Food for thought

I read a news article today that got me thinking along radical lines. The article stated that NSW has implemented a law (apparantly already in practice in QLD) that when witnessing someone’s signature, there is now a legal requirement to confirm the identity of the person.

All this came about due to an incident in 2011 where a policeman pulled over a muslim woman wearing a burkha. Some kind of incident ensued and the woman accused the policeman of racism. At some point, the woman was required to sign a document, but when it came to the court case, the police couldn’t confirm who it was that signed the document – because the woman never revealed her face.

And all that got me thinking – as it usually does.

We’re always hearing about the muslims, and how they seem to think that they’re not subject to Australian law, because they have their own (Sharia Law). So, I thinks to meself, if the muslims want to behave like muslims, why don’t we let them behave like muslims?

So that means women can’t drive. They can’t vote. They can’t go to school. And they can’t go outdoors unless they’re escorted by a male. They’re not allowed to eat at the same time as the men – nor in the same room. When they “misbehave”, they’re allowed to be beaten or stoned (to death in the worst cases).

Would that make the muslims happy do you think? Here I was thinking that they came to Australia to ESCAPE that kind of life in their own countries, yet when they get here, they argue that our law isn’t applicable to them.

I get sick of people coming to Australia “for a better life” but then expecting to be able to behave in the same way as when they were in their own country. If you come to Australia, you live by Australian law – or get the hell out.

Let me at ‘em

This post contains a vast amount of profanity. Read on at your discretion.

Funny how things go, isn’t it. I had to reboot my laptop today and when it restarted, it brought up the Yahoo homepage for me so I could log into my e-mail. Yahoo shows some news headlines, and one in particular caught my eye:

Girl allegedly run to death had a tumultuous life

In a nutshell, a nine year old girl from Alabama who lied about some candy that she ate was made to run by her grandmother. She ran for three hours while her stepmother also watched on and did nothing. Eventually, the poor girl collapsed and died.

In my most sarcastic voice, I exclaimed “Yay legal system. The grandmother and stepmother are being charged with murder”.

And as I read that story, I came across this story as well:

Boy ‘punished for wetting bed’ dies of dehydration

In this story, a 10 year old boy from Dallas who wet his bed, was punished by his parents who denied him water for 5 fucking days. He eventually died when he got peanut butter stuck in his throat, his parents refused to let him have water to wash it down, and his brothers were too scared to help in case THEY got a similar punishment.

He choked on the peanut butter, fell down and hit his head on the floor. And the parents are being charged with “bodily harm”, not with killing their son.

So as the title says, let me at ‘em. These people are the lowest fucking form of scum on the planet. They pick on their kids because they are fucking cowards who get no respect from other adults. They’re usually poorly educated people who focus their life on drugs or alcohol and don’t care about their families.

I’d like to say: give me five minutes with these arseholes, but the reality is that I’d need longer that. Putting a bullet in their head wouldn’t satisfy me one little bit. I’d need a good five DAYS with these people to show THEM what punishment and torture is all about. I know that there are plenty of things I could do to these people to have them BEGGING for a bullet in the head.

If you want some ideas of what I’d do to these fuckers, then by all means leave me a comment, but if you’ve seen any horror movies in the last 10 years, then just use your imagination. If you’re pathetic enough to torture a child, then you deserve worse done to yourself.

So let that be a warning to you fucking scum out there. If anyone ever hurt my kids, then I’d make the torture scenes in Hostel look like a quick, merciful death. I have no problem going to prison, especially if it’s for exacting revenge on some arsehole who touched my kids.

I’ve always believed that the law is supposed to represent the values of society. But they don’t, do they? Our bullshit legal system, presided over by our pathetic excuse for judges, let child molesters out of prison and think that sending someone away for five years for killing someone while being drunk behind the wheel is justice.

If the legal system ever failed me, and I mean EVER, then I have absolutely no hesitation in taking matters into my own hands. And as I’ve hinted at above, you’d wish you were dealt with by a court, rather than being dealt with by me. And not just for hurting MY kids, either. If you’re out walking the streets, after beating some kind of offence for harming a child, you’re on my list.

Child Support Agency

I know I’ve gone on about this before, but I’ve recently had another run-in with CSA. I’ve been dealing with them for about four years, and I can honestly say that I have never ended a phone call with a smile on my face.

In utter frustration,  I recently sent an email to the Minister of Human Services. My comments centred around the fact that I seem to have no power when it comes to dealing with CSA, my ex-wife or our arrangement. A few days back, I received a call from a guy who has been tasked with preparing a brief for the National Manager of Human Services, so that the Minister can respond to me.

And guess what? He pretty much confirmed that I have no control whatsoever.

Here’s my main gripe. I am currently trying to increase the amount of time our kids spend with me. We all live interstate, so custody is a little difficult. But at the moment, I fall in the 0% care bracket – by 2 nights. I asked if the fact that we live about 500km apart can be taken into consideration, but of course, it can’t.

