Archive for the ‘child support’ Category

The Hunt & Humiliate Broke Men Agency
September 24, 2007


06 June 2007

Mothers to name and shame absent fathers


Single mothers will be invited to name and shame fathers who fail to support their children.

Mothers invited to name and shame absent fathers

Letters are going out to around 100 parents – almost all of them mothers – asking if they want their former partner’s name to be included on an online list of people who have dodged maintenance payments.

More complete anti-male shit from a corrupt government. All the Child Support industry is there to do is to keep the flow of money going from hard-working men to spend-happy women.

Why the fuck should us men have to pay for women’s children? After all, children do, in fact, belong to women in this society.

Women get to choose whether to abort the baby. They virtually get automatic custody. Fathers are not required officially, as single women can get IVF treatment. A ‘family’ is now a mother and her children, with a father as optional.

So, John Hutton, you odious tit, shut the fuck up about demanding men pay for ‘their’ children; they are not theirs!

It cannot be said often enough; children belong to women now. That’s the primary principle in defining a Matriarchy, which the UK now is. Hence women can damn well support ‘their’ children, not the dad – who is only referred to as such when it comes to taking responsibility – and not us taxpayers.

At the very least a man should only have any obligations to support a child if the child was born when the man was married to the kid’s mother, and the child still has his surname. Otherwise it’s mummy’s little darling and mummy’s little responsibility.

One last thing; if parents are to be named and shamed for not supporting their children, surely that would mean any and all women who apply for Child Support should be named and shamed. After all, if they’re applying for Child Support they are clearly unable or unwilling to support their child themselves and, if the same definition of a ‘deadbeat parent’ is applied to them as it is to men, then such mothers are deadbeats.

It’s a dumb scheme anyway, it won’t work. Few men with any dignity will give a shit about being ‘shamed’ by spiteful ex-wives or ex-girlfriends, or by the fucking dipshit government. After all, you can only be shamed by people whose opinion you respect, and more and more men just don’t respect women or the government’s opinions one iota.

I’d imagine the sort of thugs who many single mothers have breeded with will most certainly not care anyway. In fact they’ll probably regard it as a rather funny badge of pride. “Hey look at the CSA website guys, it’s me! I’m on teh internet! WOOOH!”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:31 PM


Woman sued for paternity fraud, claims remorse
September 19, 2007


29 March 2007


Woman ‘deeply sorry’ for duping lover over paternity of his ‘son’


A woman accused of deceiving her former lover into believing he was the father of her son broke down in tears as she told a court that she felt ‘deeply sorry’ about the distress caused when he discovered the child was not his.

Giving evidence at the High Court in London, where she is contesting his claim against her for around £100,000, the woman said that what had happened was a ‘great scar on my life and on all of us’.

Yeah, she’s sorry now because she’s being held accountable for her actions. Women are never sorry for the shit they pull on men unless they are caught.

Wipe those crocodile tears away bitch.

Good on this guy for suing her though. If he’s successful it’ll be a significant step against paternity fraudster whores, although ideally a guy should not have to go through private channels to get justice, paternity fraud should be a criminal matter.

It is the mother’s case that she had no reason to believe A was not the father, and had not deliberately pulled the wool over his eyes.

How the fuck can she expect anyone to believe that she had “no reason” to doubt the guy was the father.

Is she honestly trying to say she couldn’t recall having unprotected sex with another person around that time? No doubt this bitch just named the man as the father because he was the wealthiest one of the men she fucked that year. Whore.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:03 PM


Father of four? Not really.
September 16, 2007


22 February 2007

The mother of all betrayals


A DOTING dad told yesterday how he brought up four kids as his own — only to find they were all fathered by his wife’s secret LOVER.

Cheated Charles Bostock, 69, spent years thinking the three cherished girls and a boy were his children.

He only discovered the shock news when his 49-year-old wife Sarah fell pregnant with a FIFTH child by married love rival Richard Mills.

What a shitty depressing story. It shows you cannot trust women. This is more common than you think. If you ever have kids, get a DNA test to ensure they’re yours. Otherwise you’re relying primarily on the word of a woman, something only a fuckwit would do. Most women would lie about what they had for breakfast if they stood to gain something.

My advice to this guy is simple, and it involves a sawn-off shotgun and a trip to his ex-wife’s house and then her lover’s.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:26 PM


Feminism ruins society, men blamed
September 16, 2007


16 February 2007


Cameron blames fathers for ‘broken’ society (PDF)

Fathers should be compelled to look after their children in an effort to tackle the breakdown of family life and discipline in society David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said today.

