This is, of course it is, the most appalling behaviour. Siring children on young British women and leaving the state to pick up the support bill for them. It is also, when viewed in purely Darwinian terms, what is known as winning.[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Businessman ‘who fathered 14 children’ must pay child support to British woman he met on Tinder, judge rules[/perfectpullquote]
The constraint upon how many children a woman can have is the time it takes to carry one to term, wean it and have the space ready for another. The constraint upon a man is how many women he can convince to carry one for him. And the thing is, in evolutionary terms, more grandchildren is winning. There is no other definition that Nature – Gaia – accepts of that beating the rest in the Game of Life.
Tinder allows a man to meet more women who might. A bit of unscrupulous behaviour and there we have it, victory in that battle:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] An international businessman understood to have fathered 14 children must pay child support to a British woman he met through Tinder, a judge has ruled. Johnathan Patrick Terry, who is Canadian and aged in his 40s, has defied orders to pay maintenance to the woman, in her early 20s, and their eight-month-old daughter and has not attended hearings or provided information about his finances, a family court heard. The woman had made a cash claim following the breakdown of a year-long relationship with Mr Terry, who is commonly known as Patrick Terry, after they met through the online dating app. [/perfectpullquote]
Leave the bill for the raising of the child to the rest of us taxpayers. No, I’m not saying I approve. Only that this is, by those standards of nature alone, winning.[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]He has approved the woman’s claim for about £10,000 a month in maintenance, for her and the girl, and a lump sum payment of about £22,000 to cover rent payments and to buy furniture.[/perfectpullquote]
Methinks the Telegraph might have got that £10k number a little wrong. Looks out by an order of magnitude to be honest.