So I put together a plan to have my kids for an extra three nights per year. I know that sounds easy, but when you live six hours by car from each other, it’s not really feasible to do weekends.

So I contacted CSA and said I wanted to increase how much custody I have of my kids. And here’s the kicker: If my Ex calls and says “He’s having less custody, I need to reduce his care percentage”, they go “No worries, done”.

But if I ring and say “I need to INCREASE my care percentage”, they won’t do it until they contact her and GET HER CONSENT. And if they do agree to increase the percenteage, they make it difficult. My “plan” has to already be in place, but there is no retrospectivity. So I have to prove that my kids WILL stay with me more often, but I can’t have already been doing it so that I can provide evidence.

I have mentioned before that I have told CSA that the amount I pay makes it difficult for me to pay my rent and my bills – and they don’t care. I have literally been told “We aren’t interested in your personal circumstances. Child Support is another bill like Electricity. You just need to find a way to pay”

How unfair is that? Our Government is always talking about people getting in to debt with no way out, yet when you ask for help, you’re told “we don’t care”.

Until a few months ago, I used to pay my Ex-wife directly. But she has managed to get a home loan and needed to have the payments done through CSA so her bank would count the money as income. So I agreed.

I should point out here that I pay fortnightly. Always have. I get paid fortnightly, so I arrange for the Child Support to be deducted the day after payday. That way (along with my rent), it’s always the first payment I make from my salary.

But when we changed to have the money go through CSA, I have to meet a MONTHLY amount. Not a fortnightly amount. So that means that each month, the fortnightly payments I make don’t match the monthly figure. I was advised that if I fall short of the monthly figure, CSA can initiate collection action against me.

So I spoke to them and asked if we could go back to the old ways – where I pay my Ex directly. And guess what? I can’t. But SHE can. Yep, she can ring CSA and say “This isn’t working, I want to change back”, and they go “Yep, no worries.” But if I ring, they have to call her first and GET HER CONSENT.

I even asked if I could hire a lawyer and get a judgement to go back to the old ways, but courts don’t have the power to force CSA to do that.

But while I was talking to this guy the other day, he told me they could put me on a fortnightly payment cycle, instead of monthly. I said “Great, let’s do it”. But he rang me back about half an hour later and said that because the monthly and fortnightly cycle AMOUNTS don’t equate, then to go back to a fortnightly cycle (like I’ve done for the past FOUR YEARS), I have to come up with about $200 to finalise my monthly cycle liability.

I told the guy that I can’t afford to come up with $200 and reminded him that my whole issue is that I can’t afford my bills. I told him that I didn’t understand why I need to pay MORE money to change my payment cycle, when I’ve always paid fortnightly and have never changed the amount I pay.

He tried to explain that it’s not an “extra” $200. I told him I didn’t understand. He said that over the course of the year, I wouldn’t be paying $200 more than normal, that it would all work out in the wash. But I asked him if I need to make an additional payment of $200, and he said “Yes”. So my question was: If I have to pay an EXTRA $200 to keep doing what I’m doing now, how is that NOT extra money? Naturally, he couldn’t answer that.

The other issue is that when I question these processes, and ask where the rights are for the “paying parent” (their politically correct way of saying Father), they tell me “That’s just the way the legislation is written”. I’ve asked if CSA will make private rulings, but of course they stopped doing that.

I understand now why you see Dads climbing bridges and holding up signs, or showing up at the Family Court with a gun and taking a hostage. Everyone knows how unfair the law is, yet nothing is done about it. People go on TV about once a month here and put across their story about how they are being sent broke by CSA, but nothing happens.

And to add insult to injury, there’s nothing I can do to earn extra money to make life easier for myself – because I would have to pay more child support. I’m in the Army, and we have discounted home loans available to us. But the discount we get is Fringe Benefits Tax reportable. Being in a government department, I don’t have to pay the FBT, but it counts as salary on my payment summary.

But guess what? Extra salary equals more child support. So if I use the Defence Home Loan, my salary goes up by about $16,000 per year, so I pay more child support. So how does a guy get ahead?

Do you deal with CSA? Are you having any success? Do you want to vent to someone who understands? Leave a comment and let me know what YOUR experience is. I’ve written to the Minister once, and when I get what I assume will be a lame-ass response, I have no problem holding her accountable.

BTW, if you want to email her, her name is Tanya Plibersek and her email address is: minister@humanservices.gov.au. Drop her a line and tell her what you think.

Scoopon

I’m sure everyone is aware of Scoopon, and probably even more aware of the issues regarding their business performance. A growing number of customers have been refused goods or services, and just as many are getting frustrated and angry that when they try to contact Scoopon, they are either ignored or fobbed-off.

If you’re a regular reader of my blog (and let’s face it, you should be!), you will know that I HATE bad customer service and I won’t stand for it. I have recently started giving advice to my workmates and they are starting to benefit from what I have learned.

