Post: #1

Quote:A feckless father who sent a man who looked a bit like him to a court ordered paternity test has been convicted of fraud.

Thomas Kenny was in a relationship when his mistress became pregnant but she refused an abortion and the love-rat didn't want to pay child maintenance.

Birmingham Crown Court heard Kenny already had one child with his long term partner, and she was pregnant with his second when he had the affair.

Kenny put pressure on the second woman to get rid of the unborn child, the court was told.

When the time came to take a DNA test ordered by the Child Support Agency, he tried to dodge his responsibility.

Judge Philip Parker QC said he could not determine whether it had been the defendant's idea or the person who had been sent, possibly a work colleague, who had a physical similarity to Kenny.

The fraud came to light when Kenny was arrested in June last year but even then he continued to deny being the father, reports the Birmingham Mail.

The judge said: "You are plainly the author of your own misfortunes. I have read references from people who suggest that you are normally a well behaved individual but the facts show that you can be thoroughly dishonest and highly manipulative.

"I know you are said to be the loving father of two children by your long standing relationship but this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for financial gain. Morally you can not sink lower than that."

Judge Parker said Kenny had caused an enormous amount of distress to the mother of the child, who no longer wanted anything to do with him.

He said he had also caused a substantial amount of financial difficulties and problems and quite a complex investigation to be carried out to find out the truth.

Heidi Kubic, defending, said: "He is obviously a young man who has made a big mistake in response to personal circumstances and the threat of losing contact with his two sons from his first relationship.

"He is a man who has been under enormous pressure and stress and has spent a number of months contemplating the prospect of going to custody."

The 25-year-old of Stroud Road, Shirley, previously admitted conspiracy to defraud and was sentenced to six months suspended for 12 months.

He was also ordered to pay £885 compensation and £500 costs.

The judge told Kenny: "How much you would have got away with defrauding the state is difficult to know, but is a minimum of £5,000 if you remained unemployed for the 18 years of the child's life."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lov...ty-5883023

Post: #2

The Judge said "this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for financial gain. Morally you can not sink lower than that."

For me, that sums it up. Dude should man up and take responsibility. Alpha is being responsible.

Post: #3

(06-16-2015 05:20 AM)Candlejack Wrote:  The Judge said "this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for Alpha is being responsible.

Alpha is not a moral code. You can pretend to define the term in a way that suits you, but in reality you haven't changed anything.

Post: #4

Regardless of whether or not its alpha, maybe I'm in the minority but if a kid if legitimetly yours I think you should do your best to take care of it. Men should know what happens to kids raised by a single mother, and also be smart enough to wrap it up or pull out. He fucked up by getting a mistress pregnant, and was ok with fucking up his kids life because of his mistake. If you can't stand wrapping it up or pulling out, get a vasectomy, we don't need more kids raised by single moms.

Post: #5

Quote:Thomas Kenny was in a relationship when his mistress became pregnant but she refused an abortion and the love-rat didn't want to pay child maintenance.

So the girl gets pregnant, REFUSES an abortion, and he's the one who has to "man up" and "take responsibility"?

Is she blameless in this?

The ostensible agreement pre-conception was that pregnancy was unwanted.

Otherwise they would have actively been trying to get pregnant.

So the woman proceeds to get pregnant, and now the man has to pony up for 18+ years?

I say he's morally scott free as the agreement to avoid pregnancy was implicitly on the table.

It takes two to tango.

If a woman wants a kid, she can't expect a man who doesn't want one to be on board with it.

Women use this fucked up legal system to entrap men vis a vis their children, and secure income that they no longer have to work for or get via another man voluntarily providing it.

It's one thing if you're *both* on board and you WANT kids, and you're actively trying to get pregnant.

It's another entirely when an accident happens and the woman decides that the man's involvement from here on out is to be dictated by the state with the barrel of a gun pointed at him for non-compliance.

And they have the gall to make it sound like it's the man's fault that relations have quickly soured.

Maybe the guy's a no goodnik, but a child is a huge responsibility and it's absolutely unjust to go forward with it unless both parties are in agreement.

If not, the woman has the right to keep the child but she can't expect the man to want to care for it against his implicit wishes at the time of accidental conception or further down the line.

Post: #6

So it's fraud when you try to dodge child support with a body double? But it's not fraud to pay child support for a kid that's not your? Seems legit.

Post: #7

Another game lesson learned here is that sidepieces have an expiration date. The moment you catch even a whiff that one of your girls may try to trap you, you need to cut her off. Let her go, if you have good game you will find others.