Father’s children”? I didn’t realise fathers had children these days, they belong to women. Women can abort kids, get full custody, get pregnant via a sperm donor (willing or otherwise) with no intention of the father having any input at all…whatever they want.

Hang on a minute though, it looks like some blame has to be placed for children’s misery, and that means – ta-daah! – suddenly children belong to father’s again! What a shocking surprise.

He said the shooting of three teenage boys in south London in the last fortnight had shown that British society was “badly broken”.

Issues like teenage gun crime, Mr Cameron said, could not be dealt with by better policing or tighter gun controls alone when the problem – and the solution – lay within families and communities.

Indeed it does lie in families and communities. Not in more laws and government interference, which is usually proposed as a solution, as Cameron pretty much proceeds to do.

“Every working parent knows that you can’t have it all.

Not really. Plenty of women still labour under this assumption.

“There is a natural conflict between hours worked, money earned and the time you spend at home. I believe that businesses have an overriding corporate responsibility to help lessen this conflict, and make it easier for parents to find the proper balance for their lives,” he said.

No, businesses don’t have to make it easier for parents. Businesses are there to make money. All this forcing of businesses to ensure people (primarily women) get their work/life balance in order is fucking the economy up, not to mention causing increasing resentment.


“Name and shame” those who don’t/can’t pay for women’s bastards
August 28, 2007


10 December 2006

Website to ‘shame’ absent parents

Ministers are planning to publish the names of absent parents who refuse to pay maintenance for their children.

Or, to put it another way;

Women-firster manginas in charge of the Matriarchy are going to illegally publish the names of non-custodial fathers who have escaped the Matriarchy’s enforcement agency, the CSA, in the hope of shaming them into paying up for kids they never see.

I hate the way society declares that “non-custodial parents” (i.e. fathers) should pay to support “their” children.

Britain is now a Matriarchy. Children belong to their mothers and no-one else according to the law. In the UK, women can have unborn children chopped up and dumped in a bin if she can’t be bothered to raise him/her, and in divorces, the mother invariably gets custody.


Male pill news
August 26, 2007


27 November 2006

UK scientists invent male ‘pill’ that can be taken hours before sex

British scientists have developed a revolutionary pill that men could take as a one-off contraceptive just before a date.

The tablet would prevent a man from being able to impregnate a woman, but within a few hours his fertility would return to normal.

It’ll be great when a reliable male-pill is available. No more one-night stands with women who promise they’re on the pill and then, nine-months later, you get a request for eighteen-years of Child support.

I’ve already heard rumblings of femnags beginning to whine about a male pill. “Oh boo-hoo, men could deny a woman her right to motherhood.” Fuck you.

Critics argue, that men lack women’s motivation to prevent pregnancy, making it hard for women to trust them to take a contraceptive pill.

What planet do these critics live on? We have a shitload of motivation for preventing pregnancy; namely the vast amounts of Child Support as well as the fact that we regard a lot of modern women as being unsuitable potential mothers.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:25 PM


From the comments
August 2, 2007


10 November 2006

This rant landed in the comments section of a recent post of mine, from someone called “Willie“:

You probably won’t post this. Who really cares. But this site is ridiculous. Any man knows that men still enjoy privledge. It seems you are just upset cuz you can’t go out and club a woman over her head, drag her back to your apartment and then rape her just for a quick thrill and to spread your pathetic seed. Get over yourself.

Rather than indulge in mud-slinging and insults, I think it’s worth politely pointing out and expanding my viewpoint to this chap, for what it’s worth.

For starters, if he thinks the idea of thuggish men beating women, dragging them off to rape them and impregnating them is bad, then alarmingly we actually have something in common. I have no such desire to do such a thing or to leave women open to such treatment either.

However, ironically, it is a post-feminist society that removes the restraints on women that makes this scenario more likely.

Before feminism, women were looked down upon for getting knocked up by thugs and losers, and not having the right to an abortion meant they had to be careful and only hook up with nice-guys. Divorce was frowned upon too, so women better make sure they’re hooked up with a decent chap, not some “exciting” but obnoxious criminal. Plus girls grew up with a father-figure to represent the strong-but-considerate male figure they should seek when selecting a mate. A father would also protect his daughter.


Women can legally lie about paternity
August 2, 2007


10 November 2006

Dad must pay for other guy’s kids

Plenty of people have e-mailed me links to this story.

It’s hard to really comment on this shit, it’s just so fucked up.