Just last week, my supervisor bought herself a new Mitsubishi Outlander. She knew about my dealings with different companies and we got to talking. She ended up purchasing an ex demo model, and managed to get free window tinting, floor mats and an umbrella after following my advice. Doesn’t sound like much, but when these things are brand-name and/or factory fitted, she probably got about $700 worth of extras.

My favourite story is about an incident in 2010, when the fuel pump failed in one of my employee’s cars. The car was about 8 months out of warranty and he was facing a $1,300 repair bill. I discussed a thing called “Implied Warranty” with him and told him to phone the service manager and discuss the issue.

For two days he ummed and ahhed about it, feeling a little uncertain about just how Implied Warranties work. One day, he left for lunch, stressing and grumbling about how he was going to find $1,300. So I called the service manager on his behalf, explained the story and asked if they would replace the fuel pump under an Implied Warranty.

The guy was unsure and said he would check it out and get back to me. By the time my workmate came back from lunch, Honda had agreed to replace the pump for free. You can imagine just how releived my workmate was.

So…..how do you do it? It really is simple. I am a HUGE believer in good customer service, as well as the legal and moral requirements for retailers to stop ripping people off. And I am not afraid to spend 10 minutes writing an e-mail to these companies to force them to comply. Most recently, I have contacted Global Shop Direct about their misleading or deceptive advertising, Zarraffa’s coffee about the hidden catches in their ZCard loyalty program and Couriers Please whose drivers seem to think the law doesn’t apply to them. Incidentally, Couriers Please have failed to respond to me, so I am about to report their behaviour to Police.

But I digress. My advice really only applies to Australian residents, because the laws are slightly different in each country. But even so, the underlying concept is that when a sale is made, certain contractual obligations are agreed to by all parties. Some of those obligations are explicit within a document, and some are implied – such as retail shopping. So while the laws in Australia may be different to your country, the CONCEPT will be generally the same.

I always tell people to use www.accc.gov.au. The ACCC is the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. These are the guys who are responsible for protecting both consumers and businesses when it comes to the way we all interact. On their website, you want to click the link on the left hand side which says “For Consumers”.

You will be taken to a page that outlines the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Don’t worry, it’s not a thousand pages of legalese. It outlines the 9 reasons why you are ENTITLED to a refund, exchange or repair – despite what the retailer claims their store policy is. These are the “Statutory” rights you hear about all the time, and no retailer has any discretion over them. I won’t go over them here, but I can’t recommend this one link enough.

Consumer Protection (used to be called Fair Trade) can also give you advice on the law in your state. A trick is to contact Consumer Protection with your complaint. They will tell you to contact the supplier to try and resolve the issue. Then you contact the supplier, tell them you have received advice from Consumer Protection and that if they don’t resolve the situation, you may commence legal proceedings.

The ACL replaced the Trade Practices Act 1974 which also covered Implied Warranties. You can look up Implied Warranties on Wiki, here. In a nutshell, this covers the theory that if you buy an item, it will have a certain “lifespan” that is longer than the standard 12 month manufacturers warranty you get.

Implied Warranties are a grey area, because there is no list of how long every item should last, and this is why you MAY end up in an argument over it. To use the fuel pump as an example: The car in question was a Honda which cost around $60,000 when it was purchased. Honda (like most car companies) offer a 3 year warranty on new cars. But shouldn’t a $60,000 car last longer than three years? Of course it should!

And that is the concept of an Implied Warranty. If something goes wrong AFTER the actual warranty period, you are not left high and dry. Your initial call to the business may result in a “Sorry, but it’s out of warranty”, and I would urge you to EXPECT this when you call. If that’s the response you get, ask to speak to the team leader, manager or owner.

REMAIN POLITE AND UNEMOTIONAL. Explain that you paid $X for your item and even though it is out of warranty, you believe that it should be covered by an Implied Warranty. If they try to defend themselves, POLITELY argue that their $2,000 TV should last longer than 12 months and that under an Implied Warranty, you want a refund or a repair/replacement.

The beauty of Implied Warranties is that it can give businesses a legitimate way to right a wrong without losing face. There is no admission of guilt or wrong-doing. And any smart business person will realise this.

The sad thing is that retailers are not required to understand the law/s that apply to their business, so you may still get opposition from a manager. If so, jump on the ACCC website and they will step you through how to take things further, including how to get the ACCC involved if you need them. For anyting related to telephones (including mobiles), contact the Telephone Industry Ombudsman (TIO) instead. They will give you a reference number and a different contact number for your carrier.

Along with Implied Warranties is a thing called Goodwill. This is even more grey than Implied Warranties, but has worked for me in the past. When all reasonable negiotations break down, you can call on “Goodwill”. This is most effective if you have been a loyal customer for a longer period of time, or have some ongoing relationship with a company.

If you buy a new car and always get your servicing done by the manufacturer – you can ask for repairs like the fuel pump as an act of Goodwill. Basically, you are asking to have your loyalty rewarded. After all, you could always have had your servicing done somewhere else and handed over thousands of dollars to someone like Ultra Tune, right?