Post: #8

(06-16-2015 07:05 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  snip

The ostensible agreement pre-conception was that pregnancy was unwanted.

snip

They can swear on their mother's eyes they don't want a kid, but it's their primary biological drive, overriding all logic and reason. The mouth may say no but the hormones say yes. They're not playing with a full deck in the best of circumstances, just imagine them realizing they're pregnant and the hamster wheel exploding into overdrive.

Good try Thomas Kenny but you should have known better than to trust her.

Post: #9

(06-16-2015 07:30 AM)Repo Wrote:  Another game lesson learned here is that sidepieces have an expiration date. The moment you catch even a whiff that one of your girls may try to trap you, you need to cut her off. Let her go, if you have good game you will find others.

Rule #9 of The Jump-Off Rulebook:

(09-16-2014 02:55 PM)jariel Wrote:  9. Give Your Jump-Off An Expiration Date

At some point your jump-off is going to start showing her ass, and when she does that, you gotta start preparing for cutoff.

I know dudes who have been fucking their jump-offs for years.

Fuck that.

First off, the longer you fuck her, the more she starts to believe that she's your chick, and you're her man; you don't have to take her to Red Lobster for that to start. Second, you should be working towards having quality relationships with better women. Remember, chicks are jump-offs because they lack the things you'd want a girl that you'd enter into a real relationship with to have. There may be a variety of reasons for that, but the bottom line is, she's in the jump-off box so she stays in the jump-off box, until you're ready to move on.

/thread-40441.html

Post: #10

(06-16-2015 07:05 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

Quote:Thomas Kenny was in a relationship when his mistress became pregnant but she refused an abortion and the love-rat didn't want to pay child maintenance.

So the girl gets pregnant, REFUSES an abortion, and he's the one who has to "man up" and "take responsibility"?

Is she blameless in this?

The ostensible agreement pre-conception was that pregnancy was unwanted.

Otherwise they would have actively been trying to get pregnant.

That's why there's no such thing as an accidental pregnancy, if it were an accident, then it would have been dealt with accordingly.

A woman can't have unprotected sex while not regularly taking birth control, and then cry "Accident!" when she gets pregnant.

She then furthers the "accident" by giving birth to the child?

Post: #11

Quote:The judge said: "You are plainly the author of your own misfortunes. I have read references from people who suggest that you are normally a well behaved individual but the facts show that you can be thoroughly dishonest and highly manipulative.

"I know you are said to be the loving father of two children by your long standing relationship but this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for financial gain. Morally you can not sink lower than that."

I'm certain that's not the case. He probably just didn't want his main girl and growing family to know he's been fucking around, and further more doesn't want to be responsible for a bastard child from his side piece - his fault or not.

Dude was cornered and went for a hailmary. You want to fuck around you need to be prepared for the consequences.

Post: #12

(06-16-2015 06:32 AM)Repo Wrote:  Regardless of whether or not its alpha, maybe I'm in the minority but if a kid if legitimetly yours I think you should do your best to take care of it. Men should know what happens to kids raised by a single mother, and also be smart enough to wrap it up or pull out. He fucked up by getting a mistress pregnant, and was ok with fucking up his kids life because of his mistake. If you can't stand wrapping it up or pulling out, get a vasectomy, we don't need more kids raised by single moms.

So, riddle me this.

If the mother has the child and then absconds with it or otherwise denies the father involvement in the child's life should the father then be financially responsible? I know a guy who's ex wife told his kid that he died while serving in Iraq, fled while he was deployed and moves often as to be 'whereabouts' unknown. Should that guy be shamed for not 'taking care of his kid' or hunted down by the state and mandated to pay child support?

Should by that same argument a parent or parents who give a child up for adoption be financially responsible for that child? What about a child who is taken from a parent, put into foster care and then adopted to another family? Should the original parent be responsible for that child?

This is where I take issue with any "Man up" argument. Its a pussy pass in disguise.

Post: #13

Kudo's to his stunt double

Post: #14

If she denies him involvement, then no, I don't think he should have to (unless if he's a murderer or child abuser or something) . There's a million scenarios, I don't have time to reply to all and I'm not an expert by any means, but for the most part I think there should be a joint effort to raise your kid even if you break up.

Post: #15

(06-16-2015 10:14 AM)Repo Wrote:  If she denies him involvement, then no, I don't think he should have to (unless if he's a murderer or child abuser or something) . There's a million scenarios, I don't have time to reply to all and I'm not an expert by any means, but for the most part I think there should be a joint effort to raise your kid even if you break up.

I agree with such utopian ideals and also think that here should be no war, poverty or famine on this planet either.