A man who sued his former wife after paying child support for two children fathered by his wife’s lover today lost his appeal to the High Court.

The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed.

Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses.

So, let’s see. If women can’t be arsed looking after a baby, they can have it killed in the womb at taxpayer’s expense. If they have a kid, the father has to pay mummy huge amounts of cash – whether he can afford the demanded amount or not, on pain of prison – from the father, they can, in fact, name some random guy as a father and it’s up to him to prove he isn’t the father or else he has to pay child support. Or she can marry some sucker, name him as the father to her bad-boy thug lover’s bastard, and even after he’s proved he isn’t the father, he has to continue to pay the lying adulterous whore and can go fuck himself if he dares think he’s hard-done by.

And this society is awfully oppressive to poor wimmin because…?


Totally stoopid
July 31, 2007


01 November 2006

A frightful, true story of bungling bureaucrats

This poor guy is paying $1,300 a month in child support that is destined for his ex-wife, with whom he had three children. He’s still paying it despite his ex-wife being dead.

As I believe I mentioned in the previous post, civil servants the world over have no common sense. All that matters is wringing money out of people, ideally men.

(Thanks to Malcolm for sending me the story.)


Pod-porridge reserves are running low!
July 18, 2007


13 September 2006


IVF donor sperm shortage revealed

Almost 70% of fertility clinics either have no access to donor sperm, or find it extremely difficult to obtain, a BBC survey suggests.

Specialists say infertile patients are becoming desperate and more resources are needed for campaigns aimed at recruiting donors.


Fifty of the clinics surveyed said they either had no sperm or insufficient supplies.

Many reported waiting times of at least six months for couples needing donor sperm, and some were having to turn patients away.

Good. The British government has decided to further encourage single mothers and lesbians to use sperm clinics because, according to them, father’s aren’t necessary, although in practice this has been going on for a while anyway. The government and more and more women only see them as sperm-donors, and otherwise not really necessary to a child’s life. It’s about time us men started waking up and refusing to take part in reducing us to mere sperm-donors. A lot of these single mothers by choice also not only waste a fortune of taxpayers money on getting pregnant via IVF and sperm donations but also waste more money living off of benefits. Furthermore the UK will surely join other countries where women can claim Child Support from the donor.


Women? Forced to do something? Since when?
July 10, 2007


25 July 2006

Plan to force mothers to name fathers on birth certificates

The law could be changed to make it compulsory for mothers to register the names of the fathers of their children on birth certificates, ministers have announced.

The headline of this story sounded promising, some sort of plan to acknowledge that children have two parents, not one, and perhaps counteract the drive the British government is making to ensure us men are rendered entirely irrelevent in children’s lives.

Naturally, of course, this is not the idea. How silly of me to think the government was about to run contrary to feminism and do something in men’s favour for once.

From the outline of the plan and the comments from supporters and critics, I can conclude the following:

* 1 in 5 women and girls who give birth out of wedlock do not put a father’s name on the birth certificate, and given that they surely would do if they could, given that it would give them some lovely wads of Child Support, this would imply a fifth of them haven’t a clue who the father is.


Extorting, threatening and imprisoning men for fun and profit
July 10, 2007


21 July 2006


THE DEADBEAT dad who slouched in front of Judge Leonard A. Ivanoski looked like a thousand others.

In shabby clothes and a hangdog expression, the man reeled off a list of reasons why he had failed to pay almost $16,000 he owed in child support.

But Ivanoski, a diminutive, silver-haired Common Pleas senior judge with deceptively friendly looks, wanted to hear no more.

“You’re just giving me a song and a dance,” he barked. “You had the ability to pay when you should have and could have. There’s willful, civil contempt here.”

Two months in prison, Ivanoski sternly decreed. A uniformed deputy slapped handcuffs on the flabbergasted father.

The Matriarchal system of the West and it’s multiple ways of wringing money out of men or, if they can’t afford to pay, stuffing them in prison.

With a pleased nod, prosecutor Maria McLaughlin stood, left the courtroom and chalked up another victory for Philadelphia Family Court and the Child Support Enforcement Unit, a branch of District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s office that McLaughlin supervises.

Yeah, I bet she was pleased. Another man stripped of his liberty and thrown in prison for not coughing up money he clearly doesn’t have to a woman. Best of all, in her view, her lapdog buddy on the bench did what any judge involved in a Matriarchy should do; ignore the defence of a man and refuse to even listen to him, just throw the poor sod in prison. Well done judge, pat on the head from your fembot overlords for you.


%d bloggers like this: