[child support] nice little conundrum

The way it ought to be

Warning - please do not read this if you're prone to either high blood pressure, tears or anger with Higham over his outrageous statements. This post is about something which has touched a raw nerve and it pulls no punches. Thank you.

Plus it's all hypothetical.

Lord Nazh started a train of thought on the abortion issue, putting a hypothetical where if a man didn't want the child [I think] and she did, then she had the child and:

A period of time later, you split up (in no relation to said pregnancy). Here's the question: should it be his choice whether to support the child or not?

That's a difficult one.

It seems to me that there are two issues to payments overall.

Firstly, the upkeep and upbringing of the child and it would be a pretty low father who wouldn't contribute to his child's education, clothing and so on because it's his own flesh and blood.

In principle, here, there's agreement.

However, just as it was within the marriage, so it must be outside. If the woman expects payment to be made for the child, then the man has a right to be in on the decision as to what is being paid for, e.g. new school, new outfit, holiday with a school group and so on.

If he completely disagrees, e.g. she wants one school but he wants the son to go to his old school and she's known this for a long time, then he has every right to refuse to pay on this particular issue. Trouble is, as so much divorce is due to unreasonableness on the part of one or both, it's likely to be so here as well.

Then we come to the question of her new husband or boyfriend. There is so much dishonesty going on here and I can vouch for that because I've been in both positions - both the boyfriend and the poor sod who was paying.

As the boyfriend, I was told that I wasn't officially living with her, that we didn't officially sleep together and that I was officially "just a friend", otherwise she wouldn't get a penny from him. She couldn't see that I might sympathize with my fellow man here. I was in a position to keep her myself and wanted to but it wasn't enough cash for her plans.

With the boot on the other foot, how much should the new man pay? I can't do much about her living with someone who is not the father of my child and I do feel that if I'm to have any say in my child's upbringing, logically I need to pay for that right but again - how much should the new boyfriend also be contributing?

On this first issue, I'm open to argument.

The second issue is money directly to her to keep her in her lifestyle - alimony. Over my dead body. Now she knows this and therefore presents it as payments for the child but my way round that is to directly go to wherever payment is required - school, health insurance, whatever - and pay the cost for my child over the counter and get the receipt.

Of course she doesn't like that and wants a set payment each month. My response is - of course I'll pay a set amount each month, no problem. Just send me the bills and I'll pay them - even beyond the set amount and no quibbling.

But she's not getting a penny for herself.

Into this comes the risibly named Child Support Agency, the only group whose premises I've ever considered blowing up. Of course, as every father knows, it has zero to do with child support and everything to do with extorting the maximum possible out of the ex-husband to supplement her life with her new man.

As I said before - over my dead body.

I'd rather go to prison, seriously. Regulars here know that if I've been unfair and you can show that, I'll backtrack. On this issue though, I feel strongly that it is completely unreasonable that if a woman has chosen to depart, that any further payments need to be made to her except for the children and then directly.

The objection to this is what if she's alone and not working?

Now we get into a really nasty area. Is she alone? I know she's as pretty as a picture and a charmer, I know of three guys alone who would have moved onto her once I departed so what's the score here?

She stays alone and brings a boyfriend in for the occasional adultery, charms men into doing the maintenance work she doesn't want to herself and therefore has a case to be financially supported from a distance, no?

I say not. She has to take responsibility for her actions. She chose to separate her child from his father so she has two choices - be truly independent, as the feminists would say, leaving him to cover the bulk of the child's costs and that's all. Or else she makes some arrangement with the men she brings in.

That's her business in which I shouldn't interfere.

But in all of this there is one body, one group, who have zero say in any of it - the Extortion of Ex-Husbands Agency. That body is something up with which I flatly refuse to put.

[austin healey sprite] when motoring was motoring

Lee family Sprite 2A [shot from 1974]

There are certain things that make me go weak at the knees or at least sigh deeply. Two of these are cars I used to drive - my Pilgrim and the Austin Healey Sprite, which Swearing Mother seems to be in love with too.

There is an expression in sailing - "seat of the pants" - and it means not concerning yourself with the technical details but just getting out there and working it out as you go - that's my kind of sailing and my kind of driving.

The Sprite IIA was just such a car to allow you to feel you were very close to the action - the Lotus was another which gave this sensation. Much as the Frogeyes were the most popular, I never got into them but the IIA I adored and it was pure British roadster in miniature - big on tweaked up performance and a bit weak on creature comforts.

One felt one was back in the pioneer days of motoring and the most important thing of all - it was sheer fun at a time when cars were becoming boxy and predictable.

MG Midget says:

From the outset, the Sprite had been designed to be of unitary construction, with the floorpan and body being built as one strong, rigid structure. Stiffness was provided by box-like sections sills and crossmembers, a deep transmission tunnel, the scuttle, and the box shaped boot. At the front, the crossmember for the suspension and steering was carried on a pair of chassis legs which projected forwards from the scuttle bulkhead.

Wiki says:

The last Mark IIA [1963/4] had some engine improvements and 1098cc, larger crankshaft journals to counter big end failures at high RPM and these are sometimes referred to as square-bodied Sprites. Front disc brakes were also introduced and wire wheels became an option. The HAN7 Series is popular.

However, the end was in sight:

This model was also rebadged the Mark I MG Midget, without Donald Healey's consent or approval.

I wasn't actually … er … around for the introduction of the IIA and only got into it years later when even the MGB was on its last legs but I knew enough about it to know that a Sprite is not a Midget. Grrrr!

I hope Sprite owners will forgive me including a pic of my last "baby" but it is the closest anyone's going to get today to the great British tradition of small sports roadsters, now the Sprites and Midgets are collector items.

By the way, I drove this through Scotland in November and was as snug as a bug in a rug.

Sigh. I shouldn't have done this post - I miss it all something awful.

Bye bye!

[exquisite coffee] it needs a little pazienza

Returning to the topic of coffee, I didn't explain myself well last time due to still being a bit green about all this but after another master class, I've finally learnt.

Each of you has his/her own method and I appreciate that but just try this the once and see how close it is to the best coffee you've tasted in a long while.

Requirements

1. Pazienza. Actually - not a little, lots of it. You rush any step, the enjoyment is curtailed;

2. Coffee beans - the fresher and better quality the better but the good news is that it is not vital - any coffee is enhanced using this method;

3. Sachets of cinnamon;

4. Basic grinder which can do fine ground;

5. Wooden or ceramic canister with a good seal in the lid;

6. Keep metal, like spoons, out of the way - use ceramic;

7. Fresh cream [or small long life container] - never milk and never nothing;

8. Some delicacy to have with it.

Each morning or previous evening

1. We are busy people and this takes fifteen minutes to do properly. Fine grind enough beans for one day only [don't buy it already ground because it defeats the purpose] and tip the coffee into your wooden canister;

2. Add two heaped teaspoons of cinnamon to 200g coffee, stir well and then put the lid on and shake. You're ready.

Whenever you need a cup

1. Boil the kettle and let it wait for 30 seconds after boiling [no more];

2. During the waiting period, put enough coffee to taste into the cup/mug [fine edged mugs are better] and almost immediately now pour the water via the edge of the cup, until half an inch from the top;

3. If you need sugar, now is the time to add it and stir, not later or you'll ruin the effect;

4. Immediately put a little 5 centimetre ceramic bowl or saucer over the top and let the mixture sit. No metal spoon anywhere because it drains off the heat too quickly;

5. Despite the modern lifestyle, despite your being in a hurry, 2 minutes is not going to hurt you now to wait. You must have pazienza because this is when the bitter taste and sludge move down to the bottom of the cup and the cup can not be jostled from then on;

6. Now the coup de grace - take off the ceramic bowl, get your ceramic teaspoon [or wood] and gently slide some cream over the spoon onto the top of the coffee - don't stir. The cream is not just for taste but it seals in the heat and flavour;

7. Now let the spoon go just under the surface horizontally and very, very gently stir - you'll see a swirling effect as if it comes from a coffee machine.

That's it and the only thing I stress is not to leave out any step e.g. the horizontal spoon. Any step left out and you might as well be drinking instant.

Hope you enjoy it. It will reward your patience.

[the car] if china can, why can't we?

I also forgot to mention that I love the Chinese Government website, which always tells the truth. So when I caught a headline: China Exports Inflation?, I clicked in and was astounded by the answer: No it doesn't.

But here's a good one:

After four days' traffic ban in Beijing to test the effect on air quality for the Olympic Games, the question whether such a traffic ban should become regular has triggered a debate between private car owners and those without cars.

Among 2,968 respondents, 78.2 percent of those without a private car call for a permanent traffic ban, while 61.9 percent of private car owners object to it, according to an online survey jointly launched by China Youth Daily and Internet portal sina.com.

Rather than dwelling on these rather pointless stats, the mind idly wandered to London and the M25, to the Boston spaghetti road complex and to other icons of the motorcar. Steppenwolf springs to mind.