And never underestimate the power of word-of-mouth. Luckily, with me being in the military, I can pass information to around 3,000 people with a single e-mail. If a company does something wrong or illegal, I can threaten that I will “relay my experience to my workplace which encompasses 3,000 people”. You would be surprised how effective that can be.

But how does all this relate to Scoopon? Sorry for prattling on, but I wanted to arm you with information you can use against Scoopon if they are failing to perform. You see, it’s not just retailers you can battle with all this. Scoopon are just as bound by all this as everyone else.

Start by e-mailling them. Politely explain the issue and state your desired outcome. Give them a week to reply – after all, big companies get busy, and with all of Scoopons complaints, it may take some time for them to get to YOU. If you don’t get a response after a week, forward your original e-mail back to them, reminding them that you have tried to contact them, and give them a deadline to get back to you.

Depending on how annoyed you are, or how much $$$$ are at stake, your dealdine could be 24 hours, or it could be another week. Just be reasonable. If things turn ugly, they will try to argue that you didn’t give them enough time to respond. So be fair, but don’t be a patsy. When you set the deadline, tell them that if you don’t get a response by then “with a genuine intent to bring the situation to a resolution”, you will contact Consumer Protection or the ACCC and report them.

And always remember that disassociating yourself from these companies is a good way to voice your opinion. Unsubscribe from their website, cancel your membership or close your account. Nothing tells a company that you are fed up with them more, than when you stop doing business with them. And if enough people report the company and stop dealing with them, they will slowly stop making any money.

In Australia, if you tell a company or business that you do not wish to be contacted by them and they continue to do so, they are harassing you and you can call the police. This relates to e-mails that you have unsubscribed from, telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen (including religious orders) and charities.

I know that many of my family and friends think I’m a whinger, but I just don’t stand for people trying to rip me off. If they try their shit on me, I’m going to push back. I’ve already given you examples above of what my e-mails have achieved, and each of those stories have used up around 15 minutes of my time. So it’s no skin off my teeth to write an e-mail if it saves me money or holds someone accountable for their dodgy behaviour.

Just remember to ALWAYS be polite. If you have to contact a company through their website, then copy what you write into a Word document and include the date you sent it. Save it to your desktop so you will see it every time you use your computer. I shake my head when people tell me that they got ripped off but refuse to contact the company. If we don’t stand up to these companies, they will keep doing what they do, and we will keep getting shit service from them and we will keep getting ripped off.

My last tip is that you do need to be careful when you have problems. You can get into legal trouble if you make a claim or statement that isn’t true, if you tell a lie about the company to stop people dealing with them, or if you wrongly bad-mouth them. So when you contact them, always stick to the facts, never abuse anyone, call anyone a name, or make a statement like “Your company are a bunch of thieves”. If you SAY these things to someone, it’s called Slander. If you WRITE it, it’s called Libel.

If you’re interested in more tips – like how mobile phone companies MUST give you a handset warranty for the same period of your contract, or want to hear more about some of the things I have managed to fix by contacting these companies, leave a comment and I will spill my guts. I’m even prepared to give you some advice on how to resolve your issue.

Juvies

Recently, I discovered a show on the MTV Channel called Juvies. It’s a real life show about kids in America who get into trouble with the law and end up spending some time in Juvenile Detention. The show is rated M, although for the life of me I have no idea why. As far as I’m concerned, this is a show that should be watched by all kids over 10 with their parents.

In the episode I just watched, there was a 14 year old boy named Rashad who went to Juvie (for the second time) for assaulting another boy (George) at school. Rashad was seen on a security camera beating George because he put a “Kick Me” sign on Rashad’s back. Rashad was arrested and sent to Juvie for a few days while he waited for his hearing.

The episode also followed a 16 year old girl named Sierra who was taken to Juvie for being a runaway. She had recently started seeing a 19 year old boy who has been to prison twice for drug possession and dealing. When Sierra’s parents tried to ground her for lying – so that they could keep her away from her boyfriend, she disappeared from school and her mother called the Police.

The way the system seems to work is that the kids spend a few days in Juvie while they wait for a hearing in a small court run by Judge Mary Beth Bonaventure. The child gets a “defence” attorney and their is another attorney for “the people”. They question the child and the parent/s and determine whether the child should stay in Juvie or be released to their parents – usually with conditions.

At the end of this episode, both Rashad and Sierra were released to their parents. Rashad was required to undergo counselling for his behaviour, and Sierra was ordered not to have any contact with her boyfriend. There was no comment on Rashad’s progress, however they stated that Sierra stayed in school and made the Honor Roll. The only contact she had with her boyfriend was through myspace.

At no point in the show was there any bad language, violence, nudity (although you do see Rashad topless during his inspection) and there was no sex or drug use. What there WAS, was a real display of what these kids go through. It showed them being brought in to Juvie and processed, as well as showing how they live, how they interact with the other “residents” (it seems they can’t be called inmates) and how the guards deal with problem “residents”.

I think the show is an EXCELLENT way for kids and their parents to discuss issues like drugs, assault and whatever else the show plans to throw at us, and to let young kids see that ANYONE can get in trouble. In this episode, there was an unruly resident who started punching his cell door and carrying on like an idiot just for attention.

Right at the point where the resident started going nuts, we hear young Rashad in voice-over say “It’s about this point I realise I don’t want to be in Juvie”. He was also doing a video diary at one point where he complained that “You have to sleep when they tell you to sleep. You have to get up too early. And you don’t get to play video games or anything”.

Minor points maybe, but I’m sure my 8 and 10 year old boys would relate to these comments. My youngest can’t survive more than two hours without playing Wii, XBox or Nintendo. Maybe seeing Rashad denied all that for three days might be just what he needs to stay on the straight and narrow. And I am happy with whatever works to keep my kids from breaking the law and starting a life in jail at the age of 14.

So….what do you think? Have you seen this show? Do you agree that kids should be watching it? Let me know what you think.

RS Durant jeweller

This post is technically an update on the post I made about getting engaged. To bring you up to speed, I purchased an engagement and wedding ring from RS Durant in NYC, and they seem to have ripped me off. They gave me their own appraisal of the rings, despite me asking for a GIA appraisal, and when I returned to Australia I had the rings appraised independently.

The results of the independent appraisal were quite shocking. The enagagment ring was valued at about half what RS Durant told me it was worth, and the wedding ring doesn’t fit the technical description provided by RS Durant.

I contacted RS Durant who accused the Australian appraiser of being “crazy and jealous”, despite the appraiser not manufacturing or selling jewellery. I asked RS Durant to either pay to have the rings re-set in Australia, or to pay me compensation to have them re-set. They have ignored that request.

I have contacted the New York State Jewelery Association (NYSJA) who can’t help, because RS Durant aren’t a member.

I have contacted the Jeweler’s Security Alliance who can’t help. Ironically, JSA deal with crimes AGAINST jewelers, not BY them.

I have contacted Jewelers of America, who still have not replied.

Tonight I contacted the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, whose response I should receive in the next day or two.

In my opinion, RS Durant have acted fraudulently. They gave me a verbal description of diamonds which I agreed to purchase, but the diamonds they have sold me do NOT match the 4c’s which they described.

Tonight I also re-emallied RS Durant and told them that if I don’t receive a response within 24 hours, I will commence legal proceedings against them.

Why do these things need to be taken so far? RS Durant have held a store in NYC for 30 years, and are located on Madison Ave on the Upper East Side. If they are prepared to rip off an average person on a diamond so comparitively small, how badly are they ripping off the mega rich of NYC? Maybe those rich people wouldn’t care if they discover they’ve paid inflated prices on misrepresented jewelery – but I do.

But what I bought was an ENGAGEMENT ring and a WEDDING ring. What two more important days are there in a couple’s relationship, or in a girl’s life? RS Durant have destroyed the memory of what should be the most memorable time in the life of my Fiance and I.

I’m not sure how else to “advertise” my disgust and disappointment at these people, but with every ounce of my being, I implore you all to stay away from them. Don’t give them a cent of your money, because they don’t seem able to fulfill their promise. Or maybe it’s just that they don’t want to.

Divorce

This is a topic that divides the sexes. The women always think they get the raw end of the stick because they have the expense of raising the kids, and the men think it’s them on the bad side of the law because they lose a good majority of their assets. Well, I’m here to relate MY story.

I separated from my ex three years ago, and have been paying child support ever since. She was an office manager earning around $40k and I had done around 20 years in the military, earning around $70k. She got the kids and moved back to her parent’s place in a tiny little town in NSW. I was posted to Brisbane – a 6 hour drive away.

My whinge relates to the way the separation works, and the way child support payments work. Through our divorce agreement, she got 58% of everything. But she got the vast majority of our cash, in a situation where she had minimal living expenses, as she moved in with her parents. I had to rent a new house, large enough to house our kids (two boys) when they came to visit. You can imagine that rental prices in a state capital are a bit higher than a country town.

On top of that, she got 50% of my super. 20 years of serving my country, including three overseas deployments, and my superannuation was cut in half. Which means that I can’t afford to retire after my career now – I need a new career (not just a part-time job) that I can build on for another 15 – 20 years.

My new partner was made redundant a few months back, and due to her crappy employer, the pittance they paid out dried up pretty quickly. She’s been looking for a job, but there’s nothing much out there for her qualifications.

From the divorce, I got left with the main assets, but there are no houses. The biggest asset is a camper trailer which I am trying to sell so I can afford to continue paying rent and trying to maintain a similar lifestyle to what I had when I was with my ex.

So what’s she up to? I hear you ask. She has recently purchased a new home, with building to start in a few months. She gets to keep living with her parents while the house is built, and while she would never admit it, my guess is that she’s not paying any rent.

