In our public consultation document we have proposals related to two forms of paternity fraud:
Where a woman leads a man to believe he’s the biological father of her child, when he’s not.
Where a woman frustrates a contraceptive method in order to become pregnant, e.g. not taking contraceptive pills, whilst telling her partner she is.
Both forms of paternity fraud are outrageous assaults on men’s interests. The first form – even when attempted unsuccessfully – has long been a criminal offence in the UK. Not one woman has ever been convicted of the crime in the UK.
Earlier today both Ray and I spoke about paternity fraud on BBC Radio WM (West Midlands). We were interviewed by Danny Kelly, standing in for Adrian Goldberg. Ray spoke earlier in the programme and didn’t have the opportunity to mention J4MB and our proposals with respect to paternity fraud, so I called into the programme and spoke later. A link to the full programme is below. It will be available for seven days, we hope to have an edited version available on our YouTube channel shortly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qqfjw
The following sections might be of interest, they were interspersed with a small number of contributions from listeners calling into the programme:
2:58 – 4:28 – Danny’s introduction to the topic of maternity fraud.
49:24 – 54:42 – Ray Barry.
54:43 – 57:20 – Dr Nicola McCrystal, Head of DNA at Bioclinics. She managed to say, ‘In many cases women assign paternity incorrectly’ without laughing. The remark certainly made me laugh.
2:04:29 – 2:07:08 – myself. After I’d spoken about the second form of paternity fraud – women frustrating contraceptive methods – Danny Kelly made a remark of a type I’ve encountered before from male BBC radio interviewers:
‘Mike, something in your past must have driven you to this. What happened?’
Ray Barry and I spoke after the programme, and he made an interesting observation. Narratives on BBC radio programmes of this sort always focus on feelings rather than facts. Interviewers – both male and female – seem unable (or possibly unwilling?) to engage with rational arguments about assaults on men’s human rights.