Hey, why don't we completely and utterly ban any cars within and including the M25? Forever. I wonder what would happen?

[slaughter] from the paddock to the stomach

Don't worry - she's just for milking

In my direst moments, I always remember too late and then do two things - pray and visit Iceland. Iceland was one of my first posts ever and still it's a fascinating place. Take this, for example:

The Farmers Association of Iceland is considering reinterpreting EU regulations that would enable farmers to establish small slaughterhouses on their farms to sell the meat themselves as part of so-called “food tourism.”

Isn't that sweet? As me old mucker Árni Jósteinsson told Bladid [itself a great name for a newspaper]:

“Home slaughtering offers opportunities for food-tourism ... Farmers could even invite tourists to observe the meat’s journey until in ends up on their plates—from the paddock to the stomach.”

That reminds me - in my concentration on the woes of the world, I forgot to eat the burger I made earlier. Should I still eat it?

[sunday thought] someone has to say it

This is a blog. Blogs must be fun, quick bites of entertaining fiskings of the MSM or pen-pictures of homelife, otherwise readers move on. I'd hoped this post would be fun. Sorry to disappoint:

Major General Tim Cross, the top British officer involved in planning post-war Iraq, said he raised serious concerns with then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the possibility of the country descending into chaos […]General Sir Mike Jackson branded US post-invasion policy "intellectually bankrupt" and said Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq."

My only quibble with Tim Cross and Mike Jackson is not the targets of their ire - Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney are very much responsible for much that is wrong - but that I don't think the officers fully see to whom these men, in turn, pay their tithes. It's not excusing the Rumsfelds of this world but they're only pawns in a greater power game and I don't mean the U.S.

There are most definitely trends since the 50s in the west and globally as well and they could be summarized this way:

1. the secularization of society over two generations and replacement of intrinsic values with extrinsic, such as property, fame, sexual gratification and comfort as the be-alls and end-alls, plus goth - always a sign of a disintegrating society and the understandable non-opposition from the Church due to the appointees being of a certain ilk;

2. the progressive appointment of people of this certain ilk, over the last two generations, into positions of power in education, the arts, medicine and law, such people being inimicable to the old values of patriotism and Christianity and by their position, having the ability to snuff out and mock western societies' roots to the point where Gen X and Y have largely grown up as g-dless hedonists;

3. a lot of global talk at ruling elite level in every western nation and from bodies such as the U.N. plus openly global elitist bodies such as the CFR, the TLC, the BBs and the other luminaries all pushing the same agenda;

4. a clear push for war by those behind the weak western leaders - Kosovo, Iraq and NATO operations to name the most recent and the re-emergence of the west in the middle-east generally for the first time since WW2;

5. provocation of Islam in the form of western foreign policy, playing the patriot card against first supposed and then genuine terrorism, to the point where islamization is a very real threat and "terrorism" allows the ruling elite to bring in the legislation they always wanted to in the first place;

6. the weaning of everyone since the 60s onto a credit based economy and therefore serfdom to the banks, the pushing of housing prices to unrealistic levels which cuts out the first home buyer and must inevitably lead to the ultimate crash, the manoeuvring of the credit institutions into a position to be able, by 2012, to pull the plug;

7. the tightening of western society by criminalizing it [e.g. Blair's 3000+ new crimes in his ten years], the dead hand of political correctness now having the power of incarceration for sedition and the talk by Merkel, among others, of the possibility of war now "not able to be ruled out", along with ID cards, iris scans and all the other goodies plus armed police and troops on the streets and the general frightening of society, whether via climate change or terrorism;

8. the shifting of the world hegemony in the form of the emboldened Islamic world plus China [less so Russia] and the spectre of the next conflagration starting locally but escalating to pan-continental, rather than international and possibly centred in the Middle-East.

The essential difficulty is that a small blogger like myself couldn't possibly see what is happening, could he?

Very few will accept the miniscule number of pundits like myself who say that this thing is induced - that there is nothing sociologically natural about the dystopia we are sliding into and thus nothing whatever can halt its advance.

Even if sufficient woke up to who is stirring the pot, inducing the preconditions, it could only be altered by a revolution and this also has been factored in. Revolutions only ever usher in a worse order. So where does that leave you? Into the new serfdom with some of you climbing into relative safety in the new order. For the nonce.

Where does that leave me? As a Christian and one who is trying to do the job the Pope and the silent Archbishops should be doing but who were either bought or frightened into silence, it's pretty bleak.

Sooner or later I'll be rounded up, a loose cannon which will fire no more. So why bother?

Heaven knows. Someone has to say it.