I pay around $1,000 per month in child support. Why? Because their formula says that the less time you spend with your kids, the more you have to pay. Being in the military, I can’t get a job in HER town, but she could move to the city where I live and do her job from here – but chooses not to. So now, because of HER decision, I get less access to my kids and then have to pay extra because of it.

Not quite sure how that’s fair. I’m certainly no dead-beat Dad, but I can understand why some Dads quit their job and go on welfare. I’ve done some sums and found out two amazing facts. Firstly, if our kids decided to live with me, my ex would only have to pay something like $200 per month. And secondly, despite currently earning almost twice as much her, for the two of us bring home the same after-tax salary, I would need to earn almost triple what she does.

I realise that is not a realistic scenario, becuase she is supporting two kids. So for the two of us to bring home the same salary would put me miles in front with disposbale income. But that’s not my point. My point is that I would have to earn $110k to bring home the same salary as her – who earns $45k. At the moment, the payments that I make almost double her take home salary.

One of the insane reasons that I think causes this, is tax. When I pay child support, it comes from post-tax earnings. So I get my pay, the government taxes me and then I have to find the money to pay my ex. She then receives the $1,000 per month, but it’s not classed as income, so SHE doesn’t pay tax.

If I was asked to come up with a solution, I would say that they should take the payments from my PRE-tax earnings and then SHE should pay the tax on it. After all, she is the one who gets to make use of the money, not me. I don’t think it’s fair that I should be paying tax on what effectively becomes HER income.

The Australian Child Support Agency (CSA) who monitor payments and do nothing else, are the biggest time wasting thieves we have in our country. Recently my ex put in a dispute regarding the amount of income I was reporting. It’s a long story, and has to do with what the Army pays me for going overseas, so I won’t bore you with the details.

The short version is that the ex and I discussed the issue and came to our own decision. She submitted her paperwork to CSA who then contacted me. I said that I agreed with her dispute and didn’t wish to challenge it. Despite that comment, I had to complete a 10 page response and then fax them 43 pages – just to agree.

Just for your own peace of mind, there are no typos there. 43 pages to AGREE with her dispute.

If CSA increase how much I have to pay (and they do this with no consultation), and I don’t agree with their decision, then the only way I can challenge the CSA is to go to court. Can you believe that? I’m sure you can imagine just how much spare time and cash I have up my sleeve to go through that process. This is why I say they are thieves.

A friend of mine was paying child support for a single child a few years back, and needed to take extended leave for personal reasons – on half pay. He informed CSA who told him to contact them once he got his new pay slip to determine how much he had to pay. When he did that, the amount that they informed him he would have to pay was actually more than he was earning.

Once again, no typos. They expected him to pay more than his income – or take them to court to dispute it. How the f**k does that s**t work? The CSA will tell you that they have the child’s best interest at heart. Is sending their father broke part of that ethic?

The other major problem I have is that stuff like this can very quickly become legal. I’ve learned a bit about legal proceedings in the last few years (which you’ll see from some of my posts under The Law), so I like to get certain things in writing – especially any decision or instructions given out by an organisation like CSA.

But they don’t respond to anything in writing, do they? If you e-mail them, they ring you back. If you specifically ask for an e-mail response, they ring you to tell you that they don’t do that. So what happens if they give you advice on your case, which you then act on, and things go bad? You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that you were acting on their advice. And that s**ts me.

So as I said before, I can completely understand why some Fathers would give up their career and go on welfare, rather than have to work a 70 hour week just to get by. I was hoping to end my military career in the near future, but the more I think about, the more difficult life will be once I leave.

I don’t like to jump up and down and do the whole “what about me” thing, but sometimes I wonder why I have spent the last 20+ years serving my country, when I get treated like this. If anyone out there is going through the same thing, I’d love to hear about it – especially if you have “coping strategies”. Leave me a comment and I’ll get back to you.

QANTAS – an update

If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I recently had a run-in with QANTAS. It related to an overseas trip my GF and I were to go on, until I selfishly broke my toe, and was ordered not to fly.

We had booked our AU-US-AU flights on QANTAS using frequent flyer points. With me being a little over six feet tall, we pre-paid to secure exit row seats, costing a total of $640.

The catch is that QANTAS have thrown in to their T&C the fact that if – for any f**king reason at all – you don’t use the seat, they keep your money. And that is whether it’s a medical reason, a personal choice, or whether you get on the plane, sit in the seat and then have QANTAS staff move you. Yes, you read that right. THEY can move you and then keep your money.

Not being one to shy away from standing up for my rights, I e-mailled QANTAS. Among other complaints, I raised this issue and requested that they contact me to discuss the issue. I waited a week and heard nothing. So e-mailled them again, giving them 24 hours to respond before taking my complaint further.

Predictably, I heard nothing from them. I e-mailled the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), asking if QANTAS had the legal right to put those conditions on the pre-purchase of the seats.

