NACSA
Barry Pearson
to its forums. Since I am being discussed by name in those forums, I am
providing a response here, in the expectation that many of the people who read
those forums also read this newsgroup.
On Wednesday 1st August, I launched a web site "Child Support Analysis for the
21st Century":
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk
The summary of this web site is: "This site provides information & analysis of
child support & the Child Support Agency in the UK, mainly for lobbyists,
politicians, academics & media."
This web site starts to look beyond the reformed CSA system that is gradually
being introduced. An aim of this web site is to help answer the question: "what
should replace the reformed system so that the UK has child support suitable for
the 21st Century?"
The NACSA Committee has deleted most of the discussions about my web site from
the forums. It has banned anyone from quoting the above URL. It has once again
blocked posts from me, probably by blocking posts from my Internet Service
Provider. Do these actions make sense? And if so, to whom?
Is my web site totally opposed to the fundamental aims of NACSA?
Clearly not - see the "aim" above.
Does my web site attempt to compete with NACSA's?
No. My site "provides: Analysis, Explanation, Information, Opinion, and perhaps
Understanding". It "does not exist for: Advising, Blaming or Campaigning", which
is a set of NACSA's key activities. Anyone who believes that it is unfair to
include "Blaming" should have a look as NACSA's literature, and also at:
http://www.nacsa.org/pages/hallofshame2.htm
Go to my web site, click on "Advice & debate", and the second link is to NACSA.
The text in quotes was provided by the NACSA Chairperson to go on this web site.
Does my web site slag off the "customers" of the CSA that NACSA tries to
support?
No. In fact much of the analysis is concerned with showing the severe impact
that the CSA can have on each parent and the children.
So what is the problem? And whose problem is it?
There appear to be two separate issues being discussed. First I'll mention NACSA
's capability as a lobby group. Second I'll discuss suicides.
FIRST: lobbying.
NACSA is trying to get MPs to study its web site so they will "see NACSA as a
voice with concerns for our children". Have I said any different? No.
What I have done, though, is identify cases where the material that NACSA has
published in the past has damaged its credibility as a lobby group. I have
pointed out that "NACSA's attempts to be taken seriously as a lobby group could
be diverted by knowledge of its "protest" and "revolutionary" activities".
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/politics_and_lobbying
/lobby_nacsa_and_independent_on_sunday.htm
This was a case where material from the past surfaced and proved embarrassing
for NACSA. (I supplied the dates - I emphasised that the material was years
old). The NACSA Committee says my "review of NACSA has once again raked up
history that is no longer relevant, and can be used against us".
An obvious point is that this history is in Hansard, and is well known to the
politicians concerned - it doesn't need me to remind them!
But a more important point, which I did NOT mention on my web site, but I'm
mentioning here because of the phrase ". is no longer relevant .", is that NACSA
has been sending out material this year that is similar in style and intent to
the material that NACSA got into trouble over before. It appears that NACSA didn
't learn its lessons properly.
The Social Security Select Committee criticised NACSA for the statement (among
many others) "Showing CSA officials the damage done to the house by an
ex-partner (broken windows, etc) will usually have an instant effect and if
communication is being conducted by letter a photograph will certainly help".
And in the Survival Guide being sent out this year is the same statement -
except that "usually" has been replaced by "often"!
NACSA doesn't advise people to do these things. It provides anecdotes where have
people have done these things with the desired effect. That doesn't fool
politicians! There are many more such anecdotes.
I repeat my assertion - until NACSA curbs the material it publishes and issues
widely, its "attempts to be taken seriously as a lobby group could be diverted".
As it happens, the article in the above page was not a criticism of material
that NACSA was publishing at that time. It was really a criticism of the
newspaper concerned for filling up column inches with statements from a 2 year
old document. Indeed, I had posted such criticism to this newsgroup before the
Select Committee collected its evidence, but apparently no one briefed Andy
about this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=37add...@news2.vip.uk.com
But the impact on NACSA was the same, and the same will continue to happen until
NACSA issues consistently respectable material.
SECOND: suicide.
In my web site, I said "There probably have been suicides and murders as a
result of the CSA. But don't look to NACSA for the evidence - they simply don't
have it."
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/politics_and_lobbying
/suicide_and_the_csa.htm
NACSA supplies a Book Of The Dead, identifying 54 deaths:
http://www.nacsa.org/nacsanews/BodEntrance.htm
Judge for yourselves whether the text provided really is evidence that the
deaths were caused by the CSA. In fact, the cases tend to be complex. It may
well be that the CSA was "the final straw". But it also appears likely that this
is what observers focused on rather than being THE cause. Who really knows?
But what is most important here is that if you picked a million men at random,
about 190 of them would commit suicide in a year. That just happens to be the
suicide rate in the UK. Perhaps there have already been 100 such tragedies,
nothing to do with the CSA itself, among the male customers of the CSA this
year. Yet NACSA's Book Of The Dead hasn't identified a single death caused by
the CSA in 2001. Why not?
My point, earlier, isn't that these deaths are not happening. Surely people in
this vulnerable state might be pushed over the edge? But credible evidence doesn
't come from newspaper clippings at the rate that NACSA provides them. It would
be credible if NACSA could show that instead of the 100 suicides "expected" from
those random million men, there were actually 200 among the CSA's male
customers. (Although even that would need comparison with similar men -
separated from wife and children - but not affected by the CSA).
WHAT NEXT?
NACSA's actions over my web site have to be put into context. For example, who
is affected by the banning of the identification of the URL of my web site?
It won't hide it from lobbyists, politicians, academics & media. All of these
will the slightest interest in child support will find out about it. It appears
that the only people it is being hidden from are people who get their
information about child support from the NACSA forums - some of their members &
other people impacted by the CSA.
Similarly, the only people really affected by the deletion of discussions about
this are those involved in the discussions - those same people. And the same
applies to identifying who loses if I can't answer the sorts of questions that I
have often answered there.
The NACSA Committee's actions are not against me. They are against its own
constituents, including its members.
I have no quarrel with the members of NACSA as a whole - that it why I have been
helping them where I can (for example, by supplying the NACSA spreadsheet). I
don't actually have a personal quarrel with the Committee - I have invited them
to contribute to my web site, and continued to supply them with useful material.
I will supply them with the next version of my spreadsheet too.
I am actually supplying these to their constituents rather than to the
Committee. These constituents appear to be the losers here.
--
Barry Pearson (aka John Ward)
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk
Jon
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
John Ward?
I am sorry to here that you are being censored... You are, IMO and my
experience of your posts, one of the few people who seem to grasp "CS"
as a justifyable problem... yet in such away as to be reasonably fare
and equatible to all concerned, and seem to have a grasp of the issues
of contact as being interlinked with the issues of CS and the
potential for a reasonable system... from you posts on here.
I've not had time to look at your site, but will do so if I get the
chance
Jonanthan wilson.
--
Jonathan Wilson
Phone 07775 638904.
I can only offer advise! No responsibility can be accepted.
All sugestions are provided on a personal basis,
such as would be recieved by talking to a friend.
martindavies
Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b6c2...@bignews.vip.uk.com...
It has caused a bit of uproar. So rather than Mps (and the press) seeing a
link to another site, they see postings about deletions.
Yet has anyone noticed little things like someone calling for the CSA to be
hit by a computer virus to wipe their system?
How will MPs react to revolutionary ideas like that? The press will have a
field day. But its not an uncommon type of posting.
With some of the current postings, even excluding the recent posts in the
general forum, the MPs and press will have a field day. And their opinion of
NACSA will get worse.
>
> What I have done, though, is identify cases where the material that NACSA
has
> published in the past has damaged its credibility as a lobby group. I have
> pointed out that "NACSA's attempts to be taken seriously as a lobby group
could
> be diverted by knowledge of its "protest" and "revolutionary" activities".
>
>
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/politics_and_lobb
ying
> /lobby_nacsa_and_independent_on_sunday.htm
>
The idea of 55 staples in envelopes won't help either. Anyone ever cut
themselves on a staple?
Never mind of course the ideas that crop up for sticking a spanner in the
works.
The actual idea never worked anyway. There is a lot more involved in a claim
for good cause (when someone doesn't want the CSA involved) than just the
fact of damage to a house.
Thats why so few claims of good cause are accepted.
Though its suprising how many try, yet only 10 years ago it was extremely
rare. The liable relatives unit (what the DSS had before the CSA) had only a
few good cause claims a year, in each district.
Martin <><
Barry Pearson
news:3h4pmt08nt700k42s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:52:18 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> John Ward?
Yup! (Now that I'm self-employed there are no issues with using my real name).
> I am sorry to here that you are being censored...
I'm sorry as well, but not for me. What impact will it have on me?
The NACSA Committee is acting as a "Net Nanny" towards its members &
constituents. This is already causing them problems.
For example, one article on a NACSA forum says "There is damaging and derogatory
anti-NACSA material on his site so if NACSA are trying to appeal to MP's on a
positive level to get things changed through suggestions on reform it is going
to fail if Pearson is promoting false allegations about razor blades in the
post, etc". Er ... there is no mention of razor blades on my site, but now there
is on the NACSA site! What will MPs make of this?
