Current Events > I'm a Brit. Asks me anything. Why do people shit on the UK being distopian?

(+) Yeah! (+)

This topic is a shit show.
---

Touchdown Boy posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

Whatever happened with that giant child sex abuse "grooming circle" thing?

Is that finished and dealt with, or is it still ongoing?

This is what happened to a big chunk of it.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-abuse-nick/man-behind-uk-vip-child-sex-claims-charged-with-perverting-justice-idUKKBN1JT1SB

No, I think he was talking about the Muslim rape gangs in Britain. Rotherham, Rochdale, etc.
---

Your country arrested a guy for a FB post. Automatically the worst 1st world nation.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Part of the perception is that the government is too feminist. I'll borrow one of my posts from another topic, and you can tell me if I'm missing something.

So if I understand the below correctly, a woman in the UK can lie about whether or not a child actually belongs to a particular man in order to get his wallet on the hook. The man can't get a paternity test without the woman's consent. Am I missing something? Because that sounds pretty fucked up and gynocentric to me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394653/Move-to-outlaw-secret-DNA-testing-by-fathers.html

Fathers who conduct secret paternity tests on their children will face prosecution under new laws to be proposed by a Government watchdog.

The Human Genetics Commission will recommend in a report to ministers that the theft of a person's DNA, including the clandestine removal of a child's hair or saliva, should become a criminal offence.

The proposal has come out of fears that increasing numbers of fathers are exploiting the growth of internet DNA testing services to undertake paternity checks without the consent of the child or its mother, with potentially traumatic consequences for all involved.

The law would also prevent private detectives, journalists, employers and others from gaining access to genetic information without the individual's consent, or using DNA left behind by an individual to check for diseases, genetic conditions or unknown relatives.

Earlier this week, the television producer Steve Bing - who Elizabeth Hurley, the actress, says is the father of her baby son Damian - was named in court papers as the father of a young girl caught up in the world's most expensive child support case.

And I don't think this gynocentric mindset is unrelated to people getting in legal trouble for criticizing Islam when you consider Intersectional Feminism.

That article is from 2002 and was about something they were looking at doing. I don't agree with that by the way. I think if women want to get money for their kids from the man they need to prove the kid is the actually by the man. That being said that article is from 2002 and I can't find anything to suggest any law was ever changed. Maybe the house of lords blocked is hehehe. My understanding is that a court can enforce a dna test and I can't see any articles to suggest this has changed. I have googled. Best I came up with was this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010327/I-went-without-electricity-days-didn-t-eat-Fury-man-forced-pay-child-support-13-years-girl-s-never-met-despite-DNA-test-proving-s-not-his.html

EDIT: thats about the US. I can't find one for the UK. Forums I've read seem to suggest a court can enforce a test.
---

Annihilated posted...

LMAO, "the right." REEEEEE Brexit, REEEEEEE racist xenophobe bigots, REEEEEEE! Sounds like "ring wingers" to me. XD

You aren't as stupid as you pretend to be online
---

Crepes posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Part of the perception is that the government is too feminist. I'll borrow one of my posts from another topic, and you can tell me if I'm missing something.

So if I understand the below correctly, a woman in the UK can lie about whether or not a child actually belongs to a particular man in order to get his wallet on the hook. The man can't get a paternity test without the woman's consent. Am I missing something? Because that sounds pretty fucked up and gynocentric to me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394653/Move-to-outlaw-secret-DNA-testing-by-fathers.html

Fathers who conduct secret paternity tests on their children will face prosecution under new laws to be proposed by a Government watchdog.

The Human Genetics Commission will recommend in a report to ministers that the theft of a person's DNA, including the clandestine removal of a child's hair or saliva, should become a criminal offence.

The proposal has come out of fears that increasing numbers of fathers are exploiting the growth of internet DNA testing services to undertake paternity checks without the consent of the child or its mother, with potentially traumatic consequences for all involved.

The law would also prevent private detectives, journalists, employers and others from gaining access to genetic information without the individual's consent, or using DNA left behind by an individual to check for diseases, genetic conditions or unknown relatives.

Earlier this week, the television producer Steve Bing - who Elizabeth Hurley, the actress, says is the father of her baby son Damian - was named in court papers as the father of a young girl caught up in the world's most expensive child support case.

And I don't think this gynocentric mindset is unrelated to people getting in legal trouble for criticizing Islam when you consider Intersectional Feminism.

I don't agree with that by the way. I think if women want to get money for their kids from the man they need to prove the kid is the actually by the man. That being said that article is from 2002 and I can't find anything to suggest any law was ever changed. My understanding is that a court can enforce a dna test and I can't see any articles to suggest this has changed. I have googled. Best I came up with was this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010327/I-went-without-electricity-days-didn-t-eat-Fury-man-forced-pay-child-support-13-years-girl-s-never-met-despite-DNA-test-proving-s-not-his.html

Fuck that.

I think I'd rather go to prison that go through all that to pay child support for a kid that was proven to not be mine.
---

Esrac posted...

f*** that.

I think I'd rather go to prison that go through all that to pay child support for a kid that was proven to not be mine.

I fucked up. That was about something in the US. God knows why that popped up on google despite me specifying the UK.
---

Crepes posted...

Esrac posted...

f*** that.

I think I'd rather go to prison that go through all that to pay child support for a kid that was proven to not be mine.

I fucked up. That was about something in the US. God knows why that popped up on google despite me specifying the UK.

Because the UK is such a joke compared to the US that Google autosearched for the US instead. It assumes you made a typo.
---

Touchdown Boy posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

Whatever happened with that giant child sex abuse "grooming circle" thing?

Is that finished and dealt with, or is it still ongoing?

This is what happened to a big chunk of it.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-abuse-nick/man-behind-uk-vip-child-sex-claims-charged-with-perverting-justice-idUKKBN1JT1SB

Thanks. That's pretty fucked up. Hopefully they get to the bottom of this.
---

Crepes posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Crepes posted...

Is it some kind of meme that got out of hand? I live in the UK and its funny because 99% of what US people think about the UK is either made up or massively blown out of proportion.

Ask me anything.

Everything here is a meme. 99% of what US people think about the US is either made up or massively blown out of proportion.

So mostly just posted to get a reaction? Do the people actually believe what they are saying or is it 100% people on the wind up.

I think some people actually believe their filth and that's becoming the scary part. I mean, there's people that think the south here is nothing but fat racist white people. And people that think racist people can only be in the south. There's people that see white and black and then automatically assume racism no matter what.

It's a silly country here. There's plenty more examples but race seems to be the big hit here.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Crepes posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Crepes posted...

Is it some kind of meme that got out of hand? I live in the UK and its funny because 99% of what US people think about the UK is either made up or massively blown out of proportion.

Ask me anything.

Everything here is a meme. 99% of what US people think about the US is either made up or massively blown out of proportion.

So mostly just posted to get a reaction? Do the people actually believe what they are saying or is it 100% people on the wind up.

I think some people actually believe their filth and that's becoming the scary part. I mean, there's people that think the south here is nothing but fat racist white people. And people that think racist people can only be in the south. There's people that see white and black and then automatically assume racism no matter what.

It's a silly country here. There's plenty more examples but race seems to be the big hit here.

I think it's fair to say you get people like that in all countries. Brexit bought out the worst of people in the UK as well and seems like it's given some people a mandate that it's ok to be openly racist.
---

I think I've responded to everything backed up by sources. I'm sorry to hear that @UnfairRepresent doesn't want to actually engage in an adult debate. I'm here all day buddy.
---

Crepes posted...

I think I've responded to everything backed up by sources. I'm sorry to hear that UnfairRepresent doesn't want to actually engage in an adult debate. I'm here all day buddy.

Yah I was pretty curious about that too.
---

nemu posted...

Dystopian is a bit farfetched, but it does have major issues on free speech going on. That someone would get arrested for a joke/posting "offensive" lyrics while everyone is hush-hush on crimes committed by people of certain backgrounds because it would just be offensive is a bit scary.

Can someone give me some examples of this?
---

Because you guys use the C-word and that is the unholiest of words.
---

Crepes posted...

I'm happy to debate you on each and every one of those points once you provide a respectable source for each one.

I can make a start (on whether the UK is the worst in the first-world).

1. Knife crime is an issue (a very specific one), but if you look the murder rate and violent crime generally, the UK has nothing on the US.
2. Can't argue with that.
3. Technically true, but it's never been used since 1707. It's effectively useless.
4. The House of Commons has supremacy over the House of Lords in legislative matters.
5. The US doesn't even have UHC, so the UK can't really be worse in this regard (your assumption seems to be that UHC is desirable, which I agree with). I'm not going to downplay the Tory attempts to privatize it through the back door. Fuck them.
6. It's not as if this is purely a negative thing, plus it's supported by the public, who obviously think it's worth having (no, this isn't the same as the public supporting genocide, for example, which is clearly bad). Sporting rifles and shotguns (e.g. for farmers) are allowed with a license. Our gun crime rate is tiny (not necessarily because of gun control admittedly, but it seems sensible to assume it has some effect), especially in comparison to the US's.
7. Yeah, there is an issue with going after people posting on social media (although how many have actually been jailed for their opinions I'm not sure). Tommy Robinson's situation is completely different (and justified) though: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ As for "literal thought crime", we don't have that. I'm being pedantic there with your use of "literal" to be fair.
8. Source? I remember there being something like this in the Labour party (something to do with all-women shortlists), but not an actual government agency. Maybe on a gender equality committee or something. Even so, I'm not sure it's the dystopian nightmare it's being made out as. I can see the downsides, absolutely.
9. Is this terrorism laws you're talking about? Or detention of migrants? Either way, I agree it's an issue, although the US does similar or worse.
10. Yeah, this is definitely an issue (Snoopers' Charter, Digital Economy, etc.). The Tories (and Labour really) don't have a clue about technology.
11. Some hardline Brexiters want this, but they're a minority in government, thankfully. If it comes to pass, then you can hold it over us. Also, the UK was instrumental in drafting these rights, which is why I find it funny when Brexiters argue that we can have our own, better Great British rights (as if)!

I agree with many of these as a point of principle (e.g. I'm against the monarchy and HoL), but in practice, they aren't all as insidious as you say (or unique to the UK in the first world). I'm not saying we shouldn't care, just that we should put things in perspective (for *some* of the above, not the ones I admitted were a problem).

Then one could make a similar list for the US and other countries. For example, I'd say having the largest prison population per capita is more of an issue than almost anything in the UK.

So, I disagree with the UK being the most dystopian first-world country (although we are up there admittedly). We have our issues, like all (first-world) countries.

luigi13579 posted...

Crepes posted...

I'm happy to debate you on each and every one of those points once you provide a respectable source for each one.

I can make a start (on whether the UK is the worst in the first-world).

1. Knife crime is an issue (a very specific one), but if you look the murder rate and violent crime generally, the UK has nothing on the US.
2. Can't argue with that.
3. Technically true, but it's never been used since 1707. It's effectively useless.
4. The House of Commons has supremacy over the House of Lords in legislative matters.
5. The US doesn't even have UHC, so the UK can't really be worse in this regard (your assumption seems to be that UHC is desirable, which I agree with). I'm not going to downplay the Tory attempts to privatize it through the back door. Fuck them.
6. It's not as if this is purely a negative thing, plus it's supported by the public, who obviously think it's worth having (no, this isn't the same as the public supporting genocide, for example, which is clearly bad). Sporting rifles and shotguns (e.g. for farmers) are allowed with a license. Our gun crime rate is tiny (not necessarily because of gun control admittedly, but it seems sensible to assume it has some effect), especially in comparison to the US's.
7. Yeah, there is an issue with going after people posting on social media (although how many have actually been jailed for their opinions I'm not sure). Tommy Robinson's situation is completely different (and justified) though: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ As for "literal thought crime", we don't have that. I'm being pedantic there with your use of "literal" to be fair.
8. Source? I remember there being something like this in the Labour party (something to do with all women-shortlists), but not an actual government agency. Maybe on a gender equality committee or something. Even so, I'm not sure it's the dystopian nightmare it's being made out as. I can see the downsides, absolutely.
9. Is this terrorism laws you're talking about? Or detention of migrants? Either way, I agree it's an issue, although the US does similar or worse.
10. Yeah, this is definitely an issue (Snoopers' Charter, Digital Economy, etc.). The Tories (and Labour really) don't have a clue about technology.
11. Some hardline Brexiters want this, but they're a minority in government, thankfully. If it comes to pass, then you can hold it over us. Also, the UK was instrumental in drafting these rights, which is why I find it funny when Brexiters argue that we can have our own, better Great British rights (as if)!

I agree with many of these as a point of principle (e.g. I'm against the monarchy and HoL), but in practice, they aren't all as insidious as you say (or unique to the UK in the first world). I'm not saying we shouldn't care, just that we should put things in perspective (for *some* of the above, not the ones I admitted were a problem).

Then one could make a similar list for the US and other countries. For example, I'd say having the largest prison population per capita is more of an issue than almost anything in the UK.

So, I disagree with the UK being the most dystopian first-world country (although we are up there admittedly). We have our issues, like all (first-world) countries.

Yeah as a Brit I agree with most of those. Be interesting in see what @UnfairRepresent has to say on those points.
---

Crepes posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Part of the perception is that the government is too feminist. I'll borrow one of my posts from another topic, and you can tell me if I'm missing something.

So if I understand the below correctly, a woman in the UK can lie about whether or not a child actually belongs to a particular man in order to get his wallet on the hook. The man can't get a paternity test without the woman's consent. Am I missing something? Because that sounds pretty fucked up and gynocentric to me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394653/Move-to-outlaw-secret-DNA-testing-by-fathers.html

Fathers who conduct secret paternity tests on their children will face prosecution under new laws to be proposed by a Government watchdog.

The Human Genetics Commission will recommend in a report to ministers that the theft of a person's DNA, including the clandestine removal of a child's hair or saliva, should become a criminal offence.

The proposal has come out of fears that increasing numbers of fathers are exploiting the growth of internet DNA testing services to undertake paternity checks without the consent of the child or its mother, with potentially traumatic consequences for all involved.

The law would also prevent private detectives, journalists, employers and others from gaining access to genetic information without the individual's consent, or using DNA left behind by an individual to check for diseases, genetic conditions or unknown relatives.

Earlier this week, the television producer Steve Bing - who Elizabeth Hurley, the actress, says is the father of her baby son Damian - was named in court papers as the father of a young girl caught up in the world's most expensive child support case.

And I don't think this gynocentric mindset is unrelated to people getting in legal trouble for criticizing Islam when you consider Intersectional Feminism.

That article is from 2002 and was about something they were looking at doing. I don't agree with that by the way. I think if women want to get money for their kids from the man they need to prove the kid is the actually by the man. That being said that article is from 2002 and I can't find anything to suggest any law was ever changed. Maybe the house of lords blocked is hehehe. My understanding is that a court can enforce a dna test and I can't see any articles to suggest this has changed. I have googled. Best I came up with was this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010327/I-went-without-electricity-days-didn-t-eat-Fury-man-forced-pay-child-support-13-years-girl-s-never-met-despite-DNA-test-proving-s-not-his.html

EDIT: thats about the US. I can't find one for the UK. Forums I've read seem to suggest a court can enforce a test.

https://www.alphabiolabs.co.uk/learning-centre/can-mother-refuse-paternity-test/

A quick trawl through discussion forums on popular parenting websites sees a familiar question being raised by worried mums: Can I refuse a paternity test?

Establishing paternity of a child can be important for many reasons. The potential father may want to know if the child is his so he can establish a relationship with the child. It has implications for financial support and inheritance rights. On the other hand, a man may be asked for child support for a child that he does not believe is his. Even if a man disputes paternity, if he has been named by the mother as the father of her child, he will have to pay child maintenance until DNA testing proves otherwise. In all these cases, a mother may refuse a paternity DNA test.

Court order or not, there ought to be a rule that all men can require a test before dealing with 18 years of baby jail.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Court order or not, there ought to be a rule that all men can require a test before dealing with 18 years of baby jail.

So, you are saying the UK rules are fine?

JE19426 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Court order or not, there ought to be a rule that all men can require a test before dealing with 18 years of baby jail.

So, you are saying the UK rules are fine?

https://www.alphabiolabs.co.uk/learning-centre/can-mother-refuse-paternity-test/

A quick trawl through discussion forums on popular parenting websites sees a familiar question being raised by worried mums: Can I refuse a paternity test?

Establishing paternity of a child can be important for many reasons. The potential father may want to know if the child is his so he can establish a relationship with the child. It has implications for financial support and inheritance rights. On the other hand, a man may be asked for child support for a child that he does not believe is his. Even if a man disputes paternity, if he has been named by the mother as the father of her child, he will have to pay child maintenance until DNA testing proves otherwise. In all these cases, a mother may refuse a paternity DNA test.

---

tennisdude818 posted...

Court order or not, there ought to be a rule that all men can require a test before dealing with 18 years of baby jail.

I agree with this for what it's worth.

I'm not saying that is a bad source but they recently removed the fact that being on the birth certificate is not enough to prove paternity. It doesn't solve the query of whether a court can force a paternity test or what the current criteria are for establishing paternity.

Also want to take one line in particular:

if he has been named by the mother as the father of her child, he will have to pay child maintenance until DNA testing proves otherwise

This doesn't seem fair. I'd be interested in finding something confirming this is the case.
---

Do you always get your legal facts from websites trying to sell you products to prevent legal issues, or is just when you want to complain other countries?

luigi13579 posted...

1. Knife crime is an issue (a very specific one), but if you look the murder rate and violent crime generally, the UK has nothing on the US.
That's not a defense of the UK being dystopian.

Bldhaven has a worse crime rate than Gotham.

luigi13579 posted...

3. Technically true, but it's never been used since 1707. It's effectively useless.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-govtdefeats/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-live-updates-eu-withdrawal-bill-lords-vote-tory-rebels-theresa-may-latest-a8404016.html

House of Lords has blocked and delayed every proposed Brexit Bill over 12 times now.

And that's just recently. House of Lords and Monarchy does not gel with democracy. Calling "Checks and balances cuz I like it" is just saying you like dstyopia because it advantages you.

5. The US doesn't even have UHC, so the UK can't really be worse in this regard (your assumption seems to be that UHC is desirable, which I agree with). I'm not going to downplay the Tory attempts to privatize it through the back door. Fuck them.

Doesn't matter which you like, you can't hold out your left hand and then slap with the right. The UK's healthcare system is corrupt.

6. It's not as if this is purely a negative thing, plus it's supported by the public,

And the public supported not having equal rights for women or homosexuals for most of human history. In Saudi Arabia the public is narky that women can now drive cars.

'Hey people like it!" isn't a defense of a thing. Like it or not, it's less freedom for people and more power towards a government state. A government influenced by the unelected and known to be corrupt.

That's viewed as dystopia.

7. Yeah, there is an issue with going after people posting on social media (although how many have actually been jailed for their opinions I'm not sure). Tommy Robinson's is a poo-poo

I'm not talking about Tommy Robinson. Social media is one thing but you're also forgetting issues like when people were arrested and held for 3 weeks because the police suspected they might be planning to protest/riot. During this time they had no contact with the outside world.

Commited no crime.

I'm not sure it's the dystopian nightmare it's being made out as. I can see the downsides, absolutely.

It's not about being a nightmare, it's about Quotas being a bad thing.

the US does similar or worse.

Not a defense

11. Some hardline Brexiters want this, but they're a minority in government, thankfully. If it comes to pass, then you can hold it over us. Also, the UK was instrumental in drafting these rights, which is why I find it funny when Brexiters argue that we can have our own, better Great British rights (as if)!


"You can't point out why people view our society as dystopian until it's too late."

Ok good luck with that.
---

Crepes posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Court order or not, there ought to be a rule that all men can require a test before dealing with 18 years of baby jail.

I agree with this for what it's worth.

I'm not saying that is a bad source but they recently removed the fact that being on the birth certificate is not enough to prove paternity. It doesn't solve the query of whether a court can force a paternity test or what the current criteria are for establishing paternity.

Also want to take one line in particular:

if he has been named by the mother as the father of her child, he will have to pay child maintenance until DNA testing proves otherwise

This doesn't seem fair. I'd be interested in finding something confirming this is the case.

I'm not disputing the assertion that a court order can force a paternity test. I assume you're right about that because a court order can probably dictate just about anything. I'm saying that it's not nearly good enough to be left at the whim of a judge. I think I've seen what looked like a government source stating the same thing as well, but I could be wrong because I probably don't read UK gov't URLs properly. I'll post it if I can find it again, but I'm sure there was some clause allowing for court orders.

But to be fair, the US family court system is extremely biased as well. I don't call myself an MRA, but they have good points when it comes to family courts and prison sentence differences.
---

Look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. He's behind bars now for something that would be protected by the First Amendment in the US.

Then there's all the stories of people getting arrested for saying something offensive on twitter or facebook or something. It's ridiculous. Hundreds of people are being arrested for offensive social media posts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. He's behind bars now for something that would be protected by the First Amendment in the US.

If US law allows people to prevent fair trials that's a problem with US law, not with countries that seek to prevent people from stopping fair trials.

Sativa_Rose posted...

Look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. He's behind bars now for something that would be protected by the First Amendment in the US.

It really wouldn't
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. He's behind bars now for something that would be protected by the First Amendment in the US.

Then there's all the stories of people getting arrested for saying something offensive on twitter or facebook or something. It's ridiculous. Hundreds of people are being arrested for offensive social media posts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

Bomb threats have always been illegal haven't they? Why should it matter if it's on the phone, by email or by twitter?
---

@Crepes @JE19426

Here is the best source I could find.

https://www.gov.uk/get-dna-test

The person carrying out the test can only take a DNA sample if they have permission from either:

the person being tested, if theyre an adult
someone with parental responsibility, if the person being tested is under 16
You can ask the court to accept your claim about who someones parents are. This is called applying for a declaration of parentage. The court might decide to order a DNA test.

It costs 365 to apply - make your cheque payable to HM Courts and Tribunals Service. You may be able to get a fee exemption or refund.

Send the form and fee to the family court nearest to the home of the person whose parents are being tested.

So the alleged father can get a test done without the mother's consent if a) there is a court order (no guarantees here), or b) the man has "parental responsibility". B) probably wouldn't apply if the family court said, "Pay up for 18 years, but you don't get to see the kids."
---

Robinson was jailed because a court judged he had breached the terms of an existing suspended sentence for contempt of court by violating a set of reporting restrictions often placed on the news media and others in the United Kingdom in order to protect the due process rights of defendants and prevent the collapse of trials, something that could jeopardize the conviction of potentially guilty and dangerous individuals.

These reporting restrictions would be considered unconstitutional in the United States, as the state cannot censor the press like that. Additionally, from what I understand, it's not like Tommy Robinson had access to privileged or private information about the case. He was reading information that had already been reported by the mainstream press when he was arrested.
---

Here's the actual UK government website on disputing child paternity:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-happens-when-someone-denies-they-are-the-parent-of-a-child

As you can see if you dispute child paternity before the child maintenance is worked out, (and you should do as they contact you before working it out) you won't owe any money until they work it out. Unless some method to presume paternity has gone through (which it lists, and seems pretty unlikely, merely being named isn't enough) a DNA test would be done.

Edit: on Tommy, he was shouting false information about the accused in area it can be reasonable assumed the Jury could hear, if that's legal in the US, that's fucked up.

JE19426 posted...

Here's the actual UK government website on disputing child paternity:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-happens-when-someone-denies-they-are-the-parent-of-a-child

As you can see if you dispute child paternity before the child maintenance is worked out, (and you should do as they contact you before working it out) you won't owe any money until they work it out. Unless some method to presume paternity has gone through (which it lists, and seems pretty unlikely, merely being named isn't enough) a DNA test would be done.

Edit: on Tommy, he was shouting false information about the accused in area it can be reasonable assumed the Jury could hear, if that's legal in the US, that's fucked up.

Yeah that looks to confirm what the other government link I posted said, and my interpretation. Thanks.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Yeah that looks to confirm what the other government link I posted said, and my interpretation

Lolwat? So you've been lying this whole time, and were actually aware men can dispute paternity, before forced to pay paternity?

JE19426 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Yeah that looks to confirm what the other government link I posted said, and my interpretation

Lolwat? So you've been lying this whole time, and were actually aware men can dispute paternity, before forced to pay paternity?

They can request a court order which I already said was possible. This is just restating what I already said in post 80.

We can only use DNA tests if all the following people agree to take
the test:

1 the receiving parent
2 the person named as the parent of the child
3 the child (if they are over 16 years old).

...

If the receiving parent does not agree to a DNA test, then the person we have presumed to be the parent may be able to apply to the courts to prove they are not the parent. They would apply for a declaration of non-parentage (or a declarator of non-parentage in Scotland).

So if the mother is a lying thief, you might be able to get a court order for a test.

Edit: Just so the double standard is clear to you, keep the following in mind. If a man refuses a paternity test, he is automatically assumed to be the father and has to pay.

If a person named as the parent of a child disputes parentage, but then refuses to take a DNA test, we will presume they are the childs parent. This means they will have to pay child maintenance.

But as I stated above, if the mother blocks the test, then the man has to fight in court to possibly get a paternity test done.
---

Is it true that over there road vehicles are required to have separate red brake lights and amber turn signals, as opposed to over here where most of the cheap-ass corner-cutting manufacturers use a single set of red lights for both?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

They can request a court order which I already said was possible.

Or, you know, you could just dispute it when you are initially contacted about it from the Child Maintenance Service, at which point they handle the investigation, and you don't pay anything until it's completed.

Just so the double standard is clear to you, keep the following in mind. If a man refuses a paternity test, he is automatically assumed to be the father and has to pay.

If a person named as the parent of a child disputes parentage, but then refuses to take a DNA test, we will presume they are the childs parent. This means they will have to pay child maintenance.

But as I stated above, if the mother blocks the test, then the man has to fight in court to possibly get a paternity test done.

Are you trolling, or do you really not realise the part you quoted is gender, and sex neutral? It applies to both men, and women who are denying that they are a child's parent.

I hear y'all like laughing gas
---

JE19426 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

They can request a court order which I already said was possible.

Or, you know, you could just dispute it when you are initially contacted about it from the Child Maintenance Service, at which point they handle the investigation, and you don't pay anything until it's completed.

Just so the double standard is clear to you, keep the following in mind. If a man refuses a paternity test, he is automatically assumed to be the father and has to pay.

If a person named as the parent of a child disputes parentage, but then refuses to take a DNA test, we will presume they are the childs parent. This means they will have to pay child maintenance.

But as I stated above, if the mother blocks the test, then the man has to fight in court to possibly get a paternity test done.

Are you trolling, or do you really not realise the part you quoted is gender, and sex neutral? It applies to both men, and women who are denying that they are a child's parent.

You have to provide conclusive evidence, which is pretty hard for a man outside of a DNA test.

And you cant be serious with that second part.
---

Crepes posted...

Is it some kind of meme that got out of hand? I live in the UK and its funny because 99% of what US people think about the UK is either made up or massively blown out of proportion.

Ask me anything.

do you have a tax for driving your car into london?
do you have a tax for having TV signal?
are certain kinds of pron banned in the uk?
did the UK vote for brexit?
do you worship an old queen who is also the head of your chuch?
did you have the world's greatest empire and now even france is stronger?

If so.... damn! it's true after all

Do you take a bath in the Thames
---

tennisdude818 posted...

You have to provide conclusive evidence, which is pretty hard for a man outside of a DNA test.

Not if you dispute it when you are initially. Again, they handle the investigation in that case.

And you cant be serious with that second part.

I'm totally serious, read the part you quoted, it says "parent" not "mother" or "father". Do you know why it says parent and not mother or father? Because it doesn't matter whether the parent is a mother or father for that part.

I can't believe how much attention some stupid BS about parental DNA tests is getting in this thread
---

JE19426 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

You have to provide conclusive evidence, which is pretty hard for a man outside of a DNA test.

Not if you dispute it when you are initially. Again, they handle the investigation in that case.

And you cant be serious with that second part.

I'm totally serious, read the part you quoted, it says "parent" not "mother" or "father". Do you know why it says parent and not mother or father? Because it doesn't matter whether the parent is a mother or father for that part.

No. Read page 6. You need conclusive evidence.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

No. Read page 6. You need conclusive evidence.

Only, if you don't dispute it when they initially contact you. Like you can't actually be this stupid can you?

JE19426 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

No. Read page 6. You need conclusive evidence.

Only, if you don't dispute it when they initially contact you. Like you can't actually be this stupid can you?

Dude, youre not reading that right. Do you seriously think the burden of proof goes down if you dispute early? They are saying that debts accrue from day 1. Child maintenance is the debt, and that debt builds up if you sit on your hands.

Listen, I agree with Sativa Rose that this discussion has gotten off topic and annoying. If you are going to continue to misread this as you only have to provide conclusive evidence if you object late then go ahead and tell yourself that you dunked on me.
---

Imagine not having freedom of speech
---

I think being able to use the C word is freedom of speech. What else is there that needs to be said more than c***?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Dude, youre not reading that right. Do you seriously think the burden of proof goes down if you dispute early? They are saying that debts accrue from day 1. Child maintenance is the debt, and that debt builds up if you sit on your hands.

Read page 6, all of it. You'll see that it quite clearly says that there's a difference between disputing the paternity before the child maintenance is calculated, and disputing afterwards.

What was the appeal of the sitcom "Keeping up Appearances"?

Why did it survive multiple series and two Roses?

Maybe I'm missing the humor as a United States citizen, but it seemed like the same lousy joke told over and over again.
---

BB mofo posted...

What was the appeal of the sitcom "Keeping up Appearances"?

Why did it survive multiple series and two Roses?

Maybe I'm missing the humor as a United States citizen, but it seemed like the same lousy joke told over and over again.

Can't say I've watched it (much). I'm more of an Only Fools fan.

According to the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances):

The sitcom follows Hyacinth in her attempts to prove her social superiority, and to gain standing with those she considers upper class. Her attempts are constantly hampered by her lower class extended family, whom she is desperate to hide. Much of the humour comes from the conflict between Hyacinth's vision of herself, and the reality of her underclass background. In each episode, she lands in a farcical situation as she battles to protect her social credibility.

Also, I didn't realize this:

Keeping Up Appearances was a great success in the UK, and also captured large audiences in the US, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands. By February 2016, it had been sold nearly 1,000 times to overseas broadcasters, making it BBC Worldwide's most exported television programme.