll die fighting this 
injustice if necessary but the CSA think they can threaten people