Their response to me did not address whether the condition is legal, but in true Government fashion, palmed me off by informing me that this is a specific contractual issue, and that I could try to resolve it with QANTAS (who, let’s face it, couldn’t give a shit), or I could seek legal advice.

As I constantly argue, where is the consumer protection? Conditions like “we reserve the right to f**k you over in any way we can, as long as we can keep you rmoney and do nothing for you” are always buried somewhere like section 234.1.23.4c, aren’t they?

Nobody ever reads through three pages of conditions when they’re buying things online. Let’s face it, who has the time? We make the assumption that everyone is inherently good, and no company would be deliberately out to rip us off. And yet it happens, and then the authorities go “Sorry mate, nothing we can do. You should have read the ifne print”.

I always wanted to be a lawyer. Maybe it’s the reason why I know so much about the Trade Practices Act 1974, and how I know that it changed in Australia on 1 Jan 2011, and is now called the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. I know that the four reasons that provide for statutory refund or replacement have been replaced with nine conditions (although these nine are really just an expansion on the four).

My knowledge of the law has saved me thousands of dollars over the years, and I’ve forced companies to do things they refused to do – because I had the law on my side.

So what I want to know is: Why, when Joe Citizen conducts business with a company in goodwill, that they can be royally shafted and then hung out to dry by the authorities whose job it is to protect us?

If it didn’t take near on 10 years to do a part-time law degree, I’d be running my own consumer law business, helping people like you and me get what we’re entitled to our of a*holes like QANTAS. It’s now been two weeks since I first contacted QANTAS to address the issue, and the only thing I have received from them (other than auto-reply e-mails) is one saying they have a 10-day turnaround on e-mails, and mine has been passed to someone. That came 11 days after I e-mailled them.

And if you’re reading this QANTAS, I still haven’t ruled out taking you to small claims court – where there are no lawyers. It’s just me and you pleading our case. Try and explain to a judge why you should keep my money. I dare you.

My broken toe

Oh, woe is me. I’m now four weeks post-op after having broken my toe, and let me tell you, I am well and truly over it. WELL AND F**KING TRULY.

But I can’t yet walk properly, so I’m between a rock and a hard place. I’m sick of sitting on the lounge watching TV, bored with my XBox, and sick of not being able to go anywhere.

We went to the shops last night, and I was completely shagged by the time I got home. What I can’t work out, is why you can’t get a temporary handicap parking permit when you’re on crutches. Being able to park near the shopping centre door, instead of having to hobble 100m in the wet, would have a HUGE impact on my mobility.

The funny thing is that today, we stopped for lunch at a fast food restaurant. We parked near the door, although some old dude in his million dollar Audi 4WD parked in the handicap spot. Yes, he had the permit, but he got out of his car and wandered off with a walking stick. Yet I had to get out of the car, wait for my GF to bring me my crutches and then hobble into the store.

Last year, my GF dislocated her knee and spent two months on crutches as well. And we endured the same problem. It’s rare that you go out when you have the hassle of crutches, so why the f**k can’t we park by the door? The best you can do is use those Parents With Prams parks. Those spaces are “advisory only”, and there’s no fine for parking there if you don’t have a pram.

If you’ve been playing along at home, you’ll know that my GF and I are off to the US of A in the next few weeks. I now have to spend something like $200 on a decent pair of walking/hiking shoes to support my foot, and I’ve accepted that I should take a walking stick, considering that I get on a plane only six weeks after surgery, so I might need some support – especially walking around Vegas for a week!

So I started looking for somewhere to buy a walking stick. Where the hell do you start? Thankfully, your friend and mine – Google – helped me out. I found an amazing website: Fashionable Canes and Walking Sticks. Apart from all their amazing designs, they have a great tips page (the link will send you there) that talk about how to use a walking stick.

Yep, you heard right. I, too, thought that you just hobbled along with it, but there’s handy hints on how to do it properly (like using it on the “wrong” side). So I read their tips, and now I see that I am an imbecile in the ways of the cane. Believe it or not, reading these tips has gotten me all excited about going out next week and finding one.

The problem is, you can buy a generic, plastic cane in Australia for about $30, or you can buy a custom made one for about $400. There doesn’t seem to be anything in between. The canes on the above website are very reasonably priced, but they are US based, so I would be in the States by the time the cane arrived here. I’m also pretty sure I won’t need it again for about 30 years, so I’m not too inclined to spend $400.

Have you broken your toe or foot? If you have, I’d love to hear any tips you might have for getting around.

Police

Usually, I like cops. Almost from the day I was born, my mother worked for the state police department, so I grew up around Police – until I joined the Army.

Sure, there’s bad apples out there. There are in every job, aren’t there? But in general, I think cops are trying to do the right thing with what they’ve got.

There are two things that shit me about our Police force. One is the restrictions they have to operate under and the other is when civilians get away with treating our cops like shit.

The restrictions are ridiculous. One of my Army Reserve mates is a Police Sergeant, and the stories he tells me are amazing. Things like cops are not exempt from speed cameras when they’re working. Even if they’re responding to a call. Isn’t that stupid? How do they get to where they’re needed if they can’t rush?

What about the need for cops to carry a voice recorder – or even a video camera because of bogans? This friend of mine used to spend up to a week each month in court as a witness, from when people he had booked lodged an appeal. Generally, he won all his cases, but that was because he started recording every interaction when he pulled people over. If you ask me, he shouldn’t have to do that.

And it’s not like people were appealing getting stopped while going down a hill or anything like that. It was just about how the individual cop was rude, abusive, or gave them a ticket even though they hadn’t broken any laws. Enter the tape recording. Case closed.

But what all that meant was that every time he was in court – and every case is a whole day (because the cases run quickly, so there’s no timetable) – he’s not out there being a cop. So on average, he was spending almost two days each week in court. If you do the crime, do the time. If you speed and get a ticket, just pay the f**king thing and stop tying up our Police in frivilous cases.

I also get a little sick of cops having to defend their actions every other day. Two big cases always stick in my mind. The first one is Macquarie Fields. If you don’t know about it, it happened a few years back now. Basically, two no-hoper teenagers (on the dole, smoking drugs, etc, etc) stole a car.

They were seen by Police and a chase ensued. The young driver who had little experience behind the wheel, was driving too fast, and from memory was effected by alcohol or drugs. Anyway, the driver took a corner too fast, lost control and hit a tree, killing himself and I think his mate.

The problem here is that the locals (bogans) blamed the cops. They say the Police should have stopped the chase because they were exceeding the speed limit. They demanded an inquest into the whole thing, wasting tax payers money, only to discover that it was driver error. Why should the cops, who were doing the right thing and trying to apprehend criminals, have to defend their actions?

The second case was a seige in country Victoria. A man had taken his family hostage and was threatening to kill them. Police turned up and courdened off the street, trying to get the man to give up. A few hours in, one cop was sitting in his car, which was parked on the lawn of the house next door to the seige.

The guy comes out of his house, waving a knife around and threatening to kill his family and the cops. And then he made a mistake. He stepped off his porch and onto the front lawn.

Our mate in the Police car slipped it into Drive and aimed his car at the guy. He clipped the guy’s leg and knocked him on his arse. The other cops ran in, removed the knife and arrested the perp – saving the family without killing anyone. I think the guy had a sprained or broken leg, but IMHO, so what.

Civil Liberty groups were calling for the cop to be charged for using his car as a weapon. They were even calling for Attempted Murder. I say – give the cop a f**king medal. Sure, if the guy waved a knife at me, I’d probably be inclined to bring the whole thing to an end for the cost of a single 9mm round instead of hours of police time, followed by a lengthy trial, where the guy would probably be found mentally unstable and get medical treatment at tax payers expense.

There’s lots of these stories out there, and it shits me that cops can’t just go about their job, catching the bad guys and making us all safe, because they have to spend their time defending themselves.

Kind of along these lines, is when cops are trying to do the right thing, people respond badly, and cops get a bad rap. Classic example is coming to a noisy party. Neighbours deserve to get some sleep at 2am, and not be kept awake by drunken f**kheads who have no self control. When the cops are called and they drop by, they’re often met by these drunken yobs who swear and spit at the cops.

If I was a cop, I’d lock them up – but then I’d be doing more paperwork explaining myself. Bottom line is, if you’re being a wanker and the cops tell you to stop – then f**king stop.

There was a case about two years ago, when a cop was patrolling a train station. A young bloke jumped over a safety barrier and walked across the tracks while a train was coming.

The cop followed the guy, intending to give him a lecture about safety, but the guy told him to “Fuck off”. The cop charged him and the guy appealed. The whole thing ended up in court, where the judge basically told the cop – and the entire Police force – to harden up. He claimed that the language was fairly common, and Police should have thicker skin and be able to deal with it. The guy got off the charge.

What is the world coming to, when that’s acceptable? I’m sure you don’t have to have been brought up around Police to understand that when they step in to uphold the law, you do as you’re told.

And how recently have you seen a cop doing traffic control? For me, it was today. We drove past a farmer’s market, for f**k’s sake, and there were two cops controlling access to the carpark. And I’ve lost count of how many times I drive past roadworks and they’re using marked cars to encourage drivers to slow down.

Why aren’t the companies who are effecting the traffic responsible for safety? Those cops should be out there stopping seiges or chasing drunken bogans. And they can’t do that when they have to play nurse-maid to markets.

No wonder the Police are always under-manned. No wonder that when you ring at 2am because your f**khead neighbours (are you listening, 89 Clarke St?) are yelling and screaming their heads off, that it takes two hours for them to arrive. Because all the cops who SHOULD be on patrol, are sitting at roadworks in case someone does 50kph in a 40kph zone.

I support our cops. I think they do a great job and they should be left alone to do it properly.