It takes two to tango though, and the best Dad in the world can be hamstrung by a mildly vindictive ex wife, regardless of his will or intentions towards his children or vice versa...an ex wife or single mom cannot force a man to be a dad to their kids...and I have yet to see some news story that reads 'Child support negates effect of fatherless households'. If one person doesn't want to play, the whole thing falls apart....and usually one person not wanting to play is why the mom and dad aren't together in the first place.

Post: #16

Its fucked up but i have to agree with Vincent. If the man wants an abortion it should be a painful lesson for the woman, "this is what happens when you trust the wrong person with your womb." Same with STDs, if you get gonnorrhea or worse you can sue the other person sure but thats just avoiding personal responsibility. An STD is basically a painful lesson, "this is what happens when you trust the wrong person with your health."

If the guy wants an abortion and the woman says no, the guy SHOULD have the right to fold ie no involvement physically or financially. The state has other ideas which is why men resort to miscarriage drugs and techniques which put the womans life in danger. Truth be told when the woman said no to abortion, the guy should've used miscarriage drug and solved it on his own. He isn't very smart obviously. At least we all get to learn, "this is what happens when you trust the wrong person with your sperm."

Post: #17

Everyone is acting like this is completely on the woman.

You can't understand how a woman who becomes pregnant might want to keep the baby? How that might be a momentous occasion in her life? How it might kind of be her ultimate purpose in the universe to have a kid, and how she might not really have realized it but once the moment arrives, she really always did want a kid, and can't bring herself to abort the kid growing inside of her?

Your default assumption should be that if she gets pregnant, she's having that kid, and you will be on the hook for child support. Of course she knew that she could get pregnant, and so did he.

Post: #18

Abortions are wrong, ditching children is wrong, this guy is loaded: he is a piece of shit, I have no sympathy for him. Time to pay up, bitch.

Post: #19

Actually, I do have some sympathy for this dude: the child support payments are too damn high, and women can spend the money on things besides their children. In this case it makes sense not to want to have to pay child support.

However, the way he went about it, by defrauding the system, HURTS men. Think about it: you've got states in America that will not even honor paternity tests, yet this guy lives in a country that will and he tries to abuse it to game the system? He's just giving ammo to feminists who will lobby to ban paternity testing because of douchebags like this guy.

Post: #20

(06-16-2015 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, I do have some sympathy for this dude: the child support payments are too damn high, and women can spend the money on things besides their children. In this case it makes sense not to want to have to pay child support.

However, the way he went about it, by defrauding the system, HURTS men. Think about it: you've got states in America that will not even honor paternity tests, yet this guy lives in a country that will and he tries to abuse it to game the system? He's just giving ammo to feminists who will lobby to ban paternity testing because of douchebags like this guy.

I'm with you on this Samseau. If there was some sort of child support audit division I would be much more supportive of it. Social security has an audit division that looks at how caretakers have spent a recipients disability income. If I was paying child support and my ex wife was putting the excess into some sort of college plan or trust fund I would be less opposed to it.

I have said many times to my ex wife "If you can actually show me, with receipts, how much it costs to raise our child I'll write a check for half" As opposed to now, I just look at it as a 'divorce tax' and like any other tax I use any means necessary to legally lower my tax burden.

If a system has perceived fairness, less people are likely to fuck with it. Same with paternity test guy, I bet his first choice would have been an abortion or at least an absolution of parental duties for not being allowed to have a choice. However, there was no fairness in those arenas so he chose the criminal route to not participate in the system.

Post: #21

(06-16-2015 03:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, I do have some sympathy for this dude: the child support payments are too damn high, and women can spend the money on things besides their children. In this case it makes sense not to want to have to pay child support.

However, the way he went about it, by defrauding the system, HURTS men. Think about it: you've got states in America that will not even honor paternity tests, yet this guy lives in a country that will and he tries to abuse it to game the system? He's just giving ammo to feminists who will lobby to ban paternity testing because of douchebags like this guy.

I'm with you on this Samseau. If there was some sort of child support audit division I would be much more supportive of it. Social security has an audit division that looks at how caretakers have spent a recipients disability income. If I was paying child support and my ex wife was putting the excess into some sort of college plan or trust fund I would be less opposed to it.

I have said many times to my ex wife "If you can actually show me, with receipts, how much it costs to raise our child I'll write a check for half" As opposed to now, I just look at it as a 'divorce tax' and like any other tax I use any means necessary to legally lower my tax burden.

If a system has perceived fairness, less people are likely to fuck with it. Same with paternity test guy, I bet his first choice would have been an abortion or at least an absolution of parental duties for not being allowed to have a choice. However, there was no fairness in those arenas so he chose the criminal route to not participate in the system.

