By Mike Buchanan: There are currently over 80,000 men in British prisons, and fewer than 4,000 women. William Collins has shown that if male criminals were treated as leniently as female criminals in sentencing terms, five in six of the men serving sentences in British jails today wouldn’t be there. His article is here. The government plans to close women’s prisons, and fill them with male prisoners. On this website we’ve published links to a huge number of cases showing that women are often above the law, very often because they’re given suspended sentences.
One form of paternity fraud is persuading a man (or trying to) that he’s the biological father of a child, when he’s not. It’s estimated millions of British men have been victims of this crime, and the scandal continues. For many years the CSA has learned of 500+ cases of paternity fraud every year, where men have demanded paternity tests, and thereby proven they’re not the biological fathers of individual children. So the state knows the identity and home address of many thousands of women who’ve committed this crime.
We can be very sure far more men naively believe the women in question, and then pay to support the child for up to 20 years, even if they’re denied access. This is financial and emotional abuse of men, and emotional abuse of children who deserve to know who their true fathers are. It’s one of the reasons we’re calling for compulsory paternity testing at birth.
How many women in the UK have been convicted of paternity fraud under the terms of the Fraud Act 2006?
Men are far more likely than women to be incarcerated for serious crimes, and serve markedly longer sentences when convicted of the same crimes.
The last edition of the Mail on Sunday carried a report which brought down the red mist. When you read it, bear in mind:
– British men pay 72% of the income tax paid in the UK, £68 BILLION more every year than British women;
– 90% of the street homeless are men
– homelessness is a major driver of suicide
– the male/female suicide differential rose from 1.7:1 in 1983 to 3.5:1 in 2013
– suicide is the #1 cause of death of men under 50
So, what could reasonable people object to in the report?
1. The provision of a council flat for an 18-year-old woman on the grounds that she’d managed to become pregnant. This made her ‘vulnerable’ so the taxpayer has to fund her flat – near London’s Hyde Park!
2. She miscarried, yet was still in the flat 11 years later, and presumably would be there today but for the fraud she carried out.
3. She was on a good salary, and had alternative accommodation options, so how would she be more ‘vulnerable’ than a homeless person in London?
4. She sub-let the flat, whilst living with her boyfriend or mother, and netted £24,000 by doing so.
5. She lied about being penniless, but fraud investigators found an account with £11,000 in it.
6. She was found guilty of fraud but received only a suspended sentence.
Last week she avoided jail by agreeing to pay back £10,000. So the woman netted a profit of £14,000 from her crimes, took up the resources of the taxpayer-funded criminal justice system, and her punishment is…. nothing. Can we doubt that a man in the same position would have gone straight to jail? Surely not.
Another report, this one about a 21-year-old woman who stole £3,000 from her employer. Her ‘punishment’ was to repay £500 of the sum over two years.
Another report. What prison sentence would a woman who (with a female accomplice) buried her husband in her garden, and fraudulently received £77,000 of benefits in his name over several years, receive? The answer is here. The man’s body was obviously so decomposed by the time it was discovered, that it was impossible to ascertain a cause of death.
Women can sexually assault children with impunity – rarely being given prison sentences as a result – as we’ve frequently reported. A recent example is here. Yet it’s been known for 30 years that a majority of incarcerated (male) rapists were sexually abused when they were children by one or more women – here.
What might we conclude from these and countless other cases? It’s simple:
Source
One form of paternity fraud is persuading a man (or trying to) that he’s the biological father of a child, when he’s not. It’s estimated millions of British men have been victims of this crime, and the scandal continues. For many years the CSA has learned of 500+ cases of paternity fraud every year, where men have demanded paternity tests, and thereby proven they’re not the biological fathers of individual children. So the state knows the identity and home address of many thousands of women who’ve committed this crime.We can be very sure far more men naively believe the women in question, and then pay to support the child for up to 20 years, even if they’re denied access. This is financial and emotional abuse of men, and emotional abuse of children who deserve to know who their true fathers are. It’s one of the reasons we’re calling for compulsory paternity testing at birth.
How many women in the UK have been convicted of paternity fraud under the terms of the Fraud Act 2006?
None.
Men are far more likely than women to be incarcerated for serious crimes, and serve markedly longer sentences when convicted of the same crimes.
The last edition of the Mail on Sunday carried a report which brought down the red mist. When you read it, bear in mind:
– British men pay 72% of the income tax paid in the UK, £68 BILLION more every year than British women;
– 90% of the street homeless are men
– homelessness is a major driver of suicide
– the male/female suicide differential rose from 1.7:1 in 1983 to 3.5:1 in 2013
– suicide is the #1 cause of death of men under 50
So, what could reasonable people object to in the report?
1. The provision of a council flat for an 18-year-old woman on the grounds that she’d managed to become pregnant. This made her ‘vulnerable’ so the taxpayer has to fund her flat – near London’s Hyde Park!
2. She miscarried, yet was still in the flat 11 years later, and presumably would be there today but for the fraud she carried out.
3. She was on a good salary, and had alternative accommodation options, so how would she be more ‘vulnerable’ than a homeless person in London?
4. She sub-let the flat, whilst living with her boyfriend or mother, and netted £24,000 by doing so.
5. She lied about being penniless, but fraud investigators found an account with £11,000 in it.
6. She was found guilty of fraud but received only a suspended sentence.
Last week she avoided jail by agreeing to pay back £10,000. So the woman netted a profit of £14,000 from her crimes, took up the resources of the taxpayer-funded criminal justice system, and her punishment is…. nothing. Can we doubt that a man in the same position would have gone straight to jail? Surely not.
Another report, this one about a 21-year-old woman who stole £3,000 from her employer. Her ‘punishment’ was to repay £500 of the sum over two years.
Another report. What prison sentence would a woman who (with a female accomplice) buried her husband in her garden, and fraudulently received £77,000 of benefits in his name over several years, receive? The answer is here. The man’s body was obviously so decomposed by the time it was discovered, that it was impossible to ascertain a cause of death.
Women can sexually assault children with impunity – rarely being given prison sentences as a result – as we’ve frequently reported. A recent example is here. Yet it’s been known for 30 years that a majority of incarcerated (male) rapists were sexually abused when they were children by one or more women – here.
What might we conclude from these and countless other cases? It’s simple:
There’s one justice system for men, another for women.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment