Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Not a good idea...

Headline in the Daily Mail yesterday:

'Mean' father sent best friend to take DNA paternity test on his behalf as he couldn't afford maintenance payments

It's not the first time that it's been tried, and I'm sure it won't be the last. What amazes me is that they think they'll get away with it. Don't they realise they have to take photographic ID with them when they give DNA samples?

12 comments:

  1. Judge must have been in a dilema with this nice young man, how to punish him and at the same time coerce him into paying. Of course locking him up would not achieve that. Giving him a conditional discharge like his friend also would not achieve that as it would be likely that he would do what so many others do and simply jack his job in and tell csa and ex to stick it.

    Instead the nasty Recorder (Judge) gives him a criminal record to ensure he can't get a job anywhere else and is left being milked by csa and ex and 'The Management' - sick (not sic).

    ReplyDelete
  2. p.s. Genius idea, bad luck, good effort. Perhaps someone who looks like you would be better.

    Also, my ex told me she was on pill, I said I didn't want another child, now I am asked for child maintenance, how is that fair? I'll answer the question - it isn't. Abolish csa.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sadly John, no. Surely if we can put men on the moon and give OAPs viagra and make them promiscuous again with stds etc (below article), why can't we make a male pill?

    With a male pill, we wouldn't need a CSA. Now, that is what I think.

    And ban Disney films encouraging this sort of thing also. Like sleeping beauty, where girl lies in bed all day to be whisked off to wonderful kept for life in castle with lots of family and cute furry animals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Churchill had it right - shouldn't give them the vote, their brothers and fathers represented them well enough, all it's done is cause agro and arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shouldn't have given them I should have said - my English goes when I get angry.

    Being less controversial, surely the male pill must be out soon, please.

    ReplyDelete
  6. disappointed to find that the punchline was not that the best friend turned out to be the father.

    oh, and erm...nice comments. hoping they're joking...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was joking about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, they are fairly cute. There is always at least one little girl always dressed as them at the parties my daughter goes to (never know which is which, excuse the pun).

    I think the man in person should have accepted the woman in person's very reasonable request for £80pm. When the csa came in it got v bad (usual from what I hear) and think stand by the other comments I have made. Although I do wonder if being against giving women the vote is the same as discriminating against them, which I am not in favour of. So, you could probably out argue me on that one. Do hope for better male contraception than condoms or vasectomies going forwards. Did hear of a friend of a friend who had to take a pill to give his sperm tails, that has to be evolution. That and the closure of the csa.

    Can't remember what else I said which was controversial. Think that covers it so the PC brigade can be ok with me again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On balance I'd probably give them the vote if we are being serious, still think they should prove it is not their time of the month when they exercise it ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I once worked in an office that prosecuted two men for just this sort of stunt - but I don't remember our having photo evidence. I seem to recall our case was based on the fingerprints on a form.

    But this was back in about 1997. Has the photo thing been brought in since then, do you know, John?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it may have been Carl, although I don't recall exactly when.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.