Revenge money pure and simple. I know a woman who has two kids. Her shrieking sent her ex to another city. Her dad gave her a house out of pity and she supports herself on the child support. She is too tired to work and her kids dont get shit. She has accumulated 1 year of college credit in 10 years. Lazy. Ass. Bitch.

Post: #22

(06-16-2015 01:31 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Everyone is acting like this is completely on the woman.

Who?

The tenor around here has been that both the man and the woman are equally in it.

Quote:You can't understand how a woman who becomes pregnant might want to keep the baby? How that might be a momentous occasion in her life? How it might kind of be her ultimate purpose in the universe to have a kid, and how she might not really have realized it but once the moment arrives, she really always did want a kid, and can't bring herself to abort the kid growing inside of her?

Your default assumption should be that if she gets pregnant, she's having that kid, and you will be on the hook for child support. Of course she knew that she could get pregnant, and so did he.

It's certainly understandable that many a woman who becomes pregnant suddenly realizes that childbirth is her ultimate purpose, and decides to keep the child.

Or, the woman, having surreptitiously decided well in advance that she wants to get pregnant by a particular guy, then uses biological imperative to justify (whether rightly or wrongly) that she's keeping the child come what may whilst feigning disbelief at this 'accident'.

Fine, this is all common knowledge 'round these here parts.

But the actual issue is whether or not the man, who is not ready/willing/able to become a father at the same time as SHE decides it, should be made to support a child who, at least as far as the dad is concerned, was conceived accidentally (because as we well know, very few moms who get intentionally pregnant unbeknownst to the sperm donator would ever admit to engineering conception by forgetting to take birth control, or falsely claiming she's on it).

(06-16-2015 01:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Abortions are wrong, ditching children is wrong, this guy is loaded: he is a piece of shit, I have no sympathy for him. Time to pay up, bitch.

Yeah, and drugs are bad mmkay?

You obviously disagree with abortion but surely you can't expect everybody to agree with your position of "they're wrong" without allowing for any context, how early the abortion is performed, extenuating circumstances, and personal beliefs.

I also don't see how you equate a woman enveigling a man to support a child that that he didn't agree to have, and being forced into indentured servitude by men with guns because some bitch's biological clock is ticking and she has no regard for the man's free will, as the just solution to prevent "ditching the child".

And this argument of everything being for the kids has been used for the worst kind of political ends.

Does it bode well for children when one, or both of their parents resent their existence and having to care for them?

Does that result in a loving, healthy upbringing?

I'd rather have been raised by a single mom who loves me than by a dad who feels me to be a cross to carry.

(06-16-2015 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, I do have some sympathy for this dude: the child support payments are too damn high, and women can spend the money on things besides their children. In this case it makes sense not to want to have to pay child support.

However, the way he went about it, by defrauding the system, HURTS men. Think about it: you've got states in America that will not even honor paternity tests, yet this guy lives in a country that will and he tries to abuse it to game the system? He's just giving ammo to feminists who will lobby to ban paternity testing because of douchebags like this guy.

I agree that this guy went about it all wrong.

But he was fucked from the outset because the state is erroneously in the business of legislating morality.

A woman doesn't have to face down real consequences in these kinds of situations because they know the nanny state can come and take a man's money from him by forcing him to support a one-sided decision made her HER.

Post: #23

Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Up to them to be careful who they have sex with or whether they are on contraceptives. If more single mother's were out on their own, then more women would be careful not to get pregnant.

If, despite her best efforts, the woman gets pregnant, it is up to her to ultimately decide whether to keep the child or not, only seems reasonable that the ultimate burden is on her.

Post: #24

(06-16-2015 11:51 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  I also don't see how you equate a woman enveigling a man to support a child that that he didn't agree to have, and being forced into indentured servitude by men with guns because some bitch's biological clock is ticking and she has no regard for the man's free will, as the just solution to prevent "ditching the child".

He's got no free will? He didn't choose to stick his dick in her? He obviously has some culpability here.

Post: #25

I feel for this guy. He already has two kids with his girlfriend, he didn't want this, but the woman did so now he has to pay? and you are all saying yep good, fuck that man he needs to help raise this womans baby (white knighting) even though she will already get benefits from the state. None of em need any financial support, that money will just go on a better lifestyle for the woman. It doesn't cost that much to raise a kid right.
Hardly any of you can say shit like oh he shouldnt have done it, cos most of you fuck around as well. its so easy to accidently impregnate a girl so would you be saying the same if this happened to you?
I wish his plan worked to be honest. I don't like these white knighting, anti male laws.