The NACSA Chairperson said on their site "John Ward's review of NACSA has once
again raked up history that is no longer relevant, and can be used against
us.... We may further discuss the possibility of linking with the other site if
a more accurate portrayal of our work and efforts were recognised". The history
she mentions is described on my site at:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/politics_and_lobbying
/lobby_nacsa_and_independent_on_sunday.htm
Anyone with the latest material sent out to NACSA members should compare the
Independent On Sunday article quoted on my web site with the latest survival
guide. Just about the only significant change to that article if it were written
now about the latest NACSA material is that I can't find the term "deploying
guerrilla tactics against the system" in the latest material. Some details have
changed - "Club Med" has changed to "Majorca". "Showing CSA officials the damage
done to the house by an ex-partner (broken windows, etc) will usually have an
instant effect ..." has changed from "usually" to "often", etc. But there is no
practical change. (If anyone from NACSA disputes that here, I'll debate it point
by point).
My article was intended to advise NACSA on how to be a credible lobby group, and
avoid such traps as the one set by the Independent On Sunday and sprung by the
Social Security Select Committee. But while they are publishing aims that are
different from what they were a few years ago, the material they send to members
still leaves them vulnerable. They don't appear to have learned their lessons.
The NACSA Committee appear to be letting down its own members. On my web site I
said "There needs to be an effective lobby group for the CSA. There are about 2
million adults and over 1.5 million children impacted by it, and these need a
voice. The CSA is the most administratively incompetent government agency in
living memory, and those affected by this carelessness need a credible voice.
NACSA is the key lobby organisation focused on the CSA.... NACSA does many
things: provide immediate advice to "clients" of the CSA, provide on-going
support for members, campaign, and lobby. Unfortunately, as shown above, their
lobbying capability is compromised by their other activities".
I believe it still is.
> You are, IMO and my
> experience of your posts, one of the few people who seem to grasp "CS"
> as a justifyable problem... yet in such away as to be reasonably fare
> and equatible to all concerned, and seem to have a grasp of the issues
> of contact as being interlinked with the issues of CS and the
> potential for a reasonable system... from you posts on here.
Thank you. And the topics you mention are themes on the web site. The CSA is
actually "downstream" of some of the real issues, such as access & residency, so
work is needed "upstream". But another theme on the web site is that it is time
to relax some of the tight controls that the Treasury has on CS law & the CSA
formula. I would actually go as far as saying that there should be NO interactio
n between means tested benefits & tax credits and the CS formula - this would
turn all CSA cases into private cases, remove many of the incentives to behave
badly, and make more money available to separated parents & their children and
hopefully help to reduce child poverty. (There are still many issues with this
that I am not blind to!)
> I've not had time to look at your site, but will do so if I get the
> chance
Please do. Even if all you do is look at the home page (at the URL below), to
get a glimpse of the range of topics within which I hope to turn this into the
most comprehensive source of information to help design "Child Support for the
21st Century".
Barry Pearson
news:E09b7.59508$_b4.5...@news1.cableinet.net...
>
> Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:3b6c2...@bignews.vip.uk.com...
> > On Wednesday 1st August, I launched a web site
> > "Child Support Analysis for the 21st Century":
> >
> > http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk
> > The NACSA Committee has deleted most of the discussions
> > about my web site from the forums. It has banned anyone
> > from quoting the above URL. It has once again blocked
> > posts from me, probably by blocking posts from my Internet
> > Service Provider. Do these actions make sense?
> > And if so, to whom?
>
> It has caused a bit of uproar. So rather than Mps (and the press)
> seeing a link to another site, they see postings about deletions.
> Yet has anyone noticed little things like someone calling for the
> CSA to be hit by a computer virus to wipe their system?
>
> How will MPs react to revolutionary ideas like that? The press
> will have a field day. But its not an uncommon type of posting.
I wonder how MPs will react to some of the non-forum material as well? For
example, the "Hall of Shame", especially the "Deadbeat Politicians" & Government
"lackeys" section! Some of this page are attacks on people who are not in any
way part of the "CSA system", or not in a position to defend themselves. In some
cases they don't even know they are being criticised by name on a
freely-accessible web site on the Internet.
http://www.nacsa.org/pages/hallofshame2.htm
When the Committee "spent considerable time and expense working on a letter
campaign to 120+ MPs asking them to visit our website and forums" (quoting the
NACSA Chair) did the Committee actually know what the web site was like? Or were
the Committee unable to see things from an MP's perspective, one of the
requirements of sucessful lobbying? Perhaps they need to read these well known
texts (long and short respectively) on "how to lobby":
http://www.fathers.bc.ca/howto.htm
http://www.catskill.net/abcav/aldis.html
One of the 2 pages on my web site that they complain about (with well over 150
which they are completely ignoring!) was really a suggestion to NACSA that they
need to get their published material sorted out if they want to gain credibility
as a lobby group. They haven't learned this lesson. It is worth comparing the
NACSA web site with other action & lobby groups. Others are totally different in
style and content.
[snip]
> > NACSA is trying to get MPs to study its web site so they will
> > "see NACSA as a voice with concerns for our children".
> > Have I said any different? No.
>
> With some of the current postings, even excluding the recent
> posts in the general forum, the MPs and press will have a
> field day. And their opinion of NACSA will get worse.
I have queried in the past why NACSA run their own forums. They appear to be
making a rod for their own backs. Why don't they just direct people to
uk.gov.agency.csa & uk.people.fathers , and perhaps uk.legal for some of the
other legal questions & uk.gov.social-security for benefits & tax credits
queries? This may have its disadvantages, but it would have at least 4 specific
advantages:
1: It would avoid NACSA being held responsible for the material.
2: The total number of experts able to help with any particular query would be
greater (the combination of those who help on the forums and those who help on
the newsgroups).
3: The total number of people who could be helped by any particular expert would
be greater (again, the combination of those who currently query on the forums
and the newsgroups).
4: Newsgroups have features such as easy cross-posting and the Google Groups
archive. (I can refer to things I posted to this newsgroup over 3 years ago.
Much of what I or anyone else has written to the NACSA forums has been lost,
presumably for ever).
> > What I have done, though, is identify cases where the
> > material that NACSA has published in the past has
> > damaged its credibility as a lobby group. I have
> > pointed out that "NACSA's attempts to be taken
> > seriously as a lobby group could be diverted by
> > knowledge of its "protest" and "revolutionary" activities".
> >
> http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/
> politics_and_lobbying/lobby_nacsa_and_independent_on_sunday.htm
>
> The idea of 55 staples in envelopes won't help either. Anyone
> ever cut themselves on a staple?
> Never mind of course the ideas that crop up for sticking a
> spanner in the works.
Yes - but I wonder how many of these get back to CSA managers & perhaps
politicians anyway, if the forums are monitored by civil servants (even
informally)?
[snip]
[snip]
Ah, I didn't know that. So they are putting their reputation at risk with advice
that doesn't even work?
I wonder if the Committee has as little idea of the nature of the paper material
they send out as they appear to have of the web site? Or, again, can't they see
things from the perspective of politicians, who may not like being compared with
Nazis interrogating Jews, or with Hitler saying things are "for the sake of the
children"?
I believe that if the NACSA Committee is REALLY serious about NACSA being a
credible, perhaps respected, lobby group, they should establish some ground
rules right now using expert help, and then stick to them. That will mean
purging some of their current material, but the exercise itself would be
instructive. Or, of course, they may simply decide that they like things the way
they are!
Notice that while I am being critical here (hopefully constructively), I am not
criticising NACSA as such. I am criticising the Committee for letting down NACSA
as a whole. My web site is supportive of many of the aims of NACSA: "An aim of
this web site is to help answer the question: "what should replace the reformed
system so that the UK has child support suitable for the 21st Century?"" What
the Committee has chosen to focus on are a couple of pages which could be
interpreted as criticism of the Committee rather than criticism of NACSA!
martindavies
>
> > > What I have done, though, is identify cases where the
> > > material that NACSA has published in the past has
> > > damaged its credibility as a lobby group. I have
> > > pointed out that "NACSA's attempts to be taken
> > > seriously as a lobby group could be diverted by
> > > knowledge of its "protest" and "revolutionary" activities".
> > >
> > http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/
> > politics_and_lobbying/lobby_nacsa_and_independent_on_sunday.htm
> >
> > The idea of 55 staples in envelopes won't help either. Anyone
> > ever cut themselves on a staple?
> > Never mind of course the ideas that crop up for sticking a
> > spanner in the works.
>
> Yes - but I wonder how many of these get back to CSA managers & perhaps
> politicians anyway, if the forums are monitored by civil servants (even
> informally)?
I am given to understand that the government do read both this newsgroup and
the NACSA site. I don't know if thats only informal, or formal.
Of all the staff I've ever worked with who did good cause, not one would
just accept a statement saying someone was violent, even with pictures.
And fabricated stories rarely hold together. Especially when it works for
one person, they tell their friends, and suddenly everyone is telling the
same story.
That takes seconds to say, and a normal good cause interview takes a minimum
of 10 minutes, often 20.
Those who do have a violent ex that can cause trouble normally get accepted
for good cause. But those are very rare.
Martin <><